Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Status for Beardless Chinchweed With Designation of Critical Habitat, and Threatened Species Status for Bartram's Stonecrop With Section 4(d) Rule, 67060-67104 [2019-26210]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
67060
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2018–0104;
4500030113]
RIN 1018–BD35
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Endangered Species
Status for Beardless Chinchweed With
Designation of Critical Habitat, and
Threatened Species Status for
Bartram’s Stonecrop With Section 4(d)
Rule
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
list Pectis imberbis (beardless
chinchweed), a plant species from
southern Arizona and northern Mexico,
as an endangered species and to
designate critical habitat for Beardless
chinchweed under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended.
In total, we propose to designate
approximately 10,604 acres (4,291
hectares) in southern Arizona as critical
habitat for this plant. We also announce
the availability of a draft economic
analysis of the proposed designation of
critical habitat for beardless
chinchweed.
In addition, we propose to list
Graptopetalum bartramii (Bartram’s
stonecrop), a plant species from
southern Arizona and northern Mexico,
as a threatened species under the Act
and to issue a rule under section 4(d) of
the Act to provide for the conservation
of Bartram’s stonecrop. We are not
proposing to designate critical habitat
for Bartram’s stonecrop because we find
that a designation is not prudent. If we
make this rule final as proposed, it
would extend the Act’s protections to
both of these species and to beardless
chinchweed’s critical habitat.
DATES: We will accept comments
received or postmarked on or before
February 4, 2020. Comments submitted
electronically using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES,
below) must be received by 11:59 p.m.
Eastern Time on the closing date. We
must receive requests for a public
hearing, in writing, at the address
shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT by January 21, 2020.
ADDRESSES:
Written comments: You may submit
comments by one of the following
methods:
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Dec 05, 2019
Jkt 250001
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. In the Search box,
enter FWS–R2–ES–2018–0104, which is
the docket number for this rulemaking.
Then, click on the Search button. On the
resulting page, in the Search panel on
the left side of the screen, under the
Document Type heading, click on the
Proposed Rule box to locate this
document. You may submit a comment
by clicking on ‘‘Comment Now!’’
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail
or hand-delivery to: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: FWS–R2–ES–2018–
0104; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls
Church, VA 22041–3803.
We request that you send comments
only by the methods described above.
We will post all comments on https://
www.regulations.gov. This generally
means that we will post any personal
information you provide us (see Public
Comments, below, for more
information).
Document availability: The draft
economic analysis is available at https://
www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/
Docs_Species.htm, at https://
www.regulations.gov at Docket No.
FWS–R2–ES–2018–0104, and at the
Arizona Ecological Services Field Office
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
The coordinates or plot points or both
from which the map is generated are
included in the administrative record
for this critical habitat designation and
are available at https://www.fws.gov/
southwest/es/arizona/Docs_
Species.htm, at https://
www.regulations.gov at Docket No.
FWS–R2–ES–2018–0104, and at the
Arizona Ecological Services Field Office
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Any additional tools or supporting
information that we may develop for
this critical habitat designation will also
be available at the Fish and Wildlife
Service website and Field Office set out
above, and may also be included in the
preamble and/or at https://
www.regulations.gov.
Jeff
Humphrey, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological
Services Field Office, 9828 North 31st
Avenue, #C3, Phoenix, AZ 85051–2517;
telephone 602–242–0210. Persons who
use a telecommunications device for the
deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay
Service at 800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under
the Act, if a species is determined to be
an endangered or threatened species
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range, we are required to promptly
publish a proposal in the Federal
Register and make a determination on
our proposal within 1 year. Under
section 4(d) of the Act, the Secretary of
the Interior has the discretion to issue
such regulations as he deems necessary
and advisable to provide for the
conservation of threatened species.
Critical habitat shall be designated, to
the maximum extent prudent and
determinable, for any species
determined to be an endangered or
threatened species under the Act.
Listing a species as an endangered or
threatened species, adopting provisions
under section 4(d) of the Act for a
threatened species, and designations
and revisions of critical habitat can only
be completed by issuing a rule.
What this document does. We
propose to list beardless chinchweed as
an endangered species and Bartram’s
stonecrop as a threatened species. This
proposed rule assesses all available
information regarding status of and
stressors to beardless chinchweed and
Bartram’s stonecrop. We also propose a
rule issued under section 4(d) of the Act
to provide for the conservation of
Bartram’s stonecrop. In addition, we
propose to designate critical habitat for
beardless chinchweed. We are not
proposing critical habitat for Bartram’s
stonecrop as we have determined that
the designation of critical habitat for
this species is not prudent.
The basis for our action. Under the
Act, we can determine that a species is
an endangered or threatened species
based on any of five factors: (A) The
present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its
habitat or range; (B) overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) disease or
predation; (D) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E)
other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence.
For beardless chinchweed, we have
determined that the key factors
supporting the proposed endangered
finding are: Loss of habitat due to
invasion by nonnative species (Factor
A); altered fire regime exacerbated by
nonnative invasion (Factors A and E);
altered precipitation, drought, and
temperature (Factors A and E); road and
trail maintenance, mining, livestock,
wildlife, and post-wildfire runoff
(Factors A and E); grazing from wildlife
and livestock (Factor C); and small
population size exacerbating all other
stressors (Factor E). The existing
regulatory mechanisms are not adequate
to address these factors such that the
species does not meet the definition of
E:\FR\FM\06DEP3.SGM
06DEP3
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules
an endangered or threatened species
(Factor D).
For Bartram’s stonecrop, we have
determined the key factors supporting
the proposed threatened finding are:
Reduction in water availability (Factors
A and E); erosion, sedimentation, and
burial (Factors A and E); trampling
(Factor E); altered fire regime (Factors A
and E); loss of shade (Factors A and E);
altered flooding regime (Factors A and
E); drought (Factors A and E); predation
of individuals and shade trees (Factors
A, C, and E); illegal collection (Factor
B); and small population size (Factor E).
The existing regulatory mechanisms are
not adequate to address these factors
such that the species does not meet the
definition of an endangered or
threatened species (Factor D).
Under the Act, any species that is
determined to be an endangered or a
threatened species shall, to the
maximum extent prudent and
determinable, have habitat designated
that is considered to be critical habitat.
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the
Secretary shall designate and make
revisions to critical habitat on the basis
of the best available scientific data after
taking into consideration the economic
impact, the impact on national security,
and any other relevant impact of
specifying any particular area as critical
habitat. The Secretary may exclude an
area from critical habitat if he
determines that the benefits of such
exclusion outweigh the benefits of
specifying such area as part of the
critical habitat, unless he determines,
based on the best scientific data
available, that the failure to designate
such area as critical habitat will result
in the extinction of the species. Under
section 4(d) of the Act, the Secretary of
the Interior has the discretion to issue
such regulations as he deems necessary
and advisable to provide for the
conservation of threatened species.
We prepared an economic analysis of
the proposed designation of critical
habitat. In order to consider economic
impacts, we prepared an analysis of the
economic impacts of the proposed
critical habitat designation. We hereby
announce the availability of the draft
economic analysis and seek public
review and comment.
Peer review. In accordance with our
joint policy on peer review published in
the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59
FR 34270), we have sought the expert
opinions of three appropriate and
independent specialists regarding the
scientific information in the species
status assessment upon which this
proposed rule is based. The purpose of
peer review is to ensure that our listing
determinations and critical habitat
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Dec 05, 2019
Jkt 250001
designation are based on scientifically
sound data, assumptions, and analyses.
The peer reviewers have expertise with
beardless chinchweed’s or Bartram’s
stonecrop’s biology, habitat, physical or
biological factors, or stressors. Species
status assessment reports for beardless
chinchweed and Bartram’s stonecrop
were developed (Service 2018a and
2018b, entire), which represent a
compilation of the best scientific and
commercial data available concerning
the status of the species, including the
past, present, and future stressors to the
species. We requested peer review of
each species status assessment report
from three independent specialists, with
expertise with the species, to ensure
that we based our determinations on
scientifically sound data, assumptions,
and analyses. The peer reviewers’
comments have been considered and
incorporated where appropriate in the
species status assessment reports
(Service 2018a and 2018b, entire),
which are available at https://
www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/
Docs_Species.htm, and at https://
www.regulations.gov at Docket No.
FWS–R2–ES–2018–0104. The peer
review comments will be available
along with other public comments in
the docket for this proposed rule on
https://www.regulations.gov (Docket No.
FWS–R2–ES–2018–0104).
Information Requested
Public Comments
We intend that any final action
resulting from this proposed rule will be
based on the best scientific and
commercial data available and be as
accurate and as effective as possible.
Therefore, we request comments or
information from other concerned
governmental agencies, Native
American tribes, the scientific
community, industry, or any other
interested parties concerning this
proposed rule. We particularly seek
comments concerning:
(1) Beardless chinchweed and
Bartram’s stonecrop biology, range, and
population trends, including:
(a) Biological or ecological
requirements of these species, including
habitat requirements for germination,
growth, and reproduction;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range,
including distribution in Mexico;
(d) Historical and current population
levels, and current and projected trends;
and
(e) Past and ongoing conservation
measures for these species, their
habitats, or both.
(2) Factors that may affect the
continued existence of these species,
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
67061
which may include habitat modification
or destruction, overutilization, disease,
predation, the inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms, or other natural
or manmade factors.
(3) Biological, commercial trade, or
other relevant data concerning any
stressors (or lack thereof) to these
species and existing regulations that
may be addressing those stressors.
(4) Additional information concerning
the historical and current status, range,
distribution, and population size of
these species, including the locations of
any additional populations of these
species.
(5) Information related to climate
change within the range these species
and how it may affect these species’
habitats.
(6) Information on regulations that are
necessary and advisable to provide for
the conservation of these species and
that the Service can consider in
developing a 4(d) rule for the species. In
particular, information concerning the
extent to which we should include any
of the section 9 prohibitions in the 4(d)
rule or whether any other forms of take
should be excepted from the
prohibitions in the 4(d) rule.
(7) The reasons why areas should or
should not be designated as critical
habitat as provided by section 4 of the
Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) including
information to inform the following
factors such that a designation of critical
habitat may be determined to be not
prudent:
(a) The species is threatened by taking
or other human activity and
identification of critical habitat can be
expected to increase the degree of such
threat to the species;
(b) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or
curtailment of a species’ habitat or range
is not a threat to the species, or threats
to the species’ habitat stem solely from
causes that cannot be addressed through
management actions resulting from
consultations under section 7(a)(2) of
the Act;
(c) Areas within the jurisdiction of the
United States provide no more than
negligible conservation value, if any, for
a species occurring primarily outside
the jurisdiction of the United States;
(d) No areas meet the definition of
critical habitat.
(8) The following specific information
on:
(a) The amount and distribution of
habitat;
(b) What areas, that are currently
occupied and that contain the physical
and biological features essential to the
conservation of these species, should be
E:\FR\FM\06DEP3.SGM
06DEP3
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3
67062
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules
included in a critical habitat designation
and why;
(c) Special management
considerations or protection that may be
needed for the essential features in
potential critical habitat areas, including
managing for the potential effects of
climate change; and
(d) What areas not occupied at the
time of listing are essential for the
conservation of the species. We
particularly seek comments regarding:
(i) Whether occupied areas are
inadequate for the conservation of the
species; and,
(ii) Specific information that supports
the determination that unoccupied areas
will, with reasonable certainty,
contribute to the conservation of the
species and, contain at least one
physical or biological feature essential
to the conservation of the species.
(9) Land use designations and current
or planned activities in the subject areas
and their possible impacts on proposed
critical habitat.
(10) Any probable economic, national
security, or other relevant impacts of
designating any area that may be
included in the final designation, and
the benefits of including or excluding
areas that may be impacted.
(11) Information on the extent to
which the description of probable
economic impacts in the draft economic
analysis is a reasonable estimate of the
likely economic impacts.
(12) Whether any specific areas we are
proposing for critical habitat
designation should be considered for
exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act, and whether the benefits of
potentially excluding any specific area
outweigh the benefits of including that
area under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
(13) The likelihood of adverse social
reactions to the designation of critical
habitat, as discussed in the associated
documents of the draft economic
analysis, and how the consequences of
such reactions, if likely to occur, would
relate to the conservation and regulatory
benefits of the proposed critical habitat
designation.
(14) Whether we could improve or
modify our approach to designating
critical habitat in any way to provide for
greater public participation and
understanding, or to better
accommodate public concerns and
comments.
(15) Additional guidance and
methods that the Service could provide
or use, respectively, to streamline the
implementation of the proposed 4(d)
rule for Bartram’s stonecrop.
Please include sufficient information
with your submission (such as scientific
journal articles or other publications) to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Dec 05, 2019
Jkt 250001
allow us to verify any scientific or
commercial information you include.
Please note that submissions merely
stating support for or opposition to the
action under consideration without
providing supporting information,
although noted, will not be considered
in making a determination, as section
4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that
determinations as to whether any
species is an endangered or a threatened
species must be made ‘‘solely on the
basis of the best scientific and
commercial data available.’’
You may submit your comments and
materials concerning this proposed rule
by one of the methods listed in
ADDRESSES. We request that you send
comments only by the methods
described in ADDRESSES.
If you submit information via https://
www.regulations.gov, your entire
submission—including any personal
identifying information—will be posted
on the website. If your submission is
made via a hardcopy that includes
personal identifying information, you
may request at the top of your document
that we withhold this information from
public review. However, we cannot
guarantee that we will be able to do so.
We will post all hardcopy submissions
on https://www.regulations.gov.
Comments and materials we receive,
as well as supporting documentation we
used in preparing this proposed rule,
will be available for public inspection
on https://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business
hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Arizona Ecological Services
Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Public Hearing
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for
a public hearing on this proposal, if
requested. Requests must be received
within 45 days after the date of
publication of this proposed rule in the
Federal Register (see DATES, above).
Such requests must be sent to the
address shown in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule
a public hearing on this proposal, if
requested, and announce the date, time,
and place of the hearing, as well as how
to obtain reasonable accommodations,
in the Federal Register and local
newspapers at least 15 days before the
hearing.
Previous Federal Actions
Beardless Chinchweed
Beardless chinchweed was a
candidate for listing from 1980 to 1996.
It was first a Category 1 candidate
species, as identified in our December
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15, 1980, notice of review (45 FR
82480). Category 1 is a term no longer
in use, having been replaced by the term
‘‘candidate species.’’ A candidate
species is a species for which the
Service has on file sufficient
information on biological vulnerability
and threat(s) to support issuance of a
proposed rule to list, but issuance of the
proposed rule is precluded by higher
priority actions to amend the Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants. In 1983, beardless
chinchweed was reclassified as a
Category 2 species (48 FR 53640;
November 28, 1983). A Category 2
species referred to a species for which
the Service had some indication that
listing as endangered or threatened
might be warranted, but there were
insufficient data available to justify a
proposal to list. The species remained
so designated in subsequent annual
candidate notices of review (50 FR
39526, September 27, 1985; 55 FR 6184,
February 21, 1990; 58 FR 51144;
September 30, 1993). In 1996, the
Service eliminated Category 2 species;
consequently, this species dropped off
the candidate list. The Service received
a petition in July 2010 to list beardless
chinchweed and designate critical
habitat under the Act (Center for
Biological Diversity 2010, entire). The
Service published a 90-day finding on
August 8, 2012 (77 FR 47352),
concluding that the petition presented
substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that listing of the
species may be warranted.
Bartram’s Stonecrop
Bartram’s stonecrop was a candidate
for listing from 1980 to 1996. It was first
a Category 1 candidate species, as
identified in our December 15, 1980,
notice of review (45 FR 82480), and then
in 1983, it was reclassified as a Category
2 species (48 FR 53640; November 28,
1983). The species remained so
designated in subsequent annual
candidate notices of review (50 FR
39526, September 27, 1985; 55 FR 6184,
February 21, 1990; 58 FR 51144;
September 30, 1993). In 1996, the
Service eliminated Category 2 species;
consequently, this species dropped off
the candidate list. The Service received
a petition in July 2010 to list Bartram’s
stonecrop and designate critical habitat
under the Act (Center for Biological
Diversity 2010, entire). The Service
published a 90-day finding on August 8,
2012 (77 FR 47352), concluding that the
petition presented substantial scientific
or commercial information indicating
that listing of the species may be
warranted.
E:\FR\FM\06DEP3.SGM
06DEP3
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules
I. Proposed Listings
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Background
To provide the necessary and most
up-to-date information and background
on which to base our determination, we
completed a species status assessment
(SSA) report for beardless chinchweed
(Service 2018a, entire), and an SSA
report for Bartram’s stonecrop (Service
2018b, entire), which are available
online at https://www.regulations.gov,
under Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2018–
0104. The SSA reports document the
results of the comprehensive biological
status review for each species, and each
provides an account of the applicable
species’ overall viability through the
forecasting of the condition of
populations into the future. We
generally define viability as the ability
of the species to persist over the long
term and, conversely, to avoid
extinction (Service 2016, entire). In the
SSA reports, we summarize the relevant
biological data; describe the past,
present, and likely future risk factors
(causes and effects); and conduct an
analysis of the viability of the species.
The SSA reports provide the scientific
basis that informs our regulatory
decision regarding whether these
species should be listed under the Act.
This decision involves the application
of standards within the Act, its
implementing regulations, and Service
policies (see Determination, below).
Further, these SSA reports contain the
risk analysis on which this
determination is based, and the
following discussion is a summary of
the results and conclusions from these
SSA reports. Species experts and
appropriate agencies provided input
into the development of these SSA
reports.
Beardless Chinchweed
Beardless chinchweed is plant of the
Asteraceae, or sunflower, family.
Beardless chinchweed was first
collected by Charles Wright in the early
1850s in Sonora, Mexico (now part of
Santa Cruz County, Arizona), and was
described by Asa Gray in 1853 (Phillips
et al. 1982, p. 1; Keil 1978, p. 135). The
name has remained unchanged since
that time, and there are no known
synonyms. Based on this information as
the best available scientific and
commercial data, we accept the
characterization of beardless
chinchweed as a valid species.
Beardless chinchweed is an erect,
many-branched, perennial herb growing
3 to 12 decimeters (1 to 4 feet (ft)) from
a slender, woody, taprooted caudex
(stem base) (Keil 1978, p. 143; Phillips
et al. 1982, p. 2; Keil 2017, pers.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Dec 05, 2019
Jkt 250001
comm.). The glabrous (without hairs)
leaves are 1 to 5 centimeters (cm) (0.4
to 2 inches (in)) in length and 1 to 2
millimeters (mm) (0.04 to 0.08 in) wide
with pointed tips (Phillips et al. 1982,
p. 2). Daisy-like flower heads containing
yellow ray and disk flowers are solitary
or in open, flat-topped clusters at the
tips of the branches (Phillips et al. 1982,
p. 2). In fruit, the heads have red to
purple drying phyllaries (bracts around
the flower head of a composite plant)
and have small (<5 mm (0.2 in) long),
spreading, awned black achenes (simple
dry fruit) (Fishbein and Warren 1994, p.
19). Although we do not know exactly
how long individual beardless
chinchweed live, experts estimate 5 to
10 years (Keil 2017, pers. comm.).
Young beardless chinchweed plants
have been noted in April (Dahlby 2017,
pers. comm.), and are still present in
November (Westland 2010, p. 10).
Flowering occurs from August to
October, when the plants are more than
0.5 meters (m) (1.6 ft) in height (Kearney
and Peebles 1951, p. 935; Phillips et al.
1982, p. 8). There have been no reports
of the plant from winter months, when
beardless chinchweed is presumed to
die back to the ground. It is unknown
how long flowers remain open. In one
measurement of the number of flowers
per stem, these range from 0 to 55, with
an average of 28.3 per stem (Service
2015, p. 1). It was estimated that there
were 6 to 8 seeds per head, resulting in
a potential of roughly 832 seeds per
plant, although seed loss to grazing,
desiccation, and abortion were not
accounted for. Germination and
establishment may be sporadic or
require specific conditions for success
(Keil 1978, p. 144). There is no
information available on the seedbank
longevity of the species; however, we
are aware that within populations, a
variety of age classes are represented
(Phillips et al. 1982, p. 7; Service 2011,
p. 4; Service 2014a, p. 2; Service 2015,
p. 1; Sebesta 2017, pers. comm.).
Therefore, we believe viable seeds are
being produced and reproduction is
occurring.
The species has been reported to
reproduce both by seed and rhizomes
(Westland 2010, p. 10), although there is
no evidence that the species is
rhizomatous (Keil 2017, pers. comm.). It
is not known whether plants are able to
pollinate themselves or require the
pollen of another plant. However, it is
likely that the plant requires pollinators.
The pollinators of beardless chinchweed
are not known, but other Pectis species
are reported to be pollinated by bees
and flies (Cockerell 1897, pp. 148–149;
Cockerell 1911, pp. 136–137, 141–142;
Simpson and Neff 1987, p. 434; Phillip
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
67063
et al. 2006, pp. 532, 535–536, 538), and
both an Acmaeodera beetle and a
Diadasia bee were noted visiting
beardless chinchweed plants (Sebesta
2017, pers. comm.). Butterflies may also
use this species, as showy yellow heads
containing both ray and disk flowers
serve as landing platforms and are easily
accessible to a variety of low energy
pollinators such as butterflies (Schmitt
1980, p. 935; Keil 2017, pers. comm.).
Beardless chinchweed is typically
found in oak woodlands at higher
elevations, and desert grasslands and
oak savannas at lower elevations
(McLaughlin et al. 2001, pp. 119, 121).
However, it has also been found on
disturbed road cuts, arroyo cuts, and
unstable rocky slopes, where it has little
competition for sunlight and nutrients
(Phillips et al. 1982, pp. 4, 6; Fishbein
and Warren 1994, p. 19). It is found at
elevations from 1,158–1,737 m (3,799–
5,699 ft) (SEINet 2017, entire). Plants are
typically noted to occur on steep, southfacing, sunny to partially shaded
hillslopes, with eroding bedrock and
open areas with little competition from
other plants. The nonstable substrate,
which could be moved through gravity,
erosion, or impact, reduces competition
with other vegetation, favoring beardless
chinchweed. It is presumed to be a poor
competitor due to its preferred open
habitat and inability to find the species
under dense vegetation conditions.
Beardless chinchweed requires a lack
of competition from other plants. The
different shaped and sized canopy and
root systems of associated plant species
within healthy grasslands, savannas,
and woodlands create heterogeneity of
form, height, and open patches needed
by beardless chinchweed. Open patches
are created and maintained through a
variety of abiotic and biotic mechanisms
(Porensky et al. 2013, p. 591), including
natural erosion (from things like
precipitation events, gravity, and
animals); the grazing and browsing of
native animals, such as black-tailed
prairie dogs (Cynomys ludovicianus)
and pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra
americana) (BANWR 2012, entire; Bahre
1995, p. 231; McPherson and Weltzin
2000, p. 4); and low severity, frequent
wildfires (Hoffmeister 1986, pp. 194–
195; McPherson and Weltzin 2000, p. 5;
Brooks and Pyke 2002, p. 6; McDonald
and McPherson 2011a, p. 385; Fryer and
Leunsmann 2012, entire). The desert
grasslands, oak savannas, and oak
woodlands of southern Arizona
historically had large-scale, low severity
fire roughly every 10 to 20 years and
following periods of adequate moisture
(McPherson and Weltzin 2000, p. 5;
Brooks and Pyke 2002, p. 6; McDonald
and McPherson 2011a, p. 385; Fryer and
E:\FR\FM\06DEP3.SGM
06DEP3
67064
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules
Leunsmann 2012, entire). Precipitation
within the mountain ranges is bimodal,
with dormant season snow and rain,
and growing season monsoon rain. Data
are lacking to indicate how beardless
chinchweed uses dormant season versus
growing season precipitation; however,
we believe that dormant season
precipitation is more important because
this is needed for seed germination and
growth.
The historical range of beardless
chinchweed was larger than the current
range, with a greater number of
populations than persist today in
southeastern Arizona and northern
Sonora and Chihuahua Mexico. The
historical distribution included 21
separate beardless chinchweed
populations within the AtascosaPajarito, Huachuca, Patagonia, and
Santa Rita Mountains and Canelo Hills
of Cochise, Pima, and Santa Cruz
Counties, Arizona, as well as in
northern Chihuahua and Sonora Mexico
(see Table 1, below). We define a
population of beardless chinchweed as
one or more subpopulations that occur
within 1 kilometer (km) (0.62 miles
(mi)) of other beardless chinchweed
individuals allowing for gene flow and
movement through cross-pollination.
Because many bees and butterflies can
travel a distance of 1 km (0.62 mi), we
believe plants within this distance to be
a single population. Subpopulations
within a population are separated by
between 300 and 999 m (984.3 and
3,278 ft). Of the 21 populations, 15 were
in Arizona and 6 were in Mexico. The
number of individuals seen historically
in Mexico is not available, and no
beardless chinchweed have been
reported from Mexico since 1940. Nine
populations and one subpopulation in
Arizona have become extirpated since
1962.
TABLE 1—CURRENT STATUS OF BEARDLESS CHINCHWEED POPULATIONS
Mountain range/country
Atascosa-Pajarito Mountains, USA.
Canelo Hills, USA ..............
Huachuca Mountains, USA
Patagonia Mountains, USA
Santa Rita Mountains,
USA.
Chihuahua, Mexico ............
Sonora, Mexico .................
Population name
Population status
Subpopulation name *
Pena Blanca Lake .............
Extirpated ..........................
N/A ....................................
Extirpated.
Ruby Road ........................
Summit Motorway .............
Audubon Research Ranch
...........................................
Extant ................................
Extirpated ..........................
Extant ................................
...........................................
Extant.
Extirpated.
Extirpated.
Extant.
Copper Mountain ..............
Harshaw Creek .................
Lampshire Well .................
Scotia Canyon ...................
Coronado National Memorial.
...........................................
Joe’s Canyon Trail ............
Flux Canyon ......................
Washington Camp ............
Box Canyon Road .............
Extirpated ..........................
Extirpated ..........................
Extirpated ..........................
Extant ................................
Extant ................................
N/A ....................................
N/A ....................................
Post Canyon .....................
Tributary of O’Donnell
Canyon.
N/A ....................................
N/A ....................................
N/A ....................................
N/A ....................................
State of Texas Mine ..........
...........................................
Extirpated ..........................
Extirpated ..........................
Extirpated ..........................
Extirpated ..........................
Visitor Center ....................
N/A ....................................
N/A ....................................
N/A ....................................
N/A ....................................
Extant.
Extirpated.
Extirpated.
Extirpated.
Extirpated.
McCleary Canyon—Gunsight Pass.
McCleary Canyon—Wasp
Canyon.
Batopililas ..........................
Guasaremos ......................
Canon de la Petaquilla .....
Canyon Estrella .................
Horconcitos .......................
Los Conejos ......................
Extant ................................
N/A ....................................
Extant.
Extant ................................
N/A ....................................
Extant.
Unknown;
Unknown;
Unknown;
Unknown;
Unknown;
Unknown;
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Unknown;
Unknown;
Unknown;
Unknown;
Unknown;
Unknown;
presume
presume
presume
presume
presume
presume
extant
extant
extant
extant
extant
extant
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
Subpopulation status
Extirpated.
Extirpated.
Extirpated.
Extant.
Extant.
presume
presume
presume
presume
presume
presume
extant.
extant.
extant.
extant.
extant.
extant.
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3
* In this column of the table, N/A means ‘‘not applicable.’’
Currently, there are 12 populations in
Arizona and Mexico. In Arizona, there
are currently 387 individual beardless
chinchweed spread across less than 2
hectares (ha) (5 acres (ac)) within six
extant populations spread across the
following four mountain ranges: The
Atascosa-Pajarito, Huachuca, Santa Rita
mountain ranges, and the Canelo Hills
(see Table 1, above). Five of the six
populations in Arizona contain fewer
than 50 individuals. Most of the
mountain ranges in the United States
have been surveyed for beardless
chinchweed, and it is unlikely that any
large populations remain unaccounted
for therein. In addition, there are six
populations in northern Mexico for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Dec 05, 2019
Jkt 250001
which we have no current information.
Inquiries between February 17 and
December 12, 2017, with 11 researchers
familiar with the flora of Chihuahua and
Sonora revealed no information on the
status of the species in Mexico. We
believe these populations are extant, but
with few individuals and with poor
habitat condition (similar to the smallest
extant populations in the United States),
because much of the grasslands in
beardless chinchweed’ historical range
in Mexico have been invaded by
nonnative species (Romo et al., 2012,
entire; Arriaga et al., 2004, entire).
For beardless chinchweed to maintain
viability, its populations or some
representative portion thereof must be
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
resilient. Resiliency describes the ability
of populations to withstand stochastic
events (arising from random factors). We
can measure resiliency based on metrics
of population health (for example,
germination versus death rates and
population size). Highly resilient
populations are better able to withstand
disturbances such as random
fluctuations in germination rates
(demographic stochasticity), variations
in rainfall (environmental stochasticity),
or the effects of anthropogenic activities.
A beardless chinchweed population
with high resiliency is one in which
abundance is high, the number of
subpopulations is high and spatially
dispersed, seed production is high,
E:\FR\FM\06DEP3.SGM
06DEP3
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules
recruitment is such that the population
remains stable or increases, and the
population is able to withstand
stochastic events or recover to current or
better condition from stochastic events
from seed bank. Population resiliency
categories for beardless chinchweed are
described in section 3.2 of the SSA
report (Service 2018a).
In addition to the above demographic
needs, populations also need habitat
elements for resiliency. Based on where
the species has typically been found, a
resilient population needs eroding
granite or limestone soils or rock
outcrops with native-dominated habitat,
on sunny to partly shaded southern
exposures. Beardless chinchweed plants
are also often associated with active
disturbances from frequent, low severity
wildfire; grazing and browsing of native
animals; and natural erosion of
nonstable substrates, thus reducing
competition for beardless chinchweed.
In addition, resilient populations need
soil moisture for seed germination,
growth, and reproduction in the form of
dormant season (October through
March) precipitation. The minimum
amount of precipitation needed for
individual survival is unknown. We
67065
believe that deviation from the timing
and amount of precipitation would
impact the resiliency of a population,
because soil moisture would be
impacted. This would lead to decreased
seed germination, reduced growth,
reduced flowering, and decreased seed
production. Further, the presence of
pollinators is needed for effective
fertilization, out-crossing, and seed
production in beardless chinchweed.
Habitat resiliency categories for
beardless chinchweed are described in
Table 2, below, and in section 3.2 of the
SSA report (Service 2018a).
TABLE 2—POPULATION RESILIENCY CATEGORY DEFINITIONS FOR BEARDLESS CHINCHWEED
Condition
category
Subpopulations
High (3) ......
Three or more subpopulations per population.
Two subpopulations per
population.
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Moderate (2)
Low (1) .......
One subpopulation per
population.
; ................
No subpopulations; population is extirpated.
Number of adults in
No nonnative plants ......
each population is
>300 individuals.
Number of individuals in Native plants dominate
each population is
100 to 300 individuals.
Number of individuals in Mix of nonnative and
each population is
native plants, where
<100 individuals.
there is not a clear
dominance of either.
No individuals are found Nonnative plants domiduring surveys.
nate the habitat.
Maintaining representation in the
form of genetic or ecological diversity is
important to maintain the capacity of
beardless chinchweed to adapt to future
environmental changes. Representation
describes the ability of a species to
adapt to changing environmental
conditions. Representation can be
measured by the breadth of genetic or
ecological diversity within and among
populations. The more representation,
or diversity a species has, the more it is
capable of adapting to changes (natural
or human-caused) in its environment. In
the absence of species-specific genetic
and ecological diversity information, we
evaluate representation based on the
extent and variability of habitat
characteristics across the geographical
range.
Genetic analysis of beardless
chinchweed has not been conducted
within or among populations or
mountain ranges. However, populations
on different mountain ranges are widely
separated, making cross-pollination
highly unlikely, and most of the
populations contain small numbers of
individuals. Therefore, there is the
potential for genetic diversity among
mountain ranges. However, these
populations are isolated and contain
small numbers of individuals. Small,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Dec 05, 2019
Jkt 250001
Native-dominated
habitat
Abundance
isolated populations are susceptible to
the loss of genetic diversity, genetic
drift, and inbreeding. This could mean
that between-population genetic
diversity may be greater than withinpopulation diversity (Smith and Wayne
1996, p. 333; Lindenmayer and Peakall
2000, p. 200). It is possible that there
has been a loss of genetic diversity in
the species due to the fact that multiple
populations are already extirpated.
Currently, there are six extant
populations across four widely
separated mountain ranges in the
United States, and six populations in
northern Mexico that are presumed
extant.
Beardless chinchweed has been
reported from both decomposing granite
and limestone substrates. This
variability of substrate preference may
be important in maintaining
environmental and genetic diversity.
Similarly, the species is found over a
relatively wide range of elevations of
1,158 to 1,737 m (3,799 to 5,699 ft) and
vegetation communities (oak woodlands
at higher elevations, and grasslands and
oak savannas at lower elevations),
which could be important in terms of
representation. The precise genetic and
ecological diversity needed is unknown,
but given the loss of populations, the
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Dormant season (October through March)
precipitation
More than 12 inches of winter rain on average
during the past 5 years as recorded at the
nearest weather station.
Between 6.1 and 12 inches of winter rain on average during the past 5 years as recorded at
the nearest weather station.
6 or fewer inches of winter rain on average during the past 5 years as recorded at the nearest weather station.
6 or fewer inches of winter rain on average during the past 5 years as recorded at the nearest weather station.
low number of individuals in the
majority of the populations, and the
distance among populations, it is likely
that some diversity has been lost.
Consequently, at a minimum, we likely
need to retain populations throughout
the range of the species to maintain the
overall potential genetic and life-history
attributes that can buffer the species’
response to environmental changes over
time.
Beardless chinchweed needs to have
multiple resilient populations
distributed throughout its range to
provide for redundancy. Redundancy
describes the ability of a species to
withstand catastrophic events,
measured by the number of populations,
and their resiliency, distribution, and
connectivity. The more populations,
and the wider the distribution of those
populations, the more redundancy the
species will exhibit. Redundancy
reduces the risk that a large portion of
the species’ range will be negatively
affected by a catastrophic natural or
anthropogenic event at a given point in
time. Species that are well-distributed
across their historical range are
considered less susceptible to extinction
and more likely to be viable than
species confined to a small portion of
their range (Carroll et al. 2010, entire).
E:\FR\FM\06DEP3.SGM
06DEP3
67066
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3
With the known six extant populations
being separated by as much as 35 km
(21.8 mi) in southern Arizona and even
farther with the six populations
believed to be extant in northern
Mexico, a localized stressor such as
grazing during flowering would impact
only those groups of plants nearby the
activity. Conversely, such distance
among populations reduces connectivity
among populations and mountain
ranges, which may be important for
genetic exchange and recolonization.
Nonnative plant invasion and repeated,
large-scale, moderate and high severity
fires have impacted and will continue to
impact many populations throughout
the plant’s range. The minimum number
of populations needed to provide for
sufficient redundancy is unknown.
However, based on the number of
populations now extirpated and the
wide-ranging impacts from nonnatives
and wildfire, the species likely needs to
retain its existing population
redundancy across multiple mountain
ranges throughout the range to minimize
impacts from catastrophic events.
Bartram’s Stonecrop
Bartram’s stonecrop is a plant of the
Crassulaceae or stonecrop family
(Phillips et al. 1982, p. 2; Moran 1994,
p. 192). Acevedo et al. (2004, entire)
investigated the phylogenetic
relationship of Graptopetalum and other
genera of Crassulaceae. Their work
clearly separates Bartram’s stonecrop
from other species (Acevedo et al. 2004,
p. 1101). The Flora of North America
(2008, p. 227) recognizes Graptopetalum
and Dudleya as distinct, and recognizes
this species as Bartram’s stonecrop in
the genus Graptopetalum. Based on this
information as the best available
scientific and commercial data, the
Service accepts this taxonomy.
Bartram’s stonecrop is a small,
succulent (fleshy), acaulescent (without
a stem) perennial plant (Phillips et al.
1982, p. 2; Moran 1994, p. 192).
Bartram’s stonecrop has a basal rosette
that is 7 to 16 centimeters (cm) (2.75 to
6.3 in) wide comprised of 20 or more
flat to concave, smooth, blue-green
leaves (Rose 1926, p. 2; Phillips et al.
1982, p. 2; Moran 1994, p. 192). One to
seven showy inflorescences (includes
stems, stalks, bracts, and flowers) up to
30.5 cm (12 in) in height are produced
in equilateral panicles (pyramidal
loosely branched flower cluster). The
branches of the panicles produce one to
six (usually three) flowers each (Rose
1926, p. 2). The fruits are follicles
(capsule that splits along one side to
release seeds), with minute seeds (0.5 to
0.9 mm (0.02 to 0.04 in) in length))
having little or no endosperm (tissue
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Dec 05, 2019
Jkt 250001
surrounding the embryo that provides
nutrition; Shohet 1999, pp. 3, 48). The
lifespan of Bartram’s stonecrop is
thought to be approximately 5 years
(Ferguson, 2017b, tables 1–3; Ferguson
2017, pers. comm.).
The inflorescence stalks of Bartram’s
stonecrop grow for 30 to 40 days,
around July and August, before coming
to their full height, with the flowers
then opening primarily between
September and November (Kearney and
Peebles 1951, p. 361; Phillips et al.
1982, pp. 2, 7; Shohet 1999, p. 25).
Individual flowers produce both male
and female parts, but the timing of male
and female flower stages differs.
Individual flowers open in succession,
such that the length of time each flower
remains open overlaps, allowing for
various stages of flowering and fruiting
to be simultaneous within an individual
plant for a month or more. The two
stages of floral growth may reduce the
probability of self-pollination, though it
likely does still occur (Ferguson 2017,
pers. comm.). Flowering is triggered by
fall rains and does not occur during
periods of water stress (Shohet 1999, pp.
22, 25, 36, 39).
Bartram’s stonecrop requires
pollination for reproduction. The major
pollinators of Bartram’s stonecrop are
Sarcophaga spp. (true flies) and Musca
spp. (house flies), although Apis
mellifera (honey bee) may also play a
role in pollination. Other species noted
on Bartram’s stonecrop include wasps,
butterflies, and Tachinidae and
Bombyliidae flies (Shohet 1999, p. 41;
Ferguson 2014, p. 26; Ferguson 2017b,
p. 13). Fertilization success is greatest in
earliest opening flowers, possibly due to
more pollinators being available earlier
in the season, but having a long period
of flowering increases overall chance of
pollination (Shohet 1999, p. 57). Of the
seeds produced, approximately 20
percent are viable under optimal
conditions (Shohet 1999, p. 48). Because
seedlings (plants less than 1.5 cm [0.6
in] in diameter) have been located in
most populations, we believe pollinator
availability is not a limiting factor for
this species. Given their geographic
location in the landscape (i.e., in
canyons with springs and streams), it is
possible that seeds are transported by
water and that populations may have
been founded by a single individual
plant or seed (Shohet 1999, p. 58). Seeds
may also be dispersed via gravity and
wind.
There is little information available
regarding the seedbank of Bartram’s
stonecrop. In general, a seed that is very
tiny has evolved a requirement of
sunlight for germination, as they cannot
successfully emerge from deep burial
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(Venable and Brown 1987, p. 360).
Similarly, it is thought that Bartram’s
stonecrop seeds reside at the soil surface
beneath the litter (Shohet 1999, p. 48).
It is possible that because the seed is so
small, with little endosperm,
mycorrhizae (the symbiotic association
of a fungus with the roots of plants) may
be required for seedling establishment
and growth, but this has not been
studied (Felger 2017, pers. comm.).
Researchers at the Desert Botanical
Gardens have attempted to grow
Bartram’s stonecrop from seed. They
had no difficulty with seed germination;
however, they have experienced high
seedling mortality, perhaps related to a
requirement for mycorrhizae for
seedling establishment.
The species typically occurs on rocky
outcrops with erodible soils in deep,
narrow canyons in heavy cover of litter
and shade within Madrean woodlands
at elevations ranging from 1,067 to 2,042
m (3,500 to 6,700 ft). Madrean
woodlands are a forested community
dominated by evergreen oaks, but also
containing junipers and pine trees, and
characterized by mild winters and warm
wet summers (Brown 1982, p. 59).
Madrean evergreen woodland is
typically bounded by semi-desert
grasslands and savanna at warmer, drier
sites in the lower elevations, and by
evergreen and broadleaf forests on more
mesic and cooler sites at higher
elevation, at north aspect, or near
riparian areas. Bartram’s stonecrop root
into crevices on rock ledges and cliffs
on slopes of various aspects (Shohet
1999, p. 22; Ferguson 2014, p. 41; NPS
2016, p. 7). In addition, Bartram’s
stonecrop are almost always located
near water sources (springs, seeps, or
intermittent streams), but above the
floodline (Phillips et al. 1982, p. 4;
Shohet 1999, p. 22; NPS 2014, p. 2).
Plants are typically within 10 m (32.8 ft)
from a streambed in the bottom of
canyons on rocky outcrops, but can be
much farther on occasion (Shohet 1999,
p. 5; Ferguson 2014, p. 41; NPS 2014,
p. 2; Ferguson 2016a, p. 14). Based on
microhabitats in which the species is
typically found, the species’ needs
include crevices (with or without soil)
for seeds to lodge and germinate, shade
and deep leaf litter to help maintain soil
moisture, and a humid microhabitat in
this arid environment. Proximity to
water may provide humidity for the
plant’s microclimate. The deep, narrow
canyons and associated overstory
species provide shade during a portion
of the day, creating a cooler temperature
and aiding in maintaining a humid
microenvironment. In addition, the
vegetation litter provides retention of
E:\FR\FM\06DEP3.SGM
06DEP3
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules
soil moisture, further promoting the
humid microenvironment. The specific
substrate component does not seem to
be critical. In addition, for
reestablishment, moist soil for seedbank
may be important for this species
following extended periods of drought.
Madrean evergreen woodlands of the
sky island mountain ranges have
evolved with frequent, low-severity fire
and have warm wet summers and mild
winters. The maximum interval between
the relatively widespread fires typically
ranged from about 10 to 30 years in the
pine-dominant forests (Swetnam et al.
2001, p. 4). Precipitation within the sky
island mountain ranges is bimodal, with
winter snow and rain, and summer
monsoon rain. Mean annual
precipitation in the Madrean woodland
habitat of southern Arizona is 250 to
450 mm (10 to 17 in), with more than
50 percent occurring in summer. The
winter snow and rain coincide with
Bartram’s stonecrop seed germination
and growth. Winter precipitation is
needed for Bartram’s stonecrop
germination (although some
germination likely occurs following
summer rains), and both summer (July
and August) and fall precipitation
(captured partially in the October and
November ‘‘winter’’ data) is needed for
Bartram’s stonecrop flower production.
Bartram’s stonecrop is known to have
historically occurred in 33 separate
populations within 13 isolated sky
island mountain ranges, 10 in southern
Arizona and 3 in northern Mexico.
While the overall range of the species is
likely unchanged, the number and size
of populations has been reduced. Four
populations have become extirpated in
the United States in recent years, and a
fifth population has contracted in size.
In three instances, extirpation was
associated with the drying of habitat,
which rendered it no longer suitable for
the species to persist; we do not know
the cause of extirpation in the fourth
instance. In addition, there have been
many changes in the southeastern
Arizona landscape since the 1890s due
to intensive cattle grazing, water
development, and fire suppression (e.g.,
Bahre 1991, entire). These impacts may
have reduced the range or number of
populations and individuals.
We define a population as occurring
within the same water course (i.e.,
stream) in a sky island range and within
the distance pollinators can travel. A
population may consist of one or more
subpopulations of Bartram’s stonecrop.
These subpopulations are separated by
up to 8 km (5 mi). Within each
subpopulation are groupings of plants.
Groupings are separated by up to 1.7 km
(1 mi).
As of 2017, when the SSA analysis
was completed, there were 29 extant
populations across 12 mountain ranges
in the United States and Mexico: 26
extant populations from 9 mountain
ranges in southern Arizona and 3
presumed extant populations from 3
mountain ranges in northern Mexico
(see Table 3, below). Within these 29
populations, there are approximately
3,756 individuals within about 2 ha (5
ac).
67067
In 2018, four additional populations
were located in the United States in the
Rincon Mountains, one additional
population was located in Mexico, and
a known population in Mexico, which
we did not have recent data for, was
confirmed. The new populations in the
United States included the Upper
Rincon Creek population with 38
individuals (including ‘‘many’’
seedlings), Turkey Creek population
with 4 individuals (seedlings not
differentiated, but photos look like adult
rosettes and flowering), Deer Creek
population with 10 individuals (adult
rosettes and flowering), and Chiminea
Tributary population with 13 plants
(seedlings not differentiated). In Sonora,
Mexico, a new population (Mesa Tres
Rios population) with 80 living and 28
dead plants was found in Mesa Tres
Rios. In the Rı´o Piedras Verdes near
Colonia Pacheo area of Chihuahua,
seven individuals were located,
confirming the presence of an extant
population ‘‘near Colonia Pacheco’’; it is
unknown if this is the exact historical
location. Seedlings were not
differentiated in either of the Mexico
surveys. In total, only 145 new
individuals were found, including
seedlings, with 65 from the United
States and 80 from Mexico. All but one
population (Mesa Tres Rios) are small
populations with fewer than 150
individuals. The number of extant
populations as of 2018 is 34 across 13
mountain ranges in the United States
and Mexico.
TABLE 3—CURRENT STATUS OF BARTRAM’S STONECROP POPULATIONS
Mountain ranges
Population
status
Population
Subpopulation
Subpopulation
status
UNITED STATES
Baboquivari Mountains .................
Chiricahua Mountains ...................
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Dragoon Mountains ......................
Empire Mountains .........................
Mule Mountains ............................
Pajarito/Atascosa Mountains ........
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Dec 05, 2019
Brown Canyon .............................
Thomas Canyon ..........................
Echo Canyon ...............................
Extant ................
Extant ................
Extant ................
Indian Creek ................................
Carlink Canyon ............................
Jordan Canyon ............................
Sheepshead .................................
Slavin Gulch .................................
Stronghold Canyon East ..............
Extirpated ..........
Extirpated ..........
Extant ................
Extant ................
Extant ................
Extant ................
Stronghold Canyon West .............
Extant ................
Empire Mountains ........................
Juniper Flat ..................................
Alamo Canyon .............................
Holden Canyon ............................
Sycamore Canyon .......................
Extirpated ..........
Extant ................
Extant ................
Extant ................
Extant ................
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Brown Canyon .............................
Thomas Canyon ..........................
Echo Canyon ...............................
Rhyolite Canyon ..........................
Sugarloaf Mountain ......................
Indian Creek Canyon ...................
Carlink Canyon ............................
Jordan Canyon ............................
Sheepshead .................................
Lower Slavin Gulch ......................
Cochise Spring ............................
Park Canyon ................................
Rockfellow Dome Trail .................
Stronghold Canyon West .............
Stronghold
Canyon—hanging
canyon drainage.
Empire Mountains ........................
Juniper Flat and vicinity ...............
Alamo Canyon .............................
Holden Canyon ............................
Montana Peak Vicinity .................
Montana Canyon .........................
Mule Ridge ...................................
E:\FR\FM\06DEP3.SGM
06DEP3
Extant.
Extant.
Extant.
Extant.
Extant.
Extirpated.
Extirpated.
Extant.
Extant.
Extant.
Extant.
Extant.
Extant.
Extant.
Extant.
Extirpated.
Extant.
Extant.
Extant.
Extant.
Extant.
Extant.
67068
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 3—CURRENT STATUS OF BARTRAM’S STONECROP POPULATIONS—Continued
Mountain ranges
Population
status
Population
Patagonia Mountains ....................
Warsaw Canyon ..........................
Alum Gulch ..................................
Extant ................
Extant ................
Rincon Mountains .........................
Chimenea-Madrona Canyons ......
Extant ................
Happy Valley North ......................
Happy Valley South .....................
Upper Rincon Creek ....................
Turkey Creek ...............................
Deer Creek ..................................
Chiminea Tributary ......................
Adobe Canyon .............................
Gardner Canyon ..........................
Extirpated ..........
Extant ................
Extant ................
Extant ................
Extant ................
Extant ................
Extant ................
Extant ................
Josephine Canyon .......................
Extant ................
Madera Canyon ...........................
Squaw Gulch ...............................
Sycamore Canyon .......................
Temporal Gulch ...........................
Extant
Extant
Extant
Extant
Walker Canyon ............................
Extant ................
Death Trap Canyon .....................
French Joe Canyon .....................
Extant ................
Extant ................
Santa Rita Mountains ...................
Whetstone Mountains ...................
................
................
................
................
Subpopulation
Penasco Canyon; below dam ......
Summit Motorway ........................
Sycamore Canyon .......................
Warsaw/Old Glory Canyons ........
Alum Gulch ..................................
Flux Canyon .................................
Chimenea Canyon + Manning
Camp Trail + Madrona Canyon.
Happy Valley North ......................
Happy Valley South .....................
Upper Rincon Creek ....................
Turkey Creek ...............................
Deer Creek ..................................
Chiminea Tributary ......................
Adobe Canyon .............................
Cave Creek Canyon ....................
Gardner Canyon ..........................
Sawmill Canyon ...........................
Bond Canyon ...............................
Josephine Canyon .......................
Madera Canyon ...........................
Squaw Gulch ...............................
Sycamore Canyon .......................
Temporal Gulch ...........................
Upper Jones Canyon ...................
Big Casa Blanca Canyon ............
Walker Canyon Basin ..................
Death Trap Springs .....................
French Joe Canyon .....................
Subpopulation
status
Extant.
Extant.
Extant.
Extant.
Extant.
Extant.
Extant.
Extirpated.
Extant.
Extant.
Extant.
Extant.
Extant.
Extant.
Extant.
Extant.
Extant.
Extant.
Extant.
Extant.
Extant.
Extant.
Extant.
Extant.
Extant.
Extant.
Extant.
Extant.
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3
MEXICO
Sierra Las Avispas, Sonora ..........
Sierra Las Avispas, Sonora .........
Sierra La Escuadra, Chihuahua ...
Sierra La Escuadra, Chihuahua ..
Sierra La Estancia, Chihuahua ....
Sierra La Estancia, Chihuahua ....
Sierra Los Mojones ......................
Mesa Tres Rios ...........................
The number of populations within
each sky island mountain ranges from
one population (e.g., Mule Mountains)
to as many as eight populations (e.g.,
Santa Rita Mountains). Each of these
populations contains from one to eight
subpopulations, which can be separated
by up to 8 km (5 mi). Within each
subpopulation, plants grow in groups or
clusters of one to eight groups, which
are separated by up to 1.7 km (1 mi).
Within each subpopulation, plants grow
across an area of 1 to 140 m (3.3 to 459
ft) (Ferguson 2014, entire; Ferguson
2016a, p. 14).
Bartram’s stonecrop typically occurs
in small populations with limited
numbers of individuals. Most
populations contain fewer than 100
plants (Ferguson 2014, entire; Ferguson
2016a, entire), but occasionally
hundreds of plants can be found within
a single population. The number of
individuals in a given population can
vary greatly from year to year and from
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Dec 05, 2019
Jkt 250001
Presumed Extant.
Extant ................
Presumed Extant.
Extant ................
Sierra Las Avispas, (Nogales
County).
Near Colonia Pacheco (in the
Municipio
Nuevo
Casas
Grandes).
Cuarenta Casas (northwest of
Las Varas, Municipio Madera).
Mesa Tres Rios ...........................
season to season, depending on weather
and stressors present (Ferguson 2017b,
pp. 8, 15).
For Bartram’s stonecrop to maintain
viability, its populations or some
representative portion thereof must be
resilient. Resiliency describes the ability
of populations to withstand stochastic
events (arising from random factors). We
can measure resiliency based on metrics
of population health (for example,
germination versus death rates and
population size). Highly resilient
populations are better able to withstand
disturbances such as random
fluctuations in germination rates
(demographic stochasticity), variations
in rainfall (environmental stochasticity),
or the effects of anthropogenic activities.
Resilient Bartram’s stonecrop
populations must be large enough that
stochastic events do not eliminate the
entire population. A highly resilient
population of Bartram’s stonecrop
consists of multiple subpopulations,
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Presumed Extant.
Extant.
Presumed Extant.
Extant.
with a large number of individuals in
each subpopulation. Highly resilient
Bartram’s stonecrop populations must
also produce and disperse seeds,
establish seedlings that survive, and
maintain mature reproductive
individuals in the population;
recruitment should exceed or be equal
to mortality. This allows for shared
pollinators and seed dispersal between
subpopulations and groups within the
population, which can allow the
population to recover from disturbance
events and maintain or increase genetic
diversity. Population resiliency
categories for Bartram’s stonecrop are
described in section 3.2 of the SSA
report (Service 2018b, entire).
In addition to the above demographic
needs, populations also need habitat
elements for resiliency. Based on where
the species has typically been found, a
resilient population needs riparian
characteristics (i.e., proximity to water
and associated vegetation),
E:\FR\FM\06DEP3.SGM
06DEP3
67069
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules
precipitation, shade, and bedrock or soil
pockets in rock ledges and cliffs.
Precipitation is needed to maintain soil
moisture, cooler temperatures, and
humidity in the microenvironment;
shade from trees, canyon walls, and leaf
litter aid in moisture retention. Small
population size has the potential to
decrease Bartram’s stonecrop’s
population resiliency, as all stressors are
exacerbated in populations with only a
small number of individuals. Area of
occupied habitat, abundance, number of
subpopulations, and recruitment all
affect population resiliency. Habitat
resiliency categories for Bartram’s
stonecrop are described in Table 4,
below, and in section 3.2 of the SSA
report (Service 2018b).
TABLE 4—POPULATION RESILIENCY CATEGORY DEFINITIONS FOR BARTRAM’S STONECROP
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Condition
category
Population factors
Habitat factors
Abundance
Shade
Subpopulations
Recruitment
Riparian elements
Winter (October through
March) precipitation
Water is within 10 m from
individuals or riparian
vegetation present indicating subsurface water
nearby.
Water at or near the surface (riparian vegetation
present indicating subsurface water) is within
10–20 m from individuals.
Water at or near the surface (riparian vegetation
present indicating subsurface water) is within
20–30 m from individuals.
Streambed near plants is
dry and invaded by nonriparian plant species indicating shift of vegetation community and
complete loss of suitable habitat.
More than 12 inches of
winter rain on average
during the past 5 years
as recorded at the nearest weather station.
Between 6.1 and 12
inches of winter rain on
average during the past
5 years as recorded at
the nearest weather station.
6 or fewer inches of winter
rain on average during
the past 5 years as recorded at the nearest
weather station.
Overstory cover of
Juniperus, Quercus,
Pinus or other is >80%.
6 or fewer inches of winter
rain on average during
the past 5 years as recorded at the nearest
weather station.
Overstory cover has been
removed.
High (3) ..............
Three or more subpopulations of plants/population.
Number of adults in each
population is >300 individuals.
Populations contain more
seedlings (<1.5 cm [0.6
in]) than dying individuals.
Moderate (2) ......
Two subpopulations of
plants/population.
Number of individuals in
each population is 150
to 300 individuals.
Populations contain an
equal number of seedlings (<1.5 cm [0.6 in])
to dying individuals.
Low (1) ...............
One subpopulation of
plants/population.
Number of individuals in
each population is <150
individuals.
Populations contain fewer
seedlings (<1.5 cm [0.6
in]) than dying individuals.
; ........................
No subpopulations ............
No individuals are found
during surveys in appropriate microhabitat.
Population is made up primarily of dead and
dying individuals that do
not produce seed or no
individuals found.
Maintaining representation in the
form of genetic or ecological diversity is
important to maintain the capacity of
Bartram’s stonecrop to adapt to future
environmental changes. Representation
describes the ability of a species to
adapt to changing environmental
conditions. Representation can be
measured by the breadth of genetic or
ecological diversity within and among
populations. The more representation,
or diversity, a species has, the more it
is capable of adapting to changes
(natural or human-caused) in its
environment. In the absence of speciesspecific genetic and ecological diversity
information, we evaluate representation
based on the extent and variability of
habitat characteristics across the
geographical range.
Genetic analysis of Bartram’s
stonecrop has not been conducted
within or among populations or
mountain ranges. However, populations
on different mountain ranges are widely
separated (ranging from roughly 14 to 42
km (8.7 to 26 mi) apart), making crosspollination highly unlikely, and most of
the populations contain small numbers
of individuals. Therefore, there is the
potential for genetic diversity among
mountain ranges. Because multiple
populations have been extirpated, it is
possible that there has been a loss of
genetic diversity. There may be genetic
diversity between populations within
and among the sky island mountain
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Dec 05, 2019
Jkt 250001
ranges due to response to elevational
and other environmental differences
between locations. As such, maintaining
representation in the form of genetic
diversity across multiple populations
and sky island mountain ranges may be
important to the capacity of Bartram’s
stonecrop to adapt to future
environmental change.
The species is found over a relatively
wide range of elevations of 1,067 to
2,042 m (3,500 to 6,700 ft) and
vegetation communities (oak woodlands
at higher elevations, and grasslands and
oak savannas at lower elevations),
which could be important in terms of
representation. Such variability in
elevation could aid in survival of future
environmental changes, such as
warming temperatures or decreased
precipitation from climate change. At a
minimum, we likely need to retain
populations throughout the geographic
and elevational ranges of the species to
maintain the overall potential genetic
and environmental diversity that can
maximize the species’ response to
environmental changes over time.
Bartram’s stonecrop needs to have
multiple resilient populations
distributed throughout its range to
provide for redundancy such that a
catastrophic event will not result in the
loss of all populations. Redundancy
describes the ability of a species to
withstand catastrophic events,
measured by the number of populations,
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Overstory cover of
Juniperus, Quercus,
Pinus or other is between 50 and 80%.
Overstory cover of
Juniperus, Quercus,
Pinus or other is between 20 and 50%.
and their resiliency, distribution, and
connectivity. The more populations,
and the wider the distribution of those
populations, the more redundancy the
species will exhibit. Redundancy
reduces the risk that a large portion of
the species’ range will be negatively
affected by a catastrophic natural or
anthropogenic event at a given point in
time. Species that are well-distributed
across their historical range are
considered less susceptible to extinction
and more likely to be viable than
species confined to a small portion of
their range (Carroll et al. 2010, entire).
There is little connectivity potential
between the sky island mountain ranges
(separated from roughly 14 to 42 km (8.7
to 26 mi) apart); therefore, a localized
stressor such as dewatering from a mine
or a high-severity wildfire would impact
only those populations near the activity.
Regional drought and altered fire regime
could impact many populations
throughout the plant’s range. There are
34 populations spread throughout the
range of the species, many with
multiple subpopulations. Conversely,
such distance among populations
reduces connectivity among populations
and mountain ranges, which may be
important for genetic exchange and
recolonization. At a minimum, the
species likely requires retaining
population redundancy across multiple
sky island mountain ranges throughout
E:\FR\FM\06DEP3.SGM
06DEP3
67070
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3
the species’ range to minimize impacts
from catastrophic events.
Summary of Biological Status and
Stressors
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533)
and its implementing regulations (50
CFR part 424) set forth the procedures
for determining whether a species is an
‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened
species.’’ The Act defines an
endangered species as a species that is
‘‘in danger of extinction throughout all
or a significant portion of its range,’’ and
a threatened species as a species that is
‘‘likely to become an endangered
species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range.’’ The Act requires that we
determine whether any species is an
‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened
species’’ because of any of the following
factors:
(A) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence.
These factors represent broad
categories of natural or human-caused
actions or conditions that could have an
effect on a species’ continued existence.
In evaluating these actions and
conditions, we look for those that may
have a negative effect on individuals of
the species, as well as other actions or
conditions that may ameliorate any
negative effects or may have positive
effects.
We use the term ‘‘threat’’ to refer in
general to actions or conditions that are
known to or are reasonably likely to
negatively affect individuals of a
species. The term ‘‘threat’’ includes
actions or conditions that have a direct
impact on individuals (direct impacts),
as well as those that affect individuals
through alteration of their habitat or
required resources (stressors). The term
‘‘threat’’ may encompass—either
together or separately—the source of the
action or condition or the action or
condition itself.
However, the mere identification of
any threat(s) does not necessarily mean
that the species meets the statutory
definition of an ‘‘endangered species’’ or
a ‘‘threatened species.’’ In determining
whether a species meets either
definition, we must evaluate all
identified threats by considering the
expected response by the species, and
the effects of the threats—in light of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Dec 05, 2019
Jkt 250001
those actions and conditions that will
ameliorate the threats—on an
individual, population, and species
level. We evaluate each threat and its
expected effects on the species, then
analyze the cumulative effect of all of
the threats on the species as a whole.
We also consider the cumulative effect
of the threats in light of those actions
and conditions that will have positive
effects on the species—such as any
existing regulatory mechanisms or
conservation efforts. The Secretary
determines whether the species meets
the definition of an ‘‘endangered
species’’ or a ‘‘threatened species’’ only
after conducting this cumulative
analysis and describing the expected
effect on the species now and in the
foreseeable future.
The Act does not define the term
‘‘foreseeable future,’’ which appears in
the statutory definition of ‘‘threatened
species.’’ Our implementing regulations
at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a
framework for evaluating the foreseeable
future on a case-by-case basis. The term
foreseeable future extends only so far
into the future as the Services can
reasonably determine that both the
future threats and the species’ responses
to those threats are likely. In other
words, the foreseeable future is the
period of time in which we can make
reliable predictions. ‘‘Reliable’’ does not
mean ‘‘certain’’; it means sufficient to
provide a reasonable degree of
confidence in the prediction. Thus, a
prediction is reliable if it is reasonable
to depend on it when making decisions.
It is not always possible or necessary
to define foreseeable future as a
particular number of years. Analysis of
the foreseeable future uses the best
scientific and commercial data available
and should consider the timeframes
applicable to the relevant threats and to
the species’ likely responses to those
threats in view of its life-history
characteristics. Data that are typically
relevant to assessing the species’
biological response include speciesspecific factors such as lifespan,
reproductive rates or productivity,
certain behaviors, and other
demographic factors.
We completed a comprehensive
assessment of the biological status of
beardless chinchweed and Bartram’s
stonecrop, and prepared an SSA report
for each species (Service 2018a and
2018b, entire), which provides a
thorough account of the species’ overall
viability. We define viability here as the
ability of the species to persist over the
long term and, conversely, to avoid
extinction. In the following discussion,
we summarize the conclusions of the
SSA reports, which can be accessed at
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Docket FWS–R2–ES–2018–0104 on
https://www.regulations.gov and at
https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/
arizona/Docs_Species.htm.
Beardless Chinchweed
Several stressors influence whether
beardless chinchweed populations will
grow to maximize habitat occupancy,
which increases the resiliency of a
population to stochastic events. We
evaluated the past, current, and future
stressors (i.e., negative changes in the
resources needed by beardless
chinchweed) that are affecting what
beardless chinchweed needs for
viability. These stressors are described
in detail in chapter 4 of the SSA report
(Service 2018a). Stressors that have the
potential to affect beardless chinchweed
population resiliency include:
• Loss of habitat due to invasion by
nonnative species;
• Altered fire regime exacerbated by
invasion by nonnative species;
• Altered precipitation, drought, and
temperature;
• Erosion, sedimentation, and burial
from road and trail maintenance,
mining, livestock, wildlife, and postwildfire runoff;
• Grazing from wildlife and livestock;
and
• Small population size exacerbating
all other stressors.
The stressors that pose the largest risk
to future viability of the species are: (1)
Loss of habitat caused by the invasion
of nonnative grasses that compete for
space, water, light, and nutrients and
that alter wildfire regimes; and (2) small
population size (fewer than 50
individuals), which potentially causes
other stressors to seriously damage or
extirpate populations. The size of fewer
than 50 individuals as a small
population was determined by assessing
the range of known population sizes.
Much of the historical range of beardless
chinchweed in both the United States
and Mexico has been altered by an
invasion of nonnative grasses and
herbaceous plants. Although there are
many nonnative plant species growing
in historical beardless chinchweed
habitats in both the United States and
Mexico, two species in particular are
most problematic to beardless
chinchweed at this time: Lehman’s
lovegrass (Eragrostis lehmanniana) and
rose natal (Melinis repens). Both of these
species are strong competitors on
southern exposures where beardless
chinchweed occurs.
Habitat Loss Caused by Nonnative
Grasses
Lehman’s lovegrass, a nonnative grass
from South Africa, has numerous
E:\FR\FM\06DEP3.SGM
06DEP3
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules
competative advantages over native
grasses in southern Arizona. Lehman’s
lovegrass resprouts from roots and tiller
nodes not killed by hot fire, is not
hampered by the reduction in
mycorrhizae associated with fire and
erosion, is able to respond to winter
precipitation when natives grasses are
dormant, is able to produce copious
seed earlier than native grasses,
maintains larger seed banks than native
grasses, and has higher seedling survival
and establishment than native grasses
during periods of drought (Anable 1990,
p. 49; Anable et al. 1992, p. 182;
Robinett 1992, p. 101; Fernandez and
Reynolds 2000, pp. 94–95; Crimmins
and Comrie 2004, p. 464; Geiger and
McPherson 2005, p. 896; Schussman et
al. 2006, p. 589; O’Dea 2007, p. 149;
Archer and Predick 2008, p. 26; Mathias
et al. 2013, entire). This species
outcompetes native grasses for water,
light, and nutrients, forming nonnativedominated grasslands that reduce
structural, species, and spatial diversity
and that produce two to four times the
biomass of native grasslands (D’Antonio
and Vitousek 1992, p. 70; McPherson
1995, pp. 136–137; VanDevender et al.
1997, p. 4; Huang et al. 2009, pp. 903–
904;). This change in vegetation
structure results in a higher fuel load
that is highly lignified (long-lasting
through slow decomposition) and
results in more frequent fires that have
longer flames, faster rates of spread, and
higher severity and frequency than
historical low-intensity burns of native
desert grasslands (Anable et al. 1992, p.
186; Dennet et al. 2000, pp. 22–23;
Williams and Baruch 2000, p. 128;
Crimmins and Comrie 2004, p. 464). In
addition, Lehman’s lovegrass-dominated
grasslands recover quickly from fire, as
fires scarify the ample seeds and remove
canopy, allowing for high seedling
emergence (Cable 1965, p. 328; Anable
1990, p. 15; Roundy et al. 1992, p. 81;
McPherson 1995, p. 137; Biedenbender
and Roundy 1996, p. 160).
Rose natal, a native of Africa and
Madagascar, is invasive in many
locations, including southern Arizona
and northern New Mexico (Stevens and
Fehmi 2009, p. 379; Romo et al. 2012,
p. 34). Similar to Lehman’s lovegrass,
rose natal is capable of growing in low
moisture situations and has many
advantages to outcompete native grasses
of southern Arizona, such as prolific
seed production and culms that root
from the nodes (Stokes et al. 2011, p.
527). This aggressive grass displaces
native vegetation in shrublands and oak
stands, and increases fire frequency
(Romo et al. 2012, p. 35; Center for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Dec 05, 2019
Jkt 250001
Agriculture and Biosciences
International 2017, entire).
In addition, several other African
grasses (e.g., Eragrostis cilianensis
[stinkgrass], Eragrostis curvula [Boer
lovegrass], Eragrostis echinochloidea
[African lovegrass], and Dichanthium
annulatum [Kleberg’s bluestem]) have
been documented in southern Arizona
and northern Mexico (Van Devender
and Reina 2005, p. 160; NatureServe,
entire; Fire Effects Information System,
entire; SEINet, entire), as has the Asian
grass, Bothriochloa ischaemum (yellow
bluestem). Studies of other nonnative
grasses in Mexico show rapid expansion
and degradation of native communities,
with the potential to invade large areas
of northern Mexico (Arriaga et al. 2004,
p. 1504). There are no beardless
chinchweed populations in the United
States that are more than 1 km (0.6 mi),
and no beardless chinchweed
populations in Mexico that are more
than 27 km (16.8 mi), from documented
nonnative grasses (SEINet, entire;
Heitholt 2017, pers. comm.). Because we
have seen nonnative infestations in the
field in locations not shown in SEINet,
we believe only a small portion of
nonnative plants are reported into the
SEINet system in either country. Based
on the above information, we believe
that it is unlikely any beardless
chinchweed population is free of
nonnative plants. This encroachment of
nonnatives has reduced beardless
chinchweed population numbers and
habitat, and as nonnatives continue to
encroach on beardless chinchweed
populations, the number of individuals
and available habitat will continue to
decrease.
Altered Fire Regime
The desert grasslands, oak savannas,
and oak woodlands of southern Arizona
historically had large-scale, low-severity
fire roughly every 10 to 20 years and
following periods of adequate moisture
(McPherson and Weltzin 2000, p. 5;
Brooks and Pyke 2002, p. 6; McDonald
and McPherson 2011a, p. 385; Fryer and
Leunsmann 2012, entire). Fires now are
more frequent and intense due to the
unnaturally dense and evenly spaced
canopies of nonnative-dominated
communities (as compared to more
open and heterogeneous nativedominated grasslands), coupled with
more frequent fire starts from
recreationist and cross-border violators
(Anable et al. 1992, p. 186; D’Antonio
and Vitousek1992, p. 75; Dennet et al.
2000, pp. 22–23; Williams and Baruch
2000, p. 128; Crimmins and Comrie
2004, p. 464; Emerson 2010, pp. 15, 17;
United States Government
Accountability Office 2011, p. 1;
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
67071
Wildland Fire Lesson’s Learned Center
2011, entire). Nonnative grasses have
higher seed output and large seed banks,
earlier green-up in the spring, and
greater biomass production than native
grasses; all of these characteristics help
to perpetuate a grass-fire cycle (e.g.,
D’Antonio and Vitousek 1992, p. 73;
Zouhar et al. 2008, pp. 17, 21; Steidl et
al. 2013, p. 529).
In many locations in southern
Arizona in recent decades, repeat fires
have occurred within short periods of
time, aided by the dominance of
nonnative grasses in the landscape. For
example, in the Pajarito and Atascosa
Mountains area, multiple fires burned
the landscape between 2008 and 2016
(Figure 4.4 in Service 2018a). This
landscape is now dominated by both
nonnative Lehman’s lovegrass and rose
natal (Service 2014c, entire; Heitholt
2017, entire), and many historically
documented locations that supported
beardless chinchweed have not been
found again (Service 2014c, entire;
Fernandez 2017, pers. comm.; Haskins
and Murray 2017, p. 4). High-severity
wildfires burn hotter than fires that
beardless chinchweed evolved with;
consequently, we believe the plant is
not capable of surviving high-severity
fires.
Altered Precipitation, Drought, and
Temperature
Altered precipitation timing and form
(snow versus rain), as well as reduced
winter and spring precipitation and
prolonged drought, are currently
occurring and projected to increase or
be altered from normal in the Southwest
(Garfin et al. 2014, entire). Recently
there has been a decrease in the amount
of snowpack, earlier snowmelt, and
increased drought severity in the
Southwest (Garfin et al. 2013, entire;
Garfin 2013b p. 465). Further, more
wintertime precipitation is falling as
rain rather than snow in the western
United States (IPCC 2013, p. 204; Garfin
2013b p. 465). This means that the
amount of runoff in the spring when
snow melts is reduced, as is soil
moisture. Precipitation is bimodal with
the mountain ranges where beardless
chinchweed occurs, with dormant
season snow and rain, and growing
season monsoon rains (CLIMAS 2014,
entire). We believe that precipitation
during October through March is
important for beardless chinchweed
germination and growth. In addition,
beardless chinchweed does not flower
until it reaches a height of more than 0.5
m (1.6 ft) tall; without sufficient
precipitation, beardless chinchweed
may be unable to attain adequate size
for reproduction (Phillips et al. 1982, p.
E:\FR\FM\06DEP3.SGM
06DEP3
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3
67072
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules
8). Further, reduced precipitation,
change in the timing and type of
precipitation, and prolonged drought
impact soil and ambient moisture
availability for beardless chinchweed
germination, growth, and flowering. In
addition, due to increased nonnative
competition during times of reduced
precipitation and drought, impacts from
these stressors to beardless chinchweed
would be exacerbated (Anable 1990, p.
49; Robinett 1992, p. 101; Fernandez
and Reynolds 2000, pp. 94–95; Geiger
and McPherson 2005, p. 896;
Schussman et al. 2006, p. 589; Archer
and Predick 2008, p. 26; Mathias et al.
2013, entire).
Under a continuation of A2-high
emissions scenario, reduced winter and
spring precipitation is consistently
projected for the southern part of the
Southwest by 2100, as part of the
general global precipitation reduction in
subtropical areas (Garfin et al. 2014, p.
465). Analyses of the southwestern
United States indicate future drying,
primarily due to a decrease in winter
precipitation under both the RCP 4.5
and 8.5 scenarios (IPCC 2013, p. 1080).
The annual projected changes in
precipitation for 2025 to 2049 under the
RCP 4.5 and 8.5 scenarios range from an
increase of 1.3 cm/month (0.5 in/month)
to a decrease of 1.5 cm/month (0.5 in/
month), with a an annual average of no
change compared to 1981 to 2010
(USGS 2019, entire). However, winter
and spring precipitation under both
emission scenarios is projected to
decrease from ¥0.3 to ¥1 cm (¥0.1 to
¥0.4 inches) (MACA 2019) or a
decrease up to 10 percent for 2016–2035
relative to 1986–2005 under RCP 4.5
(IPCC 2013, p. 985). The decrease in
winter and spring precipitation would
likely be greater under the RCP 8.5
scenario. There is some evidence from
comparing observations with
simulations of the recent past that
climate models might be
underestimating the magnitude of
changes in precipitation in many
regions (IPCC 2013, p. 986). The
climate-model-projected simulations
indicate that a high degree of variability
of annual precipitation will continue
during the coming century, for both low
and high emission scenarios (Garfin
2013, p. 110). This suggests that the
Southwest will remain susceptible to
unusually wet spells and, on the other
hand, will remain prone to occasional
drought episodes (Garfin 2013, p. 110).
However, decrease in soil moisture
across much of the Southwest is
projected under both scenarios by midcentury, due to increased evaporation
(IPCC 2013, p. 1259). Late winter-spring
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Dec 05, 2019
Jkt 250001
mountain snowpack in the Southwest is
predicted to continue to decline over
the 21st century under the high
emission scenario (A2), mostly because
of projected increased temperature
(Garfin et al. 2013, p. 6). Reduced rain
and snow, earlier snowmelt, and drying
tendencies cause a reduction in latespring and summer runoff. Together
these effects, along with increases in
evaporation, result in lower soil
moisture by early summer (Gafrin 2013,
p. 117).
Climatic events such as snowpack,
earlier snowmelt, and increased drought
are regional and will impact all
populations of beardless chinchweed.
Precipitation timing and amount
impacts the germination, growth, and
flowering of beardless chinchweed,
resulting in the loss of individuals and
recruitment, and overall reducing the
population size.
In the Southwest, temperatures
increased 2.7 degrees Celcius (°C) (1.6
degrees Fahrenheit (°F)) plus or minus
0.9 °C (0.5 °F), between 1901 and 2010,
and more heat waves occurred over the
Southwest during 2001–2010 compared
to average occurrences in the 20th
century. In the future, under RCP 4.5,
the annual maximum temperature is
projected to increase by 5 °C (2.7 °F) for
2025–2049 and 7.3 °C (4 °F) for 2050–
2074, and 5 °C (2.7 °F) for 2025–2049
and 10.4 °C (5.7 °F) for 2050–2074
under RCP 8.5, all relative to 1981–2010
(USGS 2019, entire). When temperatures
rise, as has been occurring in recent
decades and as is projected to continue
into the future, evapotranspiration rates
also increase and soil moisture
decreases. Along with projected
warming and increased
evapotranspiration, it is highly likely
that droughts will become more severe
(Garfin 2013, pp. 137–138). A decrease
of up to 4 percent soil moisture is
projected under RCP 4.5 scenario for
2016–2035, relative to 1986–2005. The
decrease in soil moisture would likely
be greater under the RCP 8.5 scenario.
Further, the evaporation deficient
increases under RCP 4.5 and increases
more in RCP 8.5 in 2025 to 2049,
relative to 1981 to 2010. Based on the
high emissions scenario, the current
100-year drought will become
commonplace in the second half of this
century and future droughts will be
much more severe than those previously
recorded (Garfin 2013, p. 138). This
projection of intensified drought
conditions on the Colorado River is not
due to changes in precipitation, but
rather due directly to warming and its
effect on reducing soil moisture (Garfin
2013, p. 138). Physiological effects of
CO2 may involve both the stomatal
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
response, which acts to restrict
transpiration, and an increase in plant
growth and leaf area, which acts to
increase evapotranspiration (IPCC 2013,
p. 986). An increase in
evapotranspiration results in water loss
from the plant and increases stress on
the plant. This increase in stress
impacts photosynthesis, respiration,
transpiration, water use efficiency, leaf
conductance, growth rate, vigor, and gas
exchange. These impacts result in
reduced growth, flowering, and seed
production and, therefore, in reduced
overall recruitment and population
numbers.
Although rare species in the
southwestern United States evolved
with drought, recent changes in
temperature, and rainfall patterns
present stressful conditions of increased
magnitude greater than what the species
faced historically and raise the question
of whether the species, can persist.
Some species may shift their
distributions in response to warming of
the climate (McLaughlin et al. 2002, p.
6070). However, it is highly unlikely
that beardless chinchweed would be
able to naturally shift its range to keep
up with current and high projected rates
of climate change, due to its overall
population decline and inability to
maintain current populations. Since
plants are not mobile, expanding the
distribution of this species is dependent
on seed dispersal. Further, extant
populations are small, which limit the
amount of seed production for dispersal.
It is highly unlikely that under elevated
environmental stress associated with
climate change, the species would be
able to both maintain populations and
also colonize new areas with more
suitable climate conditions. Thus
localized extirpations over portions of
the beardless chinchweed range could
result (lower elevations), and, in other
portions of its distribution, the occupied
range (higher elevation) may expand,
depending upon habitat availability.
Erosion, Sedimentation, and Burial
General road maintenance and
widening could disturb populations
along road cuts and create erosion
(Phillips et al. 1982, p. 8). Of the six
extant U.S. populations, the Ruby Road
and Scotia Canyon populations, and the
State of Texas Mine subpopulation of
Coronado National Memorial occur
along roadcuts; similarly, the Visitor
Center subpopulation of the Coronado
National Memorial population contains
some plants that occur along a
maintained trail. These plants could be
damaged or removed by road or trail
maintenance. Impacts from such
stressors could be profound for
E:\FR\FM\06DEP3.SGM
06DEP3
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3
populations with fewer than 50
individuals. In addition, nonnative
plant introduction and spread often
occur in areas of disturbance, such as
along roadways, along trails, in mining
sites, and in areas of recreational use
(Gelbard and Belnap 2003, p. 421;
Brooks 2007, pp. 153–154; Anderson et
al. 2015, p. 1).
The McCleary Canyon—Gunsight Pass
population is in the path of a proposed
alignment of a secondary access road for
the proposed Rosemont Mine (Westland
2010, p. iv), and the McCleary Canyon—
Wasp Canyon population is within the
processing facility portion of the
proposed Rosemont Mine (Westland
2017, entire). Collectively, these plants
represent approximately 33 percent of
the total beardless chinchweed
populations known across the U.S.
range and 16 percent of all known
individuals. The proposed road
alignment would eliminate these
populations.
Dust from mining operations or
recreational travel can impact beardless
chinchweed populations along dirt
roadways. Dust may negatively affect
plant growth and vigor as a result of
changes in physiological and
biochemical processes (e.g.,
photosynthesis, respiration,
transpiration, water use efficiency, leaf
conductance, growth rate, vigor, and gas
exchange) and reduced pollination
(Phillips et al. 1982, pp. 9–10; Chibuike
and Obiora 2014, p. 1; Waser et al. 2017,
p. 90). These impacts could affect those
populations within 30 meters (98 feet)
of roads and mine sites (Waser et al.
2017, p. 90). This stressor could impact
four of the six populations in the United
States.
Grazing
There are two different perspectives
on the influence of grazing on beardless
chinchweed:
(1) Wildfire historically maintained
native open habitat where beardless
chinchweed occurred, but with fire
suppression, overgrazing may have
alternatively provided native open
habitats for this species to expand its
range in the early 1900s, even without
frequent fire (Schmalzel 2015, p. 2), due
to open space being created and
maintained by cattle; and
(2) Grazing pressure may have
contributed to the species’ rareness (Keil
1982, entire) due to reduced
reproduction and alteration in habitat.
Regardless, grazing that occurs in
small populations (fewer than 50
individuals) of beardless chinchweed
would have a negative population-level
impact through the reduction of flowers
and seeds, and possibly individuals.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Dec 05, 2019
Jkt 250001
Beardless chinchweed does not flower
until it reaches a height of more than 0.5
m (1.6 ft) tall, suggesting that grazing in
summer or fall when the plant is
growing and flowering could reduce
seed production and recruitment.
Small Populations
Small population size has the
potential to affect beardless
chinchweed’ population resiliency, as
all stressors are exacerbated in
populations with only a small number
of individuals (fewer than 50). Known
population sizes of beardless
chinchweed were used to quantify the
size of a small population. Small
populations are less able to recover from
losses caused by random environmental
changes (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp.
308–310), such as fluctuations in
reproduction (demographic
stochasticity), variations in rainfall
(environmental stochasticity), or
changes in the frequency or severity of
disturbances, such as wildfires. Five of
the six extant beardless chinchweed
populations in the United States contain
fewer than 50 individuals. Based on
populations in the United States, which
are mostly small and occur in habitat
dominated by nonnatives, we believe
that the six populations in Mexico are
of similar size but may be in worse
condition, because of limited native
habitat management, similar climate
change impacts, equally frequent
wildfires, and likely more impacts from
grazing. Loss due to mining, erosion,
road and trail maintenance, trampling,
grazing, or other stressors mentioned
above are exacerbated in small
populations, and have the potential to
seriously damage or completely remove
these small populations. Synergistic
interactions among wildfire, nonnative
grasses, decreased precipitation, and
increased temperatures cumulatively
and cyclically impact beardless
chinchweed, and all stressors are
exacerbated in small populations.
Current Condition of Beardless
Chinchweed
Since 1962, we are aware of nine
populations and one subpopulation of
beardless chinchweed in the United
States that have become extirpated.
Currently, six extant beardless
chinchweed populations are spread
across four mountain ranges in southern
Arizona: The Atascosa-Pajarito,
Huachuca, Santa Rita, and the Canelo
Hills. These six populations consist of
387 individuals spread across less than
2 ha (5 ac). Additionally, six
populations have been reported from
northern Mexico, but this information is
from 1940 or earlier.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
67073
Population Resiliency of Beardless
Chinchweed
To help determine current condition,
we assessed each population in terms of
its resiliency. Our analysis of the past,
current, and future stressors on the
resources that beardless chinchweed
needs for long-term viability revealed
that there are a number of stressors
impacting this species. All beardless
chinchweed populations likely contain
nonnative grasses. Further, altered fire
regime has the potential to affect all
populations. This altered fire regime
enhances the spread of nonnatives, and
all populations of beardless chinchweed
contain nonnatives. Consequently, fire
will aid in the spread of nonnatives, and
is currently a risk to all populations of
beardless chinchweed and will be
further exacerbated by nonnative grasses
in the near future (approximately 10
years). Altered precipitation, increased
temperatures, increased
evapotranspiration, decreased soil
moisture, and decreased winter and
spring precipitation are current and
ongoing regional actions that are
impacting all populations of beardless
chinchweed. These environmental
conditions exacerbate an altered fire
regime, which in turn further drives the
spread of nonnatives. In addition,
nonnative grasses have competitive
advantage over native grasses during
periods of drought.
Road maintenance is likely resulting
in the direct killing of individuals in
three populations (Ruby Road, Scotia
Canyon, and Coronado National
Memorial). In addition, all individuals
in these three populations are currently
being impacted by dust from the road.
These three populations are already of
low resiliency. Two additional
populations (McCleary Canyon—
Gunsight Pass and McCleary Canyon—
Wasp Canyon) will be impacted by
Rosemont mining operations and dust
in the near future (approximately 10
years; Westland 2010, p. iv). One of
these populations is already of low
resiliency, and the other is of moderate
resiliency. Eleven of the 12 populations
(92 percent) are small population (fewer
than 50 individuals). Synergistic
interactions among wildfire, nonnative
grasses, decreased precipitation, and
increased temperatures cumulatively
and cyclically impact beardless
chinchweed, and all stressors are
exacerbated in small populations. Of the
six extant populations, two are
moderately resilient and four are in low
resiliency (Table 5, below). Population
resiliency categories are described in
Table 2, above, and in the SSA report
(Service 2018a).
E:\FR\FM\06DEP3.SGM
06DEP3
67074
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 5—BEARDLESS CHINCHWEED CURRENT POPULATION CONDITION
Population
Atascosa-Pajarito Mountains, USA ....................
Pena Blanca Lake ..............................................
Ruby Road .........................................................
Summit Motorway ..............................................
Audubon Research Ranch .................................
Copper Mountain ................................................
Harshaw Creek ..................................................
Lampshire Well ..................................................
Scotia Canyon ....................................................
Coronado National Memorial .............................
Joe’s Canyon Trail .............................................
Flux Canyon .......................................................
Washington Camp ..............................................
Box Canyon ........................................................
McCleary Canyon—Gunsight Pass ...................
McCleary Canyon—Wasp Canyon ....................
Batopililas, Rio Mayo .........................................
Guasaremos, Rio Mayo .....................................
Canon de la Petaquilla .......................................
North of Horconcitos ..........................................
Canyon Estrella, Sierra de los Cendros; southeast of Tesopaco.
Los Conejos, Rio Mayo ......................................
Canelo Hills, USA ...............................................
Huachuca Mountains, USA ................................
Patagonia Mountains, USA ................................
Santa Rita Mountains, USA ...............................
Chihuahua, Mexico .............................................
Sonora, Mexico ..................................................
Beardless Chinchweed Representation
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Number of
individuals
Mountain range/country
No genetic studies have been
conducted within or between the 21
historical populations of beardless
chinchweed in southern Arizona and
Mexico. Mountain ranges that have only
one or two populations, or have only
have one subpopulation per population,
or low numbers of individuals per
population with several miles between
mountain ranges, may not be as
genetically diverse because pollination
or transport of seeds between
populations may be very limited or
nonexistent. Five of the six extant U.S.
populations do not have multiple
subpopulations. The Coronado National
Memorial population has two
subpopulations. The six extant U.S.
populations are separated
geographically into the AtascosaPajarito, Huachuca, and Santa Rita
Mountains, and the Canelo Hills, which
are separated by 16 to 61 km (9.9 to 37.9
mi). There is likely genetic diversity
among mountain ranges, but reduced
genetic diversity within populations.
Further, overall genetic diversity is
likely reduced given that some
populations are extirpated.
The 15 historical beardless
chinchweed populations in the United
States range in elevation from 1,158 m
(3,799 ft) to 1,737 m (5,699 ft). Of these,
eight (about 53 percent) fall below 457
m (1,500 ft) elevation. Of these eight, six
have become extirpated in recent
decades. This essentially indicates a
loss at this lower elevational range and
possibly loss of some local adaptation to
warmer or dryer environments and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Dec 05, 2019
Jkt 250001
genetic differentiation among
populations.
In the Ruby Road, Scotia Canyon, and
Coronado National Memorial
populations, plants have been reported
over many decades, indicating that
these populations may have the genetic
and environmental diversity needed to
adapt to changing conditions. Note,
however, that both the Ruby Road and
Scotia Canyon populations have been
reduced in size in the past 30 years, and
we have no previous count data at
Coronado National Memorial for
comparison.
Beardless Chinchweed Redundancy
The beardless chinchweed
populations in the United States and
Mexico are naturally fragmented
between mountain ranges. Currently, six
extant beardless chinchweed U.S.
populations are spread across AtascosaPajarito, Huachuca, and Santa Rita
Mountains and the Canelo Hills. The
Atascosa-Pajarito Mountains and the
Canelo Hills have only one extant
population each, while the Santa Rita
and Huachuca Mountains have two
extant populations each. These
mountain ranges are separated from
each other by 16 to 61 km (9.9 to 37.9
mi), so natural gene exchange or reestablishment following extirpation is
very unlikely. In addition, six historical
populations of beardless chinchweed
are distributed across two general areas
in northern Chihuahua and Sonora,
Mexico. Their status is unknown, but
we believe they are small populations
with poor habitat based on populations
in the United States, which are small
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Current
condition
0
10
0
37
0
0
0
40
241
0
0
0
0
32
32
∼10
∼10
∼10
∼10
∼10
Extirpated.
Low.
Extirpated.
Low.
Extirpated.
Extirpated.
Extirpated.
Low.
Low.
Extirpated.
Extirpated.
Extirpated.
Extirpated.
Moderate.
Low.
Low.
Low.
Low.
Low.
Low.
∼10
Low.
and dominated by nonnative species.
Although this may imply some level of
redundancy across the range of
beardless chinchweed, note that five of
the six extant populations in the United
States contain fewer than 50 individual
plants. Further, nine populations and
one subpopulation have been extirpated
in recent decades, largely from the
lower elevations of the species’ range,
and several populations have been
reduced in size in recent decades.
Future Condition of Beardless
Chinchweed
We also assessed the future condition
of beardless chinchweed under several
plausible scenarios in our SSA report
(Service 2018a, entire). We present a
summary of the relevant information
here; the detailed future condition
analysis is available in the SSA report.
We developed four scenarios
incorporating the stressors that are
ongoing or will occur in the future to
consider the range of possible future
conditions. For each scenario, we
describe the level of impact from the
identified stressors that would occur in
each population. All of the scenarios
involve some degree of uncertainty;
however, they present a range of
realistic and plausible future conditions
(Table 6). All scenarios consider
impacts from nonnative invasion,
altered wildfire regime, and drought
because there is no likely future
scenario where these stressors would
not affect the species. In addition,
effects on individual plants (small
population size) from multiple stressors
are assessed, including cross-border
E:\FR\FM\06DEP3.SGM
06DEP3
67075
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules
violator traffic, mining, trampling,
erosion, road and trail maintenance, and
grazing. We projected the likelihood of
each scenario occurring at 40-years. We
chose 40 years because this is within the
range of available hydrological and
climate change model forecasts, is
within the time period of the Rosemont
Mine effects, and it represents four
generations of the plant.
Below is a summary of the four
scenarios. For more detail, see Chapter
6 of the SSA (Service 2018a, entire).
TABLE 6—FUTURE SCENARIOS FOR BEARDLESS CHINCHWEED
Risks
Mining activity
Altered fire
regime *
Climate
Individual
effects
Risk described ...........
• Burial .....................
• Removal ................
• Dust .......................
Scenario 1 Continuation continuing into
the future.
Rosemont mine implemented with indirect and direct
impacts.
• Lightning ...............
• Nonnative plants ...
• Cross border violators.
• Recreation .............
Number of wildfires
annually increases
at the same rate as
the last 10 years.
• Grazing .................
• Trampling ..............
• Trail and road
maintenance.
• Erosion ..................
Applied to populations <50 individuals.
Scenario 2 Conservation.
Rosemont mine implemented with indirect and direct
impacts; with mitigation.
Rosemont mine implemented with direct impacts and
additional mines
implemented with
indirect impacts.
Rosemont mine implemented and additional mines implemented with direct impacts.
• Reduction in available water **.
• Seedling desiccation.
• Flowering halt ........
Available water and
drought continue at
the same level as
in the past 10
years, emissions
4.5.
Available water remains stable, emissions 4.5.
Number of wildfires
increases.
Available water is reduced per 4.5
emissions scenario.
Applied to populations <50 individuals.
Number of wildfires
increases.
Available water is reduced per 8.5
emissions scenario.
Applied to populations <50 individuals.
Scenario 3 Moderate
increase in negative
effects.
Scenario 4 Major increase in negative
effects.
Number of wildfires
does not increase
from current rate.
The ‘‘continuation’’ scenario
evaluates the condition of beardless
chinchweed if there is no increase in
risk of stressors to the populations
relative to what exists today. The other
scenarios evaluate the response of the
species to changes in those risks. The
‘‘conservation’’ scenario takes into
account realistically possible additional
protective measures, which may or may
not happen. The ‘‘moderate effects’’
scenario is an increase in the risk of
stressors to populations. The ‘‘major
effects’’ scenario is a further increase in
risk of stressors to populations.
We examined the resiliency,
representation, and redundancy of
beardless chinchweed under each of
Conservation
Applied to populations <50 individuals.
these plausible scenarios (see table 6.7
in the SSA report). The overall
resiliency categories are the same as
those used for current condition. We
expect the six extant beardless
chinchweed populations to experience
changes to aspects of their habitat in
different ways under the different
scenarios. We projected the expected
future resiliency, representation, and
redundancy of beardless chinchweed
based on the risk of stressors that would
occur under each scenario (see Table 7).
Under the ‘‘continuation’’ scenario, we
would expect the viability of beardless
chinchweed to be characterized by a
loss of resiliency, representation, and
redundancy at the level that is currently
Conservation actions implemented.
No new individuals, subpopulations or populations found. No augmentation of existing populations, little seed preservation,
nonnatives not controlled, some woodland areas thinned.
Sites revisited and additional plants are located, sites are augmented, or new sites
are established, some nonnatives are
controlled, and additional woodland
areas are thinned.
No new individuals, subpopulations or populations found. No augmentation of existing populations, little seed preservation,
nonnatives not controlled, some woodland areas thinned.
No new individuals, subpopulations or populations found. No augmentation of existing populations, little seed preservation,
nonnatives not controlled, some woodland areas thinned.
occurring. Under the ‘‘conservation’’
scenario, we would expect the viability
of beardless chinchweed to be
characterized by higher levels of
resiliency, representation, and
redundancy than it exhibits under the
current condition. Under the ‘‘moderate
effects’’ scenario, we would expect the
viability of beardless chinchweed to be
characterized by lower levels of
resiliency, representation, and
redundancy than it has in the
‘‘continuation’’ scenario. Under the
‘‘major effects’’ scenario, we would
expect all populations of beardless
chinchweed to be extirpated at the 40year time step.
TABLE 7—BEARDLESS CHINCHWEED POPULATION CONDITIONS UNDER THE CURRENT CONDITION AND ALL FUTURE
SCENARIOS
Mountain range
Population name
Current condition
Continuation
scenario
Conservation
scenario
Moderate effects
scenario
Atascosa-Pajarito ....................................
Pena Blanca Lake .................................
Ruby Road ............................................
Summit Motorway .................................
Audubon Research Ranch ....................
Copper Mountain ..................................
Harshaw Creek .....................................
Lampshire Well .....................................
Scotia Canyon .......................................
Coronado National Memorial ................
Joe’s Canyon Trail ................................
Flux Canyon ..........................................
Washington Camp ................................
Box Canyon Road .................................
McCleary Canyon—Gunsight Pass ......
McCleary Canyon—Wasp Canyon .......
Batopililas ..............................................
Guasaremos ..........................................
Extirpated ..............
Low ........................
Extirpated ..............
Low ........................
Extirpated ..............
Extirpated ..............
Extirpated ..............
Low ........................
Low ........................
Extirpated ..............
Extirpated ..............
Extirpated ..............
Extirpated ..............
Moderate ...............
Low ........................
Low ........................
Low ........................
Extirpated ..............
Extirpated ..............
Extirpated ..............
Low ........................
Extirpated ..............
Extirpated ..............
Extirpated ..............
Low ........................
Low ........................
Extirpated ..............
Extirpated ..............
Extirpated ..............
Extirpated ..............
Low ........................
Extirpated ..............
Extirpated ..............
Extirpated ..............
Extirpated ..............
Extirpated ..............
Extirpated ..............
Low ........................
Extirpated ..............
Extirpated ..............
Extirpated ..............
Low ........................
Low ........................
Extirpated ..............
Extirpated ..............
Extirpated ..............
Extirpated ..............
Low ........................
Extirpated ..............
Extirpated ..............
Extirpated ..............
Extirpated ..............
Extirpated ..............
Extirpated ..............
Extirpated ..............
Extirpated ..............
Extirpated ..............
Extirpated ..............
Extirpated ..............
Low ........................
Extirpated ..............
Extirpated ..............
Extirpated ..............
Extirpated ..............
Extirpated ..............
Extirpated ..............
Extirpated ..............
Extirpated ..............
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Canelo Hills .............................................
Huachuca ................................................
Patagonia ................................................
Santa Rita ...............................................
Chihuahua, MX .......................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Dec 05, 2019
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\06DEP3.SGM
06DEP3
Major effects
scenario
Extirpated.
Extirpated.
Extirpated.
Extirpated.
Extirpated.
Extirpated.
Extirpated.
Extirpated.
Extirpated.
Extirpated.
Extirpated.
Extirpated.
Extirpated.
Extirpated.
Extirpated.
Extirpated.
Extirpated.
67076
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3
TABLE 7—BEARDLESS CHINCHWEED POPULATION CONDITIONS UNDER THE CURRENT CONDITION AND ALL FUTURE
SCENARIOS—Continued
Mountain range
Population name
Sonora, MX .............................................
Canon de la Petaquilla .........................
Canyon Estrella .....................................
Horconcitos ...........................................
Los Conejos ..........................................
Bartram’s Stonecrop
Several factors influence whether
Bartram’s stonecrop populations will
grow to increase habitat occupancy,
which increases the resiliency of a
population to stochastic events. We
evaluated the past, current, and future
stressors that are affecting what
Bartram’s stonecrop needs for viability.
These stressors are described in detail in
the chapter 4 of the SSA report (Service
2018b, entire). Stressors that have the
potential to affect Bartram’s stonecrop
population resiliency include:
• Loss of water in nearby drainages
from mining and drought;
• Erosion, sedimentation, and burial
from mining, livestock, wildlife,
recreation trails and roads, cross-border
violators, and post-wildfire runoff;
• Trampling from humans, wildlife,
and livestock, and predation;
• Altered fire regime resulting from
fires ignited by recreationists, crossborder violators, and lightning;
• Illegal collection;
• Altered precipitation, drought,
flooding, and freezing regime from
current and future climate change,
resulting in loss of seedling, immature,
and adult plants, and in loss of
reproduction; and
• Small population size exacerbating
all other stressors.
The stressors that pose the largest risk
to future viability of the species, which
are related to habitat changes, include:
(1) Groundwater extraction and
prolonged drought that may reduce
nearby water levels and humidity
within Bartram’s stonecrop habitat; and
(2) Altered fire regimes leading to
erosion of Bartram’s stonecrop habitat,
sedimentation that could cover
individuals, and loss of overstory shade
trees. These stressors play a large role in
the future viability of Bartram’s
stonecrop, especially for smaller
populations. These stressors may reduce
nearby water levels, shade, and
humidity within Bartram’s stonecrop
habitat and may directly impact
individuals.
Loss of Water
Dewatering of streams from mining
operations may lead to overstory canopy
losses and resulting loss of shade, as
well as reduction in spring and stream
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Dec 05, 2019
Jkt 250001
Continuation
scenario
Current condition
Low
Low
Low
Low
........................
........................
........................
........................
Extirpated
Extirpated
Extirpated
Extirpated
..............
..............
..............
..............
flow and humidity in nearby Bartram’s
stonecrop populations. The Rosemont
Mine Final Environmental Impact
Statement states that no Bartram’s
stonecrop were found in the project area
or the footprint of the connected
actions; however, individuals growing
in the analysis area could experience
indirect impacts from groundwater
drawdown (USFS 2013a, p. 676).
According to the Rosemont Mine Final
Environmental Impact Statement (USFS
2013a, p. 339), the proposed mine pit
would create a permanent drawdown of
the water table, and groundwater would
flow toward the pit and be lost to
evaporation. The water would be
perpetually replenished in part by
groundwater from the regional aquifer,
and the pit would act as a hydraulic
sink. Given that Bartram’s stonecrop is
consistently found in locations with
nearby springs or other water sources,
the loss of groundwater at the nearby
unmapped spring in Box Canyon/
Sycamore Canyon confluence, between
Ruelas Spring and the Singing Valley
Road residences, could significantly
impact these Bartram’s stonecrop plants.
In the range of Bartram’s stonecrop,
there are many mining claims, trenching
and exploration drilling activities, and a
few active and proposed mines. Many
currently undeveloped areas of locatable
mineral deposits may be explored and/
or mined in the future. We do not know
the extent of future mine activity within
the range of Bartram’s stonecrop;
however, a number of proposed mines
are identified for development within
Bartram’s stonecrop habitat. The range
of current and projected mining
activities varies from 1 to 10 per sky
island mountain range containing
Bartram’s stonecrop (USFS 2012,
entire). The loss of water in any
Bartram’s stonecrop population could
lead to extirpation of that population.
Erosion, Sedimentation, and Burial
Bartram’s stonecrop typically occurs
on steep slopes with erodible soils and
areas susceptible to rock fall, making the
plant particularly vulnerable to physical
damage to its environment (Phillips et
al. 1982, p. 10; Shohet 1999, p. 50;
Ferguson 2014, p. 42; Ferguson 2016a,
pp. 15, 26). Soil erosion can result in
burying plants, eroding the soil the
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Conservation
scenario
Extirpated
Extirpated
Extirpated
Extirpated
..............
..............
..............
..............
Moderate effects
scenario
Extirpated
Extirpated
Extirpated
Extirpated
..............
..............
..............
..............
Major effects
scenario
Extirpated.
Extirpated.
Extirpated.
Extirpated.
plant is growing in, or dislodging plants.
While displaced plants may re-root
(Shohet 1999, pp. 50–51, 60), it is more
likely that these plants will not survive
(Ferguson 2015, p. 2). The potential of
soil disturbance and erosion within or
above Bartram’s stonecrop habitat or the
trampling of individual Bartram’s
stonecrop plants may occur from a
variety of activities, including livestock
and wildlife movement; the placement
and maintenance of infrastructure,
trails, and roads; and recreationists or
cross-border violators traveling along
established trails or cross country
(Phillips et al. 1982, p. 10; Shohet 1999,
p. 60; Ferguson 2014, p. 42; NPS 2015,
p. 4; Ferguson 2016a, p. 26).
Direct removal of Bartram’s stonecrop
individuals and substrate due to
erosion, or burial of individuals, may
occur due to the placement of mineral
extraction sites and debris piles. These
impacts could severely impact small
Bartram’s stonecrop populations.
Erosion from test pits (an excavation
made to examine the subsurface
conditions of a potential mine site) has
been documented to remove portions of
habitat occupied by Bartram’s stonecrop
in Flux Canyon (Phillips et al. 1982, pp.
9–10).
Trampling
The trampling of individual Bartram’s
stonecrop plants may occur from a
variety of activities, including livestock
and wildlife movement; the placement
and maintenance of infrastructure,
trails, and roads; and recreationists or
cross-border violators traveling along
established trails or cross country
(Phillips et al. 1982, p. 10; Shohet 1999,
p. 60; Ferguson 2014, p. 42; NPS 2015,
p. 4; Ferguson 2016a, p. 26). Given the
potential for these stressors, those
populations with fewer than 50
individuals may be heavily impacted
during periods of unusual recreational
use. This stressor is considered in our
analysis of future viability only when it
may impact a population with fewer
than 50 individuals.
Altered Fire Regime
Since the mid-1980s, wildfire
frequency in western forests has nearly
quadrupled compared to the average of
the period 1970 to 1986 (Westerling et
E:\FR\FM\06DEP3.SGM
06DEP3
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules
al. 2006, p. 941). The timing, frequency,
extent, and destructiveness of wildfires
are likely to continue to increase
(Westerling et al. 2006, p. 943),
especially given historical land
management actions, an increase in fire
starts from cross-border violators and
recreationists (e.g., from campfires,
cigarettes, target shooting), nonnative
plant invasion, and continuing drought
conditions (Westerling et al. 2006, p.
940; FireScape 2016, entire; Fire
Management Information System 2016,
p. 2; Tersey 2017, pers. comm.). Altered
fire regimes can have direct and indirect
impacts to Bartram’s stonecrop and its
habitat. Direct impacts include burning
of individual Bartram’s stonecrop
plants, resulting in injury, reduction in
reproductive structures, or death.
Indirect impacts of fire on Bartram’s
stonecrop may include increased runoff
of floodwaters, post-fire flooding,
deposition of debris and sediment
originating in the burned area, erosion,
changes in vegetation community
composition and structure, increased
presence of nonnative plants, alterations
in the hydrologic and nutrient cycles,
and loss of overstory canopy shade
essential for maintaining Bartram’s
stonecrop microhabitat (Griffis et al.
2000, p. 243; Crawford et al. 2001, p.
265; Hart et al. 2005, p. 167; Smithwick
et al. 2005, p. 165; Stephens et al. 2014,
p. 42; Ferguson 2014, p. 43; Ferguson
2016a, p. 26).
We are aware of 11 wildfires (Alamo,
Brown, Elkhorn, Hog, Horseshoe II, La
Sierra, Lizard, Mule Ridge, Murphy,
Soldier Basin, and Spring) that have
occurred in known Bartram’s stonecrop
sites in the past decade that killed some
Bartram’s stonecrop individuals and
removed shade in some instances. When
looking at the number of acres burned
per sky island mountain range in
comparison to the number of adult
individuals known from that range, the
two largest populations occur in sky
island mountain ranges that have had
the fewest acres burned in the past 10
years. It is not known if this is
coincidence or is of significance, as we
do not have pre-fire population counts
in any population to address this
question. Wildfires have burned in all
nine sky island mountain ranges of
southern Arizona that support Bartram’s
stonecrop during this time period. Fires
did not burn through Bartram’s
stonecrop populations in all cases, but
fire could occur in any population
within this 10-year timeframe. Wildfire
could potentially cause extirpation of
small Bartram’s stonecrop populations
throughout the range of the species and
have negative impacts on larger
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Dec 05, 2019
Jkt 250001
populations. In addition, because it is
thought that Bartram’s stonecrop seeds
reside at the soil surface and the seeds
are very tiny (Shohet 1999, p.48), it is
likely that the seeds would not survive
a wildfire.
The nonnative plants in the uplands
and within Bartram’s stonecrop
populations include nonnative grass
species such as Lehman’s lovegrass and
rose natal, both of which have
numerous advantages over native
grasses. Lehman’s lovegrass resprouts
from roots and tiller nodes not killed by
hot fire, is not hampered by the
reduction in mycorrhizae associated
with fire and erosion, responds to
winter precipitation when natives
grasses are dormant, produces copious
seed earlier than native grasses,
maintains larger seedbanks than native
grasses, and has higher seedling survival
and establishment than native grasses
during periods of drought (Anable 1990,
p. 49; Anable et al. 1992, p. 182;
Robinett 1992, p. 101; Fernandez and
Reynolds 2000, pp. 94–95; Crimmins
and Comrie 2004, p. 464; Geiger and
McPherson 2005, p. 896; Schussman et
al. 2006, p. 589; O’Dea 2007, p. 149;
Archer and Predick 2008, p. 26; Mathias
et al. 2013, entire). Rose natal is capable
of growing in low moisture situations,
has prolific seed production, and culms
that root from the nodes (Stokes et al.
2011, p. 527). Both species outcompete
native plants, reduce structural and
spacial diversity of habitats, and
increased biomass and fuel loads,
increasing the fire frequency. Nonnative
grasses have been reported with
Bartram’s stonecrop individuals in two
instances, at French Joe Canyon and
Juniper Flat populations, increasing the
likelihood of fire occurrence and
subsequent impacts to these two
populations (Heritage Database
Management System, E.O. ID 55;
Simpson 2017, pers. comm.). Nonnative
plant species increase the frequency and
severity of wildfires, such wildfires can
directly and indirectly impact
individuals and populations.
Illegal Collection
Bartram’s stonecrop is an attractive
small plant that can be easily collected
by gardeners and succulent enthusiasts.
Tagged individuals were uprooted and
taken from two sites in the Santa Rita
Mountains, one near a campsite (Shohet
1999, p. 60). In a 2016 on-line Google
search for Bartram’s stonecrop for sale,
an advertisement from a collector in
Texas offered to pay cash for Bartram’s
stonecrop seedlings or rooted cuttings.
One website notes that the similar
southern Arizona occurring species, G.
rusbyi, is cultivated and legally
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
67077
available for sale from cactus nurseries;
however, Bartram’s stonecrop is not
(because it is more difficult to propagate
and maintain in captivity) and is
therefore vulnerable to collection. Small
populations may not be able to recover
from collection, especially if the mature,
reproductive plants are removed. The
removal of mature plants reduces the
overall reproductive effort of the
population, thereby reducing the overall
resilience of the population.
Altered Precipitation, Drought,
Flooding, and Freezing Regimes
Precipitation within the sky island
mountain ranges is bimodal, with
winter snow and rain, and summer
monsoon rain (CLIMAS 2014, entire).
Fall and winter (October through
March) precipitation is needed for
Bartram’s stonecrop germination, and
both summer (July and August) and fall
precipitation (October and November) is
needed for Bartram’s stonecrop flower
production. Flowering is triggered by
fall rains and does not occur during
periods of water stress (Shohet 1999, pp.
22, 25, 36, 39). Altered precipitation
timing and form (i.e., snow versus rain),
as well as reduced precipitation in the
winter and spring and prolonged
drought, are important considerations in
the analysis of the future stressors to
Bartram’s stonecrop due to increased
nonnative competition during times of
reduced precipitation and drought,
which exacerbate impacts from stressors
(Anable 1990, p. 49; Robinett 1992, p.
101; Fernandez and Reynolds 2000, pp.
94–95; Geiger and McPherson 2005, p.
896; Schussman et al. 2006, p. 589;
Archer and Predick 2008, p. 26; Mathias
et al. 2013, entire). In addition, reduced
precipitation in the winter and spring
and drought will also impact moisture
availability for Bartram’s stonecrop’s
germination, growth, and flowering.
Altered precipitation timing and form
(snow versus rain), as well as reduced
winter and spring precipitation and
prolonged drought, are currently
occurring and projected to increase or
be altered from normal in the Southwest
(Garfin et al. 2014, entire). Recently
there has been a decrease in the amount
of snowpack, earlier snowmelt, and
increased drought severity in the
Southwest (Garfin et al. 2013, entire;
Garfin 2013b, p. 465). Further, more
wintertime precipitation is falling as
rain rather than snow in the western
United States (IPCC 2013, p. 204; Garfin
2013b p. 465). This means that the
amount of runoff in the spring when
snow melts is reduced, as is soil
moisture.
Under a continuation A2-high
emissions scenario, reduced winter and
E:\FR\FM\06DEP3.SGM
06DEP3
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3
67078
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules
spring precipitation is consistently
projected for the southern part of the
Southwest by 2100, as part of the
general global precipitation reduction in
subtropical areas (Garfin et al. 2014, p.
465). Analyses of the southwestern
United States indicate future drying,
primarily due to a decrease in winter
precipitation under both the RCP 4.5
and 8.5 scenarios (IPCC 2013, p. 1080).
The annual projected changes in
precipitation for 2025 to 2049 under
RCP 4.5 and 8.5 scenarios ranges from
an increase of 1.3 cm/mo (0.5 to a
decrease of 0.5 in/mo), with an annual
average of no change compared to 1981
to 2010 (USGS 2019, entire). However,
winter and spring precipitation under
both emission scenarios is projected to
decrease from ¥0.3 to ¥1 cm (¥0.1 to
¥0.4 in) (MACA 2019) or a decrease up
to 10 percent for 2016–2035 relative to
1986–2005 under RCP 4.5 (IPCC 2013,
p. 985). The decrease in winter and
spring precipitation would likely be
greater under the RCP 8.5 scenario.
There is some evidence from comparing
observations with simulations of the
recent past that climate models might be
underestimating the magnitude of
changes in precipitation in many
regions (IPCC 2013, p. 986). The
climate-model-projected simulations
indicate that a high degree of variability
of annual precipitation will continue
during the coming century, for both low
and high emission scenarios (Garfin
2013, p. 110). This suggests that the
Southwest will remain susceptible to
unusually wet spells and, on the other
hand, will remain prone to occasional
drought episodes (Garfin 2013, p. 110).
However, decrease in soil moisture
across much of the Southwest is
projected under both scenarios by midcentury, due to increased evaporation
(IPCC 2013 p. 1259). Late winter-spring
mountain snowpack in the Southwest is
predicted to continue to decline over
the 21st century under the high
emission scenario (A2), mostly because
of projected increased temperature
(Garfin et al. 2013, p. 6). Reduced rain
and snow, earlier snowmelt, and drying
tendencies cause a reduction in latespring and summer runoff. Together
these effects, along with increases in
evaporation, result in lower soil
moisture by early summer (Gafrin 2013,
p. 117).
Precipitation timing and amount
impacts the germination, growth, and
flowering of Bartram’s stonecrop,
resulting in the loss of individuals and
recruitment, and overall reducing the
population size.
In the Southwest, temperatures
increased 2.7°C (1.6 °F) plus or minus
0.9 °C (0.5 °F), between 1901 and 2010,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Dec 05, 2019
Jkt 250001
and more heat waves occurred over the
Southwest during 2001–2010 compared
to average occurrences in the 20th
century. In the future, under RCP 4.5,
the annual maximum temperature is
projected to increase by 5°C (2.7°F) for
2025–2049 and 7.3 °C (4°F) for 2050–
2074, and 5 °C (2.7°F) for 2025–2049
and 10.4 °C (5.7°F) for 2050–2074 under
RCP 8.5, all relative to 1981–2010
(USGS 2019, entire). When temperatures
rise, as has been occurring in recent
decades and as is projected to continue
into the future, evapotranspiration rates
also increase and soil moisture
decreases. Along with projected
warming and increased
evapotranspiration, it is highly likely
that droughts will become more severe
(Garfin 2013, pp. 137–138). A decrease
of up to 4 percent soil moisture is
projected under RCP 4.5 for 2016–2035,
relative to 1986–2005. The decrease in
soil moisture would likely be greater
under RCP 8.5. Further, the evaporation
deficient increases under RCP 4.5 and
increases more in RCP 8.5 in 2025 to
2049, relative to 1981 to 2010. Based on
the high emissions scenario, the current
100-year drought will become
commonplace in the second half of this
century and future droughts will be
much more severe than those previously
recorded (Garfin 2013, p. 138). This
projection of intensified drought
conditions on the Colorado River is not
due to changes in precipitation, but
rather due directly to warming and its
effect on reducing soil moisture (Garfin
2013, p. 138). Physiological effects of
CO2 may involve both the stomatal
response, which acts to restrict
transpiration, and an increase in plant
growth and leaf area, which acts to
increase evapotranspiration (IPCC 2013
p. 986). An increase in
evapotranspiration results in water loss
from the plant and increases stress on
the plant. This increase in stress
impacts photosynthesis, respiration,
transpiration, water use efficiency, leaf
conductance, growth rate, vigor, and gas
exchange. These impacts result in
reduced growth, flowering, and seed
production, and, therefore, reduces
overall recruitment and population
numbers.
Although rare species in the
southwestern United States evolved
with drought, recent changes in
temperature and rainfall patterns
present stressful conditions of increased
magnitude above what the species faced
historically and raise the question of
whether the species in this rule can
persist. Some species will shift their
distributions in response to warming of
the climate (McLaughlin et al. 2002, p.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
6070). It is highly unlikely that
Bartram’s stonecrop would be able to
naturally shift its range to keep up with
current and high projected rates of
climate change due to its general state
of population decline, lack of suitable
intervening habitat, and abundant
nonnative competitors. Thus, localized
extinctions over portions of Bartram’s
stonecrop’s range could result.
Small Populations
Stressors are exacerbated in
populations with only a small number
(e.g., fewer than 50) of individuals.
Small populations are less able to
recover from losses caused by random
environmental changes (Shaffer and
Stein 2000, pp. 308–310), such as
fluctuations in reproduction
(demographic stochasticity), variations
in rainfall (environmental stochasticity),
or changes in the frequency or severity
of wildfires. Approximately half of the
extant Bartram’s stonecrop populations
contain 50 or fewer individuals. Loss
due to erosion, trampling, collection,
predation, fire, severe frost, or other
stressors have the potential to seriously
damage or completely remove these
small populations.
In summary, the stressors that pose
the largest risk to future species viability
are primarily related to habitat changes:
Groundwater extraction from mining,
long-term drought, and alteration in
wildfire regime. These stressors may
reduce nearby water levels, shade, and
humidity within Bartram’s stonecrop
habitat and may directly impact
individuals. Other important stressors
include erosion or trampling from
livestock, wildlife, or human activities;
illegal collection; predation of Bartram’s
stonecrop or their shade trees by
wildlife and insects; abnormal freezing
or flooding events; or other stressors
that have the potential to seriously
damage or completely remove small
populations. Synergistic interactions
among wildfire, drought, altered
precipitation, and increased
temperatures cumulatively and
cyclically impact Bartram’s stonecrop,
and all stressors are exacerbated in
small populations.
Current Condition of Bartram’s
Stonecrop
Historically, we know of 33
populations spread across 13 mountain
ranges. Four populations have been
extirpated in the United States in recent
years, and a fifth population has likely
contracted in size. In addition, the
southeastern Arizona landscape has
experienced many changes since the
1890s, resulting from intensive cattle
grazing, water development, and fire
E:\FR\FM\06DEP3.SGM
06DEP3
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules
suppression (e.g., Bahre 1991, entire).
These impacts may have reduced the
range or number of populations and
individuals. Currently, 29 extant
populations occur across 12 mountain
ranges in the United States and Mexico:
9 in southern Arizona and 3 in northern
Mexico. The U.S. populations total
3,726 individuals within occupied
habitats that total about 2 ha (5 ac). Data
are lacking for the Mexico populations;
however, based on populations in the
United States, which are mostly small,
we believe that the three populations in
Mexico are of similar size to U.S.
populations but may be in worse
condition, because of limited native
habitat management, similar climate
change impacts, equally frequent
wildfires, and likely more livestock
impacts (Romo et al. 2012, entire;
Arriaga et al. 2004, entire; Fishbein and
Warren 1994, p. 20).
Population Resiliency for Bartram’s
Stonecrop
To help determine current condition,
we assessed each population in terms of
its resiliency and assessed the species’
representation and redundancy. Our
analysis of the past, current, and future
stressors on the resources that Bartram’s
stonecrop needs for long-term viability
revealed a number of stressors to this
species. All Bartram’s stonecrop
populations likely contain nonnative
grasses. Further, altered fire regime has
the potential to affect all populations.
This altered fire regime enhances the
spread of nonnatives. Consequently, all
populations of Bartram’s stonecrop will
be further impacted by nonnative
grasses in the near future. Altered
precipitation, increased temperatures,
and decreased annual precipitation are
current and ongoing regional conditions
that are impacting all populations of
Bartram’s stonecrop. These
environmental conditions exacerbate an
altered fire regime, which, in turn,
further drives the spread of nonnatives.
In addition, nonnative grasses have
competitive advantage over native
grasses during periods of drought. Many
currently undeveloped areas of locatable
mineral deposits may be explored or
mined in the future. We do not know
the extent of future mine activity within
the range of Bartram’s stonecrop;
however, there are 12 mining projects
currently ongoing or proposed within 8
km (5 mi) of Bartram’s stonecrop
populations in Arizona. The range of
current and projected mining activities
varies from 1 to 10 per sky island
mountain range containing Bartram’s
stonecrop (USFS 2012, entire). One
population, Sycamore Canyon (115
adult individuals), would be affected by
groundwater drawdown due to the
Rosemont Mine. Sycamore Canyon is
currently in moderate condition.
Further, this species is collected and
sold. Synergistic interactions among
wildfire, nonnative grasses, decreased
precipitation, and increased
temperatures cumulatively and
cyclically impact Bartram’s stonecrop,
and all stressors are exacerbated in
small populations. In addition, because
approximately 41 percent (12
populations) of the extant Bartram’s
stonecrop populations contain 50 or
fewer individuals, loss due to erosion,
trampling, collection, predation, fire,
severe frost, or other stressors have the
potential to seriously damage or
completely remove these small
populations. Of the 29 extant
populations, 1 population (3 percent) is
in high condition, 21 populations (72
percent) are in moderate condition, and
7 populations (24 percent) are in low
condition (Table 8, below). Population
resiliency categories are described in
Table 4, above, and in the SSA report
(Service 2018b).
TABLE 8—BARTRAM’S STONECROP CURRENT POPULATION CONDITION
Population
Baboquivari ..............................................
Brown Canyon .........................................
Thomas Canyon ......................................
Echo Canyon ...........................................
Indian Creek ............................................
Carlink Canyon ........................................
Jordan Canyon ........................................
Sheephead ..............................................
Slavin Gulch ............................................
Stronghold Canyon East .........................
Stronghold Canyon West ........................
Empire Mountains ...................................
Juniper Flat ..............................................
Alamo Canyon .........................................
Holden Canyon ........................................
Sycamore Canyon ...................................
Warsaw Canyon ......................................
Alum Gulch ..............................................
Chimenea-Madrona Canyon ...................
Happy Valley North .................................
Happy Valley South .................................
Adobe Canyon .........................................
Gardner Canyon ......................................
Josephine Canyon ...................................
Madera Canyon .......................................
Squaw Gulch ...........................................
Sycamore Canyon ...................................
Temporal Gulch .......................................
Walker Canyon ........................................
Deathtrap Canyon ...................................
French Joe Canyon .................................
Sierra Las Avispas ..................................
Near Colonia Pacheco ............................
Cuarenta Casas ......................................
Chiricahua ................................................
Dragoon ...................................................
Empire .....................................................
Mule .........................................................
Pajarito-Atascosa .....................................
Patagonia .................................................
Rincon ......................................................
Santa Rita ................................................
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Number of
individuals
Sky Island
Whetstone ................................................
Sierra Las Avispas, Sonora .....................
Sierra La Escuadra, Chihuahua ..............
Sierra La Estancia, Chihuahua ...............
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Dec 05, 2019
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
67079
112
5
186
0
0
415
45
9
188
533
0
798
134
7
298
13
123
9
0
14
82
14
71
76
5
115
7
3
135
87
10
10
10
E:\FR\FM\06DEP3.SGM
Current condition
Moderate.
Low.
Moderate.
Extirpated.
Extirpated.
Moderate.
Moderate.
Moderate.
Moderate.
High.
Extirpated.
Moderate.
Moderate.
Moderate.
Moderate.
Moderate.
Moderate.
Moderate.
Extirpated.
Moderate.
Moderate.
Moderate.
Moderate.
Moderate.
Low.
Moderate.
Moderate.
Moderate.
Low.
Low.
Low.
Low.
Low.
06DEP3
67080
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules
Bartram’s Stonecrop Representation
No genetic studies have been
conducted within or between the 33
historical populations of Bartram’s
stonecrop in southern Arizona and
Mexico. However, we assessed
representation for Bartram’s stonecrop
in the form of its geographic distribution
across the range. Some genetic exchange
likely occurs within populations
containing many subpopulations or
many plants per subpopulation. Sky
island populations on different
mountain ranges are widely separated
(ranging from roughly 14 to 42 km (8.7
to 26 mi) apart), making crosspollination across sky islands highly
unlikely. Mountain ranges that have
only one or two populations, have only
one subpopulation per population, or
have low numbers of individuals per
population with several miles between
mountain ranges may not be as
genetically diverse because pollination
or transport of seeds between
populations may be very limited.
However, there may be genetic diversity
between populations within and
between the sky island mountain ranges
in response to elevational and other
environmental differences between
locations. Due to the loss of four
populations, it is possible that there has
been a loss of genetic diversity.
However, because the species occurs
across 29 populations in 12 mountain
ranges, it is likely some genetic diversity
exists among mountain ranges.
In addition, because the plant occurs
on multiple substrate types and at a
range of elevations (1,067 to 2,042 m
(3,500 to 6,700 ft)), there is likely some
local adaptation and genetic
differentiation among populations. This
range in elevation provides a variety of
climatic conditions for the species to
inhabit. Lastly, in at least three locations
(Flux Canyon, Sycamore Canyon
(Pajarito-Atascosa Mountains), and
Gardner Canyon populations), Bartram’s
stonecrop have been reported over many
decades, indicating that these
populations may have the genetic and
environmental diversity to adapt to
changing conditions.
Bartram’s Stonecrop Redundancy
The Bartram’s stonecrop populations
in the United States and Mexico are
naturally fragmented between mountain
ranges. Currently, 29 extant Bartram’s
stonecrop populations are spread across
12 different mountain ranges in
southern Arizona and northern Mexico.
Although these numbers may imply
redundancy across its range, note that
24 of the 29 extant populations contain
fewer than 150 total individual plants.
Further, 14 of the 29 populations have
50 individuals or less, and 4
populations have been extirpated over
recent (approximately 10) years. Five
mountain ranges (Baboquivari,
Chiricahua, Mule, Whetstone, and
Patagonia Mountains) have only one or
two populations each or have only have
one subpopulation per population, and
low numbers of individuals per
population. These sky island mountain
ranges are several miles away from the
other sky island mountain ranges, so
natural gene exchange or reestablishment following extirpation is
unlikely. In addition, the Mule
Mountains contain large number of
Bartram’s stonecrop individuals, but
there is only one population and it is
approximately 38 km (23.6 mi) away
from the nearest population, making
natural re-establishment of populations
unlikely. In addition, this population is
known to be contracting in size due to
drying of habitat (The Nature
Conservancy 1987, p. 2).
Future Condition of the Bartram’s
Stonecrop
We now consider the species’ future
condition of population resiliency and
the species’ representation and
redundancy are likely to be. The future
viability of Bartram’s stonecrop depends
on maintaining multiple resilient
populations over time. The resiliency of
Bartram’s stonecrop populations
depends on moisture in their
microenvironment maintained by shade
from overstory vegetation, spring and
winter precipitation, proximity to water,
and vegetation litter. We expect the 29
extant Bartram’s stonecrop populations
to experience changes to all of these
aspects of their habitat, although it may
be in different ways under the different
conditions. In addition, direct impacts
to Bartram’s stonecrop through being
dislodged, buried, or collected will
continue to impact the species.
Given our uncertainty regarding the
scope of the stressors manifesting and
the species’ response, we forecasted
future conditions of Bartram’s stonecrop
under four plausible future scenarios
(see chapter 6 of the SSA report; Service
2018b). We developed these scenarios to
span a range of potential stressors that
are ongoing or will occur in the future
that we believe will influence the future
status of the species. We chose 10 years
to evaluate the current condition, as
well as future projections out to 40 years
because this is within the range of
predictions of available hydrological
and climate change model forecasts and
is within the time period of the
Rosemont Mine effects. This time frame
represents eight generations of the
Bartram’s stonecrop, which allows us to
assess reproductive effects on the
species and allows the species
opportunities to rebound after poor
water years. The ten-year time step also
represents a reasonable timeframe to
judge the species’ current vulnerability
to threats as they are manifested now,
without projecting changes to threats
that longer timeframes would provide.
Thus, the future scenarios forecast the
viability of Bartram’s stonecrop over the
next 40 years. See table 9 below for a
summary of the four scenarios. For more
detail, see Chapter 6 of the SSA report
(Service 2018b, entire).
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3
TABLE 9—FUTURE SCENARIOS FOR BARTRAM’S STONECROP
Risks
Mining activity
Risk described ............
Water extraction, Excavation, Burial, Shade
reduction.
Lightning Recreation
Reduction in available
Cross border violawater * and/or shade.
tors Nonnative plants.
Scenario 1. Continuation continuing into
the future.
Ongoing or planned
mining activities as of
2012 (∼20).
Number of wildfires annually increases at
the same rate as the
last 10 years.
Scenario 2. Conservation.
Number of mining activities does not increase from current
condition.
Number of wildfires
does not increase
from current rate.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Dec 05, 2019
Altered fire regime
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Climate
Climate
Available water and
drought continue at
the same level as in
the past 10 years.
Emissions 8.5.
Available water remains stable. Emissions 4.5.
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Dislodging from flooding events, Seedling
desiccation, Flowering halt, Shade removal.
Number and severity of
flooding events continues at the past 10
years. Emissions
<4.5.
Flooding events do not
increase. Emissions
<4.5.
Sfmt 4702
Individual effects
Conservation
Livestock Recreation
Trampling Predation
Collection.
Conservation actions implemented.
Applied to populations
<50 individuals.
No new individuals, subpopulations or
populations found. No augmentation of existing populations, no
seed preservation, nonnatives controlled, and forest thinned.
Sites revisited and additional plants
are located, sites are augmented,
or new sites are established, nonnatives controlled, and forest
thinned.
Applied to populations
<50 individuals.
E:\FR\FM\06DEP3.SGM
06DEP3
67081
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 9—FUTURE SCENARIOS FOR BARTRAM’S STONECROP—Continued
Risks
Mining activity
Altered fire regime
Scenario 3. Moderate
increase in negative
effects.
1–3 new mining activities (above the 2012
number) are implemented and/or existing mines expand.
>3 new mining activities are implemented
and/or existing mines
expand.
Number of wildfires increases in uplands.
Available water is reduced per 8.5 emissions scenario.
Increases in flash
flooding per 4.5
emissions scenario.
Applied to populations
<50 individuals.
Number of wildfires increases in uplands.
Available water is reduced per 8.5 emissions scenario.
Increases in flash
flooding per 8.5
emissions scenario.
Applied to populations
<50 individuals.
Scenario 4. Major increase in negative
effects.
Climate
Climate
Individual effects
Conservation
No new individuals, subpopulations,
or populations found, and no augmentation of existing populations,
nonnatives controlled, and forest
thinned.
No new individuals, subpopulations or
populations found, and no augmentation of existing populations,
nonnatives controlled, and forest
thinned.
* Available water includes precipitation, soil moisture, humidity, surface water, aquifer recharge, reduction in riparian vegetation, and increased number of days without water.
All scenarios consider impacts from
mining, wildfire, and climate. In
addition, effects on individual plants
from multiple stressors are assessed,
including livestock, recreation,
trampling, predation, and collection.
The ‘‘continuation’’ scenario evaluates
the condition of Bartram’s stonecrop if
there is no increase in risks to the
populations relative to what exists
today, while the other scenarios
evaluate the response of the species to
changes in those risks. The
‘‘conservation’’ scenario takes into
account realistically possible additional
protective measures which may or may
not happen. The ‘‘moderate effects’’
scenario is an increase in the risks to
populations with changes in climate as
projected in a lower (8.5) emissions
scenario along with increases in other
stressors. The ‘‘major effects’’ scenario is
a further increase in risks to
populations, with changes in climate
projected at a higher (8.5) emissions
scenario, and with additional increases
in other stressors. These are described
in more detail in chapter 6 of the SSA
report (Service 2018b).
The most likely scenario is the
‘‘moderate effects’’ scenario, with
impacts to the species occurring around
the 40-year time step. Under the
‘‘moderate effects’’ scenario, water flow
reduction due to drought and
groundwater extraction continues to
reduce the humid microhabitat for this
species. Cross-border violator traffic
continues, and risk of catastrophic
wildfire is high due to dry conditions;
invasion of nonnatives in the uplands;
and increased risk of fire starts from
illegal activity, recreation, and natural
causes. Mining impacts individuals in
the Patagonia and Santa Rita Mountains.
Collection, trampling, freezing,
predation, and human impacts also
continue at current or increased levels.
The full analyses of all scenarios are
available in the SSA report (Service
2018b, chapter 6); however, we are only
presenting the full results of the
‘‘moderate effects’’ scenario here
because it gives the most realistic
projection of the future condition of the
species.
Under the ‘‘moderate effects’’
scenario, within the 40-year timeframe,
we expect Bartram’s stonecrop’s
viability to be characterized by lower
levels of resiliency, representation, and
redundancy than it has currently, which
is already reduced as described above.
Under the ‘‘moderate effects’’ scenario,
no populations would be in high
condition, 4 populations (12 percent)
would remain in moderate condition, 16
populations (52 percent) would be in
low condition, and 13 populations (36
percent) would be extirpated, further
reducing population redundancy and
connectivity (see table 6.6 in the SSA
report; Service 2018b). Under the
‘‘moderate effects’’ scenario, because of
the intensity of stressors discussed
above, 22 populations would be reduced
from their current condition (see Table
10, and see figure 6.3 and table 6.6 in
the SSA report (Service 2018b)). We
further believed that in the ‘‘moderate
effects’’ scenario, one of the three small
populations in Mexico becomes
extirpated due to the amount of
nonnatives contributing to fire,
reduction in precipitation, increase in
drought, and low resiliency of a small
population.
TABLE 10—BARTRAM’S STONECROP POPULATION CONDITIONS UNDER THE ‘‘MODERATE EFFECTS’’ SCENARIO
Population
Baboquivari .......................................................................
Brown Canyon .................................................................
Thomas Canyon ..............................................................
Echo Canyon ...................................................................
Indian Creek ....................................................................
Carlink Canyon ................................................................
Jordan Canyon ................................................................
Sheephead ......................................................................
Slavin Gulch .....................................................................
Stronghold Canyon East ..................................................
Stronghold Canyon West .................................................
Empire Mountains ............................................................
Juniper Flat ......................................................................
Alamo Canyon .................................................................
Holden Canyon ................................................................
Sycamore Canyon ...........................................................
Warsaw Canyon ..............................................................
Alum Canyon ...................................................................
Chimenea-Madrona Canyon ............................................
Happy Valley North ..........................................................
Happy Valley South .........................................................
Adobe Canyon .................................................................
Gardner Canyon ..............................................................
Josephine Canyon ...........................................................
Chiricahua ........................................................................
Dragoon ............................................................................
Empire ..............................................................................
Mule ..................................................................................
Pajarito-Atascosa .............................................................
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Condition under the
‘‘moderate effects’’ scenario
Sky Island
Patagonia .........................................................................
Rincon ..............................................................................
Santa Rita .........................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Dec 05, 2019
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\06DEP3.SGM
06DEP3
Low.
Low.
Low.
Extirpated.
Extirpated.
Moderate.
Low.
Low.
Moderate.
Moderate.
Extirpated.
Low.
Low.
Extirpated.
Moderate.
Extirpated.
Extirpated.
Low.
Extirpated.
Low.
Low.
Low.
Low.
67082
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 10—BARTRAM’S STONECROP POPULATION CONDITIONS UNDER THE ‘‘MODERATE EFFECTS’’ SCENARIO—Continued
Sky Island
Whetstone ........................................................................
Sierra Las Avispas, Sonora .............................................
Sierra La Escuadra, Chihuahua .......................................
Sierra La Estancia, Chihuahua ........................................
Determination
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533),
and its implementing regulations at 50
CFR part 424, set forth the procedures
for adding species to the Federal Lists
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the
Act, we may list a species based on (A)
The present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its
habitat or range; (B) overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) disease or
predation; (D) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E)
other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence.
We have carefully assessed the best
scientific and commercial information
available regarding the past, present,
and future stressors to beardless
chinchweed and Bartram’s stonecrop.
The Act defines an endangered
species as any species that is ‘‘in danger
of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range’’ and a
threatened species as any species ‘‘that
is likely to become endangered
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range within the foreseeable future.’’
Therefore, on the basis of the best
available scientific and commercial
information, we propose listing
beardless chinchweed as endangered in
accordance with sections 3(6) and
4(a)(1) of the Act and Bartram’s
stonecrop as threatened in accordance
with sections 3(20) and 4(a)(1) of the
Act.
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Beardless Chinchweed
Historically there were 21
populations. Nine populations have
been extirpated, leaving 12 extant
populations (six in the United States
and six in Mexico). The six populations
in the United States consist of 387
individuals spread across less than 2 ha
(5 ac). The six populations have been
reported from northern Mexico, but this
information is from 1940 or earlier.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Dec 05, 2019
Jkt 250001
Condition under the
‘‘moderate effects’’ scenario
Population
Madera Canyon ...............................................................
Squaw Gulch ...................................................................
Sycamore Canyon ...........................................................
Temporal Gulch ...............................................................
Walker Canyon ................................................................
Deathtrap Canyon ............................................................
French Joe Canyon .........................................................
Sierra Las Avispas ...........................................................
Near Colonia Pacheco .....................................................
Cuarenta Casas ...............................................................
The proliferation of invasive
nonnative grasses throughout most of
the beardless chinchweed’s range has
greatly affected this species through
increased competition and altered fire
regimes. Many of these historical
locations no longer support beardless
chinchweed due to this alteration of
habitat (National Park Service 2014, pp.
3–4; Service 2014b, pp. 1–2; Service
2014c, entire; Service 2014d, pp. 1–2).
All beardless chinchweed populations
likely contain nonnative grasses,
resulting in habitat loss (Factor A).
Further, altered fire regime (Factors A
and E), which is currently or in the near
future impacting all populations, drives
the spread of nonnatives (Factor A),
exacerbating the encroachment of
nonnative grasses. Consequently, all
remaining populations of beardless
chinchweed are impacted by nonnative
grasses now or will be in the near
future. Altered precipitation (Factors A
and E), increased temperatures (Factors
A and E), and decreased annual
precipitation (Factors A and E) are
current and ongoing regional conditions
that are impacting all populations of
beardless chinchweed. These
environmental conditions exacerbate an
altered fire regime, which, in turn,
drives the spread of nonnatives. In
addition, nonnative grasses have
competitive advantage over native
grasses during periods of drought. Road
and trail maintenance (Factors A and E)
is altering habitat and likely resulting in
the direct killing of individuals in three
populations (Ruby Road, Scotia Canyon,
and Coronado National Memorial). In
addition, all individuals in these three
populations are being impacted by dust
(Factor E) from the road. These three
populations are already of low
resiliency. Two additional populations
(McCleary Canyon—Gunsight Pass and
McCleary Canyon—Wasp Canyon) will
be impacted by roads (Factor A) related
to mining operations in the near future
(Westland 2010, p. iv). All individuals
of these two populations will also be
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Extirpated.
Extirpated.
Extirpated.
Low.
Extirpated.
Low.
Extirpated.
Low.
Extirpated.
Low.
impacted by dust (Factor E). One of
these populations is already of low
resiliency and the other is of moderate
resiliency. Of the 12 populations, 11 (92
percent) are small populations (fewer
than 50 individuals). Synergistic
interactions among wildfire, nonnative
grasses, decreased precipitation, and
increased temperatures cumulatively
and cyclically impact beardless
chinchweed, and all stressors are
exacerbated in small populations
(Factor E). No conservation efforts have
been implemented for this species.
We consider beardless chinchweed to
have poor representation in the form of
potential genetic diversity (Factor E).
All but one population has fewer than
50 individuals. Small populations are
susceptible to the loss of genetic
diversity, genetic drift, and inbreeding.
There are currently six populations
spread across four mountain ranges in
the United States and six populations in
northern Mexico that are presumed
extant. Five of the six extant U.S.
populations do not have multiple
subpopulations (all but the Coronado
National Memorial population, which
has two subpopulations). Mountain
ranges that have only one or two
populations, have only have one
subpopulation per population, or have
low numbers of individuals per
population with several miles (16 to 61
km (9.9 to 37.9 mi)) between mountain
ranges, may not be genetically diverse
because pollination or transport of seeds
between populations may be very
limited. This could mean that betweenpopulation genetic diversity may be
greater than within-population diversity
(Smith and Wayne 1996, p. 333;
Lindenmayer and Peakall 2000, p. 200).
Further, nine populations are
extirpated, and it is possible that there
has been a loss of genetic diversity.
Beardless chinchweed populations in
the United States range in elevation
from 1,158 m (3,799 ft) to 1,737 m
(5,699 ft) in elevation. Of the 15
historical U.S. populations, 8
E:\FR\FM\06DEP3.SGM
06DEP3
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules
(approximately 53 percent) fall below
457 m (1,500 ft) elevation. Of these
eight, six have become extirpated in
recent decades. This essentially
indicates a loss at this lower elevational
range and possibly loss of some local
adaptation to warmer or dryer
environments and genetic
differentiation among populations
(Factor E).
Beardless chinchweed needs to have
multiple resilient populations
distributed throughout its range to
provide for redundancy. Beardless
chinchweed needs multiple resilient
populations spread over their range that
are distributed in such a way that a
catastrophic event will not result in the
loss of all populations. With the known
extant populations being separated by as
much as 35 km (21.8 mi) in southern
Arizona and even farther in northern
Mexico, there is little connection
potential between known disjunct
populations. Therefore, a localized
stressor such as grazing during
flowering would impact only those
groups of plants nearby the activity.
However, repeated, large-scale,
moderate- and high-severity fires,
nonnative plant invasion, and climatic
changes occur across the region and
could impact all populations now or in
the near future. The distance among
populations reduces connectivity among
populations and mountain ranges,
making it unlikely that a site that is
extirpated can be naturally recolonized
by another population (Factor E).
We find that beardless chinchweed is
presently in danger of extinction
throughout its entire range based on the
severity and immediacy of stressors
currently impacting the species. The
overall range has been significantly
reduced (nine populations extirpated),
and the remaining habitat and
populations are threatened by a variety
of factors acting in combination to
reduce the overall viability of the
species. The risk of extinction is high
because the remaining populations are
small, isolated, and have limited
potential for natural recolonization.
Therefore, on the basis of the best
available scientific and commercial
information, we propose listing
beardless chinchweed as endangered in
accordance with sections 3(6) and
4(a)(1) of the Act. We find that a
threatened species status is not
appropriate for beardless chinchweed
because of the species’s current
precarious condition due to its
contracted range, because the stressors
are severe and occurring rangewide, and
because the stressors are ongoing and
expected to continue into the future.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Dec 05, 2019
Jkt 250001
Under the Act and our implementing
regulations, a species may warrant
listing if it is endangered or threatened
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range. Because we have determined
that beardless chinchweed is
endangered throughout all of its range,
we find it unnecessary to proceed to an
evaluation of potentially significant
portions of the range. Where the best
available information allows the Service
to determine a status for the species
rangewide, that determination should be
given conclusive weight because a
rangewide determination of status more
accurately reflects the species’ degree of
imperilment and better promotes the
purposes of the statute. Under this
reading, we should first consider
whether listing is appropriate based on
a rangewide analysis and proceed to
conduct a ‘‘significant portion of its
range’’ analysis if, and only if, a species
does not qualify for listing as either
endangered or threatened according to
the ‘‘all’’ language. We note that the
court in Desert Survivors v. Department
of the Interior, No. 16–cv–01165–JCS,
2018 WL 4053447 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24,
2018), did not address this issue, and
our conclusion is therefore consistent
with the opinion in that case.
Therefore, on the basis of the best
available scientific and commercial
information, we propose to list
beardless chinchweed as an endangered
species across its entire range in
accordance with sections 3(6) and
4(a)(1) of the Act.
Bartram’s Stonecrop
Bartram’s stonecrop has experienced
population declines and four
populations have been lost entirely.
Currently, there are 29 extant
populations. All Bartram’s stonecrop
populations contain or are near
nonnative grasses resulting in habitat
loss in the future (Factor A). Further,
altered fire regime (Factors A and E),
which is currently and in the future
impacting all populations, drives the
spread of nonnatives (Factor A),
exacerbating the encroachment of
nonnative grasses. Consequently, all
populations of Bartram’s stonecrop will
be impacted by nonnative grasses in the
future. Altered precipitation (Factors A
and E), increased temperatures (Factors
A and E), and decreased annual
precipitation (Factors A and E) are
current and ongoing regional conditions
that are impacting all populations of
Bartram’s stonecrop. These
environmental conditions exacerbate an
altered fire regime, which, in turn,
drives the spread of nonnatives. In
addition, nonnative grasses have
competitive advantage over native
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
67083
grasses during periods of drought. Many
currently undeveloped areas of locatable
mineral deposits may be explored or
mined in the future (Factors A and E).
The range of current and projected
mining activities varies from 1 to 10 per
sky island mountain range containing
Bartram’s stonecrop (USFS 2012,
entire). One population, Sycamore
Canyon (115 adult individuals), will be
affected by groundwater drawdown due
to the Rosemont Mine, which will
impact the shade and moist
microclimate this species needs (Factor
A). This species is known to be
collected and sold (Factor B), and plants
in close proximity to trails or roads have
higher discovery potential and are,
therefore, more likely to be collected. In
addition, because approximately 47
percent of the extant Bartram’s
stonecrop populations contain 50 or
fewer individuals (Factor E), loss due to
erosion (Factors A and E), trampling
(Factor E), collection (Factor B),
predation (Factor C), and fire (Factors A
and E) has the potential to seriously
damage or completely remove these
small populations. Synergistic
interactions among wildfire, nonnative
grasses, decreased precipitation, and
increased temperatures cumulatively
and cyclically impact Bartram’s
stonecrop, and all stressors are
exacerbated in small populations
(Factor E). No conservation efforts have
been implemented for this species.
We consider Bartram’s stonecrop to
have poor representation in the form of
potential genetic diversity. Sky island
populations on different mountain
ranges are widely separated (ranging
from roughly 14 to 42 km (8.7 to 26 mi)
apart), making genetic exchange highly
unlikely. There is likely genetic
diversity among mountain ranges, but
reduced genetic diversity within
populations. Further, overall genetic
diversity is likely reduced given that
four populations are extirpated.
However, it is likely that the species’
genetic representation will be lost given
the impacts to populations through the
reduction in the number of individuals
per population and the loss of
populations (Factor E). In addition, it is
likely that ecological representation will
continue to decline as those populations
at lower elevations are lost due to
reduced precipitation and increased
temperatures (Factor E).
The Bartram’s stonecrop populations
in the United States and Mexico are
naturally fragmented between mountain
ranges. Currently, 29 extant Bartram’s
stonecrop populations are spread across
12 different mountain ranges in
southern Arizona and northern Mexico.
Although this may imply redundancy
E:\FR\FM\06DEP3.SGM
06DEP3
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3
67084
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules
across its range, note that 24 of the 29
extant populations contain fewer than
150 total individual plants. Further, 14
of the 29 populations have 50
individuals or less, and 4 populations
have been extirpated. Five mountain
ranges (Baboquivari, Chiricahua, Mule,
Whetstone, and Patagonia Mountains)
have only one or two populations each,
have only one subpopulation per
population, or have low numbers of
individuals per population. These sky
island mountain ranges are several
miles away from the other sky island
mountain ranges, so natural gene
exchange or re-establishment following
extirpation is unlikely. In addition, the
Mule Mountains contain large number
of Bartram’s stonecrop individuals, but
there is only one population, and it is
approximately 38 km (23.6 mi) away
from the nearest population, making
natural re-establishment of populations
unlikely. In addition, this population
has contracted in size due to drying of
habitat (The Nature Conservancy 1987,
p. 2; Rawoot 2017, pers. comm.).
The overall range of the species has
not been significantly reduced, although
four populations are extirpated due to
habitat drying. Currently, 29 extant
populations are spread across 12
mountain ranges, providing protection
from catastrophic events in the near
future (approximately 10 years). While
there are multiple stressors to the
remaining populations, these stressors
are not immediately impacting all
populations such that Bartram’s
stonecrop is in danger of extinction. The
stressors that pose the largest risk to
future species viability are primarily
related to habitat changes: Groundwater
extraction from mining, long-term
drought, and alteration in wildfire
regime. These are stressors that we have
high confidence in occurring and
impacting Bartram’s stonecrop within
the next 40 years. We chose a
foreseeable future of 40 years
(approximately 2060) because this is
within the range of predictions of
available hydrological and climate
change model forecasts, is within the
time period of the Rosemont Mine
effects, and represents eight generations
of the Bartram’s stonecrop, which
allows us to assess reproductive effects
on the species and allows the species
opportunities to rebound after poor
water years. The primary sources we
examined in determining foreseeable
future include the IPCC (2013 and 2014
entire) and Garfin et al. 2013 entire. The
IPCC emission scenarios projections are
for 2025 to 2049 and 2050—2074, or
approximately mid-century, under RCP
4.5 and 8.5 scenarios. This is 6 to 30 and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Dec 05, 2019
Jkt 250001
31 to 55 years, respectively, in the
future. The IPCC has high confidence
for climate projections of increased
temperature during this interval. In
addition, we examined literature
pertaining to wildfire frequency and
severity, including Westerling et al.
2006, FireScape 2016, and Fire
Management Information System 2016.
An increase in temperature results in
increased evapotranspiration rates and
soil drying, resulting in the effects of
future droughts becoming more severe
(Garfin 2013, pp. 137–138) and wildfires
becoming more frequent and of
increased intensity. Given that climate
change projections are for mid-century
and that wildfire is influenced by a
drying climate, we used 40 years as the
foreseeable future for this species. We
find that Bartram’s stonecrop is likely to
become an endangered species within
the foreseeable future (approximately 40
years) throughout all of its range based
on the severity and immediacy of
stressors.
Under the Act and our implementing
regulations, a species may warrant
listing if it is endangered or threatened
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range. Because we have determined
that the Bartram’s stonecrop is likely to
become an endangered species within
the foreseeable future throughout its
range, we find it unnecessary to proceed
to an evaluation of potentially
significant portions of the range. Where
the best available information allows the
Service to determine a status for the
species rangewide, that determination
should be given conclusive weight
because a rangewide determination of
status more accurately reflects the
species’ degree of imperilment and
better promotes the purposes of the
statute. Under this reading, we should
first consider whether listing is
appropriate based on a rangewide
analysis and proceed to conduct a
‘‘significant portion of its range’’
analysis if, and only if, a species does
not qualify for listing as either
endangered or threatened according to
the ‘‘all’’ language. We note that the
court in Desert Survivors v. Department
of the Interior, No. 16–cv–01165–JCS,
2018 WL 4053447 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24,
2018), did not address this issue, and
our conclusion is therefore consistent
with the opinion in that case.
Therefore, on the basis of the best
available scientific and commercial
information, we propose to list
Bartram’s stonecrop as a threatened
species across its entire range in
accordance with sections 3(20) and
4(a)(1) of the Act.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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, selfsustaining, and functioning components
of their ecosystems.
Recovery planning includes the
development of a recovery outline
shortly after a species is listed and
preparation of a draft and final recovery
plan. The recovery outline guides the
immediate implementation of urgent
recovery actions and describes the
process to be used to develop a recovery
plan. Revisions of the plan may be done
to address continuing or new stressors
to the species, as new substantive
information becomes available. The
recovery plan also identifies recovery
criteria for review of when a species
may be ready for downlisting
(reclassification from endangered to
threatened) or delisting (removal from
listed status), and methods for
monitoring recovery progress. Recovery
plans also establish a framework for
agencies to coordinate their recovery
efforts and provide estimates of the cost
of implementing recovery tasks.
Recovery teams (composed of species
experts, Federal and State agencies,
nongovernmental organizations, and
stakeholders) are often established to
develop recovery plans. When
completed, the recovery outline, draft
E:\FR\FM\06DEP3.SGM
06DEP3
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules
recovery plan, and the final recovery
plan will be available on our website
(https://www.fws.gov/endangered), or
from our Arizona Ecological Services
Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Implementation of recovery actions
generally requires the participation of a
broad range of partners, including other
Federal agencies, States, Tribes,
nongovernmental organizations,
businesses, and private landowners.
Examples of recovery actions include
habitat restoration (e.g., restoration of
native vegetation), research, captive
propagation and reintroduction, and
outreach and education. The recovery of
many listed species cannot be
accomplished solely on Federal lands
because their range may occur primarily
or solely on non-Federal lands. To
achieve recovery of these species
requires cooperative conservation efforts
on private, State, and Tribal lands. If
these species are listed, funding for
recovery actions will be available from
a variety of sources, including Federal
budgets, State programs, and cost share
grants for non-Federal landowners, the
academic community, and
nongovernmental organizations. In
addition, pursuant to section 6 of the
Act, the State of Arizona would be
eligible for Federal funds to implement
management actions that promote the
protection or recovery of beardless
chinchweed and Bartram’s stonecrop.
Information on our grant programs that
are available to aid species recovery can
be found at: https://www.fws.gov/grants.
Although beardless chinchweed and
Bartram’s stonecrop are only proposed
for listing under the Act at this time,
please let us know if you are interested
in participating in recovery efforts for
this species. Additionally, we invite you
to submit any new information on this
species whenever it becomes available
and any information you may have for
recovery planning purposes (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Section 7(a) of the Act requires
Federal agencies to evaluate their
actions with respect to any species that
is proposed or listed as an endangered
or threatened species and with respect
to its critical habitat, if any is
designated. Regulations implementing
this interagency cooperation provision
of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part
402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires
Federal agencies to confer with the
Service on any action that is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of a
species proposed for listing or result in
destruction or adverse modification of
proposed critical habitat. If a species is
listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of
the Act requires Federal agencies to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Dec 05, 2019
Jkt 250001
ensure that activities they authorize,
fund, or carry out are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of
the species or destroy or adversely
modify its critical habitat. If a Federal
action may affect a listed species or its
critical habitat, the responsible Federal
agency must enter into consultation
with the Service.
Beardless Chinchweed
Federal agency actions within the
species’ habitat that may require
conference or consultation or both as
described in the preceding paragraph
include management and any other
landscape-altering activities on Federal
lands administered by the U.S. Forest
Service (Coronado National Forest),
Bureau of Land Management, U.S.
Customs and Border Protection, and
National Park Service (Coronado
National Memorial).
With respect to endangered plants,
prohibitions at section 9 of the Act and
50 CFR 17.61 make it illegal for any
person subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States to import or export,
transport in interstate or foreign
commerce in the course of a commercial
activity, sell or offer for sale in interstate
or foreign commerce, or to remove and
reduce to possession any such plant
species from areas under Federal
jurisdiction. In addition, for endangered
plants, the Act prohibits malicious
damage or destruction of any such
species on any area under Federal
jurisdiction, and the removal, cutting,
digging up, or damaging or destroying of
any such species on any other area in
knowing violation of any State law or
regulation, or in the course of any
violation of a State criminal trespass
law. Exceptions to these prohibitions
are set forth at 50 CFR 17.62 and 17.63.
We may issue permits to carry out
otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered plants under
certain circumstances. Regulations
governing permits are codified at 50
CFR 17.62 and 17.63. With regard to
endangered plants, the Service may
issue a permit authorizing any activity
otherwise prohibited by 50 CFR 17.61
for scientific purposes, for enhancing
the propagation or survival of
endangered plants, or for economic
hardship. At this time, we are unable to
identify specific activities that would
not be considered to result in a violation
of section 9 of the Act because beardless
chinchweed occurs in a variety of
habitat conditions across its range.
Based on the best available
information, the following activities
may potentially result in a violation of
section 9 of the Act; this list is not
comprehensive:
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
67085
(1) Unauthorized handling or
collecting of the species;
(2) Ground-disturbing activities
within 30 m (98 ft) of individual
beardless chinchweed plants;
(3) Dislodging and trampling by
livestock;
(4) Livestock grazing during April
through October where the species
occurs; and
(5) Herbicide applications within 30
m (98 ft) of individual beardless
chinchweed plants.
Bartram’s Stonecrop
Federal agency actions within the
species’ habitat that may require
conference or consultation or both as
described in the preceding paragraph
include management and any other
landscape-altering activities on Federal
lands administered by the U.S. Forest
Service (Coronado National Forest),
Bureau of Land Management, U.S.
Customs and Border Protection, and
National Park Service (Chiricahua
National Monument and Saguaro
National Park).
With respect to threatened plants, the
Act allows the Secretary to promulgate
regulations to prohibit activities to
provide for the conservation of the
species. Under II. Proposed Section 4(d)
Rule for Bartram’s stonecrop, below, we
explain what activities we are proposing
to prohibit.
We may issue permits to carry out
otherwise prohibited activities
involving threatened plants under
certain circumstances. Regulations
governing permits are codified at 50
CFR 17.72. With regard to threatened
plants, a permit issued under this
section must be for one of the following:
Scientific purposes, the enhancement of
the propagation or survival of
threatened species, economic hardship,
botanical or horticultural exhibition,
educational purposes, or other activities
consistent with the purposes and policy
of the Act.
It is our policy, as published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34272), to identify to the maximum
extent practicable at the time a species
is listed, those activities that would or
would not constitute a violation of the
Act. The intent of this policy is to
increase public awareness of the effect
of a proposed listing on proposed and
ongoing activities within the range of
the species proposed for listing. At this
time, we are unable to identify specific
activities that would not be considered
to result in a violation of the Act
because the Bartram’s stonecrop occurs
in a variety of habitat conditions across
its range.
E:\FR\FM\06DEP3.SGM
06DEP3
67086
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules
Based on the best available
information, the following activities
may potentially result in a violation of
the Act; this list is not comprehensive:
(1) Unauthorized handling or
collecting of the species;
(2) Ground-disturbing activities
within 30 m (98 ft) of individual
Bartram’s stonecrop plants;
(3) Herbicide applications within 30
m (98 ft) of individual Bartram’s
stonecrop plants; and
(4) Dislodging and trampling by
livestock.
Questions regarding whether specific
activities would constitute a violation of
the Act should be directed to the
Arizona Ecological Services Field Office
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
II. Proposed Section 4(d) Rule for
Bartram’s Stonecrop
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Background
Section 4(d) of the Act states that the
‘‘Secretary shall issue such regulations
as he deems necessary and advisable to
provide for the conservation’’ of species
listed as threatened. In Webster v. Doe,
486 U.S. 592 (1988), the U.S. Supreme
Court noted that similar ‘‘necessary or
advisable’’ language ‘‘fairly exudes
deference’’ to the agency. Conservation
is defined in section 3 of the Act as the
use of all methods and procedures
which are necessary to bring any
endangered species or threatened
species to the point at which the
measures provided pursuant to the Act
are no longer necessary. Additionally,
section 4(d) of the Act states that the
Secretary ‘‘may by regulation prohibit
with respect to any threatened species
any act prohibited’’ under section
9(a)(2) of the Act. Thus, regulations
promulgated under section 4(d) of the
Act provide the Secretary with wide
latitude of discretion to select
appropriate provisions tailored to the
specific conservation needs of the
threatened species. The statute grants
particularly broad discretion to the
Service when adopting the prohibitions
under section 9.
The courts have recognized the extent
of the Secretary’s discretion under this
standard to develop rules that are
appropriate for the conservation of a
species. For example, the Secretary may
decide not to include a taking
prohibition for threatened wildlife, or to
include a limited taking prohibition. See
Alsea Valley Alliance v. Lautenbacher,
2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 60203 (D. Or.
2007); Washington Environmental
Council v. National Marine Fisheries
Service, and 2002 U.S. Dist. Lexis 5432
(W.D. Wash. 2002). In addition, as
affirmed in State of Louisiana v. Verity,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Dec 05, 2019
Jkt 250001
853 F.2d 322 (5th Cir. 1988), the rule
need not address all the stressors to the
species. As noted by Congress when the
Act was initially enacted, ‘‘once an
animal is on the threatened list, the
Secretary has an almost infinite number
of options available to him with regard
to the permitted activities for those
species. He may, for example, permit
taking, but not importation of such
species,’’ or he may choose to forbid
both taking and importation but allow
the transportation of such species, as
long as the prohibitions, and exceptions
to those prohibitions, will ‘‘serve to
conserve, protect, or restore the species
concerned in accordance with the
purposes of the Act’’ (H.R. Rep. No. 412,
93rd Cong., 1st Sess. 1973).
The Service has developed a speciesspecific 4(d) rule that is designed to
address Bartram’s stonecrop’s specific
stressors and conservation needs.
Although the statute does not require
the Service to make a ‘‘necessary and
advisable’’ finding with respect to the
adoption of specific prohibitions under
section 9, we find that this regulation is
necessary and advisable to provide for
the conservation of Bartram’s stonecrop.
As discussed under Summary of
Biological Status and Stressors, above,
the Service has concluded that
Bartram’s stonecrop is at risk of
extinction within the foreseeable future
primarily due to groundwater extraction
and prolonged drought that may reduce
nearby water levels and humidity
within Bartram’s stonecrop’s
microenvironment, and altered fire
regimes leading to erosion of Bartram’s
stonecrop that could dislodge plants,
sedimentation that could cover
individuals, and loss of overstory shade
trees. In addition, collection, trampling,
predation, flooding, and dislodging and
burial from recreationists, cross-border
violators, and domestic and wild
animals contribute to the risk of
extinction within the foreseeable future
due to the majority of populations being
small and isolated. The provisions of
this proposed 4(d) rule would promote
conservation of Bartram’s stonecrop by
encouraging management of the
landscape in ways that meet land
management needs while meeting the
conservation needs of Bartram’s
stonecrop. The provisions of this rule
are one of many tools that the Service
would use to promote the conservation
of Bartram’s stonecrop. This proposed
4(d) rule would apply only if and when
the Service makes final the listing of
Bartram’s stonecrop as a threatened
species.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Provisions of the Proposed Protective
Regulation
This proposed 4(d) rule would
provide for the conservation of the
Bartram’s stonecrop by applying all of
the prohibitions applicable to an
endangered plant, except as otherwise
authorized or permitted: Import or
export; certain acts related to removing,
damaging, and destroying; delivery,
receipt, transport, or shipment in
interstate or foreign commerce in the
course of commercial activity; or sale or
offering for sale in interstate or foreign
commerce. Bartram’s stonecrop is an
attractive and small plant that can be
easily collected by gardeners and
succulent enthusiasts. We have
confirmed collection from the wild and
sale in interstate commerce. Because
Bartram’s stonecrop is difficult to
propagate and maintain in captivity, it
is more vulnerable to collection than
other plants in this genus. Small
populations may not be able to recover
from collection, especially if the mature,
reproductive plants are removed.
As discussed under Summary of
Biological Status and Stressors, above,
multiple factors are affecting the status
of Bartram’s stonecrop. A range of
activities have the potential to impact
Bartram’s stonecrop, including:
(1) Unauthorized handling or
collecting of the species;
(2) Ground-disturbing activities where
the species occurs;
(3) Activities that would affect
pollinators where the species occurs
and in the surrounding area;
(4) Activities that would promote
high-severity wildfires where the
species occurs;
(5) Activities that would reduce
shade, reduce proximity to water, and
lower the water table such that the
cooler, humid microenvironment is
affected; and
(6) Herbicide applications where the
species occurs.
Regulating these activities will help
conserve the species’ remaining
populations; slow their rate of decline;
and decrease synergistic, negative
effects from other stressors.
We may issue permits to carry out
otherwise prohibited activities,
including those described above,
involving threatened plants under
certain circumstances. Regulations
governing permits are codified at 50
CFR 17.72. With regard to threatened
plants, a permit may be issued for the
following purposes: For scientific
purposes, to enhance propagation or
survival (control of nonnatives and fuel
load), for economic hardship, for
botanical or horticultural exhibition, for
E:\FR\FM\06DEP3.SGM
06DEP3
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3
educational purposes, or other activities
consistent with the purposes of the Act.
There are also certain statutory
exemptions from the prohibitions,
which are found in sections 9 and 10 of
the Act.
The Service recognizes the special
and unique relationship with our State
natural resource agency partners in
contributing to conservation of listed
species. State agencies often possess
scientific data and valuable expertise on
the status and distribution of
endangered, threatened, and candidate
species of wildlife and plants. State
agencies, because of their authorities
and their close working relationships
with local governments and
landowners, are in a unique position to
assist the Services in implementing all
aspects of the Act. In this regard, section
6 of the Act provides that the Services
shall cooperate to the maximum extent
practicable with the States in carrying
out programs authorized by the Act.
Therefore, under this proposed 4(d)
rule, any qualified employee or agent of
a State conservation agency which is a
party to a cooperative agreement with
the Service in accordance with section
6(c) of the Act, who is designated by his
or her agency for such purposes, would
be able to conduct activities designed to
conserve Bartram’s stonecrop that may
result in otherwise prohibited activities
without additional authorization.
Nothing in this proposed 4(d) rule
would change in any way the recovery
planning provisions of section 4(f) of the
Act, the consultation requirements
under section 7 of the Act, or the ability
of the Service to enter into partnerships
for the management and protection of
Bartram’s stonecrop. However,
interagency cooperation may be further
streamlined through planned
programmatic consultations for the
species between Federal agencies and
the Service. We ask the public,
particularly State agencies and other
interested stakeholders that may be
affected by the proposed 4(d) rule, to
provide comments and suggestions
regarding additional guidance and
methods that the Service could provide
or use, respectively, to streamline the
implementation of this proposed 4(d)
rule (see Information Requested, above).
III. Proposed Critical Habitat
Designation for Beardless Chinchweed
and Prudency Determination for
Bartram’s Stonecrop
Background
Critical habitat is defined in section 3
of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the
geographical area occupied by the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Dec 05, 2019
Jkt 250001
species, at the time it is listed in
accordance with the Act, on which are
found those physical or biological
features
(a) Essential to the conservation of the
species, and
(b) Which may require special
management considerations or
protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the
geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it is listed, upon a
determination that such areas are
essential for the conservation of the
species.
Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02
define the geographical area occupied
by the species as an area that may
generally be delineated around species’
occurrences, as determined by the
Secretary of the Interior (i.e., range).
Such areas may include those areas
used throughout all or part of the
species’ life cycle, even if not used on
a regular basis (e.g., migratory corridors,
seasonal habitats, and habitats used
periodically, but not solely by vagrant
individuals).
Conservation, as defined under
section 3 of the Act, means to use and
the use of all methods and procedures
that are necessary to bring an
endangered or threatened species to the
point at which the measures provided
pursuant to the Act are no longer
necessary. Such methods and
procedures include, but are not limited
to, all activities associated with
scientific resources management such as
research, census, law enforcement,
habitat acquisition and maintenance,
propagation, live trapping, and
transplantation, and, in the
extraordinary case where population
pressures within a given ecosystem
cannot be otherwise relieved, may
include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection
under section 7 of the Act through the
requirement that Federal agencies
ensure, in consultation with the Service,
that any action they authorize, fund, or
carry out is not likely to result in the
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. The designation of
critical habitat does not affect land
ownership or establish a refuge,
wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other
conservation area. Such designation
does not allow the government or public
to access private lands. Such
designation does not require
implementation of restoration, recovery,
or enhancement measures by nonFederal landowners. Where a landowner
requests Federal agency funding or
authorization for an action that may
affect a listed species or critical habitat,
the consultation requirements of section
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
67087
7(a)(2) of the Act would apply, but even
in the event of a destruction or adverse
modification finding, the obligation of
the Federal action agency and the
landowner is not to restore or recover
the species, but to implement
reasonable and prudent alternatives to
avoid destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat.
Under the first prong of the Act’s
definition of critical habitat, areas
within the geographical area occupied
by the species at the time it was listed
are included in a critical habitat
designation if they contain physical or
biological features (1) which are
essential to the conservation of the
species and (2) which may require
special management considerations or
protection. For these areas, critical
habitat designations identify, to the
extent known using the best scientific
and commercial data available, those
physical or biological features that are
essential to the conservation of the
species (such as space, food, cover, and
protected habitat). In identifying those
physical or biological features that occur
in specific areas, we focus on the
specific features that are essential to
support the life-history needs of the
species, including but not limited to,
water characteristics, soil type,
geological features, prey, vegetation,
symbiotic species, or other features. A
feature may be a single habitat
characteristic, or a more complex
combination of habitat characteristics.
Features may include habitat
characteristics that support ephemeral
or dynamic habitat conditions. Features
may also be expressed in terms relating
to principles of conservation biology,
such as patch size, distribution
distances, and connectivity.
Under the second prong of the Act’s
definition of critical habitat, we can
designate critical habitat in areas
outside the geographical area occupied
by the species at the time it is listed,
upon a determination that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the
species. When designating critical
habitat, the Secretary will first evaluate
areas occupied by the species. The
Secretary will only consider unoccupied
areas to be essential where a critical
habitat designation limited to
geographical areas occupied by the
species would be inadequate to ensure
the conservation of the species. In
addition, for an unoccupied area to be
considered essential, the Secretary must
determine that there is a reasonable
certainty both that the area will
contribute to the conservation of the
species and that the area contains one
or more of those physical or biological
E:\FR\FM\06DEP3.SGM
06DEP3
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3
67088
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules
features essential to the conservation of
the species.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we
designate critical habitat on the basis of
the best scientific data available.
Further, our Policy on Information
Standards Under the Act (published in
the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59
FR 34271)), the Information Quality Act
(section 515 of the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act for
Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106–554; H.R.
5658)), and our associated Information
Quality Guidelines, provide criteria,
establish procedures, and provide
guidance to ensure that our decisions
are based on the best scientific data
available. They require our biologists, to
the extent consistent with the Act and
with the use of the best scientific data
available, to use primary and original
sources of information as the basis for
recommendations to designate critical
habitat.
When we are determining which areas
should be designated as critical habitat,
our primary source of information is
generally the information from the SSA
report and information developed
during the listing process for the
species. Additional information sources
may include any generalized
conservation strategy, criteria, or outline
that may have been developed for the
species; the recovery plan for the
species; articles in peer-reviewed
journals; conservation plans developed
by States and counties; scientific status
surveys and studies; biological
assessments; other unpublished
materials; or experts’ opinions or
personal knowledge.
Habitat is dynamic, and species may
move from one area to another over
time. We recognize that critical habitat
designated at a particular point in time
may not include all of the habitat areas
that we may later determine are
necessary for the recovery of the
species. For these reasons, a critical
habitat designation does not signal that
habitat outside the designated area is
unimportant or may not be needed for
recovery of the species. Areas that are
important to the conservation of the
species, both inside and outside the
critical habitat designation, will
continue to be subject to: (1)
Conservation actions implemented
under section 7(a)(1) of the Act; (2)
regulatory protections afforded by the
requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act
for Federal agencies to ensure their
actions are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of any endangered
or threatened species; and (3) the Act’s
prohibitions on taking any individual of
the species, including taking caused by
actions that affect habitat. Federally
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Dec 05, 2019
Jkt 250001
funded or permitted projects affecting
listed species outside their designated
critical habitat areas may still result in
jeopardy findings in some cases. These
protections and conservation tools will
continue to contribute to recovery of
this species. Similarly, critical habitat
designations made on the basis of the
best available information at the time of
designation will not control the
direction and substance of future
recovery plans, habitat conservation
plans (HCPs), or other species
conservation planning efforts, if new
information available at the time of
these planning efforts calls for a
different outcome.
Prudency Determination
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as
amended, and implementing regulations
(50 CFR 424.12), require that, to the
maximum extent prudent and
determinable, the Secretary shall
designate critical habitat at the time the
species is determined to be an
endangered or threatened species. Our
regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state
that the Secretary may, but is not
required to, determine that a
designation would not be prudent in the
following circumstances:
(i) The species is threatened by taking
or other human activity and
identification of critical habitat can be
expected to increase the degree of such
threat to the species;
(ii) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or
curtailment of a species’ habitat or range
is not a threat to the species, or threats
to the species’ habitat stem solely from
causes that cannot be addressed through
management actions resulting from
consultations under section 7(a)(2) of
the Act;
(iii) Areas within the jurisdiction of
the United States provide no more than
negligible conservation value, if any, for
a species occurring primarily outside
the jurisdiction of the United States;
(iv) No areas meet the definition of
critical habitat; or
(v) The Secretary otherwise
determines that designation of critical
habitat would not be prudent based on
the best scientific data available.
Beardless Chinchweed
We did not identify any of the factors
above to apply to the beardless
chinchweed. Therefore, we find
designation of critical habitat is prudent
for the species.
Bartram’s Stonecrop
As described above, there is currently
an imminent threat of take attributed to
collection or vandalism identified under
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Factor B for this species, and
identification and mapping of critical
habitat is expected to increase such
threat because when we designate
critical habitat, we publish detailed
maps and descriptions of species’
occurrences in the Federal Register,
which in this case, could make this
species more vulnerable to the threats
identified under Factor B. Because we
have determined that the designation of
critical habitat will likely increase the
degree of threat to the species, we find
that designation of critical habitat is not
prudent for Bartram’s stonecrop.
Critical Habitat Determinability for
Beardless Chinchweed
Having determined that designation is
prudent for beardless chinchweed,
under section 4(a)(3) of the Act, we
must find whether critical habitat for
the species is determinable. Our
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(2) state
that critical habitat is not determinable
when one or both of the following
situations exist:
(i) Data sufficient to perform required
analyses are lacking, or
(ii) The biological needs of the species
are not sufficiently well known to
identify any area that meets the
definition of ‘‘critical habitat.’’
When critical habitat is not
determinable, the Act allows the Service
an additional year to publish a critical
habitat designation (16 U.S.C.
1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)).
We reviewed the available
information pertaining to the biological
needs of the species and habitat
characteristics where this species is
located. This and other information
represent the best scientific data
available and led us to conclude that the
designation of critical habitat is
determinable for beardless chinchweed.
Physical or Biological Features for
Beardless Chinchweed
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i)
of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR
424.12(b), in determining which areas
within the geographical area occupied
by the species at the time of listing to
designate as critical habitat, we consider
the physical or biological features that
are essential to the conservation of the
species and which may require special
management considerations or
protection. For example, physical
features might include gravel of a
particular size required for spawning,
alkali soil for seed germination,
protective cover for migration, or
susceptibility to flooding or fire that
maintains necessary early-successional
habitat characteristics. Biological
features might include prey species,
E:\FR\FM\06DEP3.SGM
06DEP3
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3
forage grasses, specific kinds or ages of
trees for roosting or nesting, symbiotic
fungi, or a particular level of nonnative
species consistent with conservation
needs of the listed species. The features
may also be combinations of habitat
characteristics and may encompass the
relationship between characteristics or
the necessary amount of a characteristic
needed to support the life history of the
species. In considering whether features
are essential to the conservation of the
species, the Service may consider an
appropriate quality, quantity, and
spatial and temporal arrangement of
habitat characteristics in the context of
the life-history needs, condition, and
status of the species. These
characteristics include, but are not
limited to, space for individual and
population growth and for normal
behavior; food, water, air, light,
minerals, or other nutritional or
physiological requirements; cover or
shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction,
or rearing (or development) of offspring;
and habitats that are protected from
disturbance.
Summary of Essential Physical or
Biological Features
We derive the specific physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of beardless chinchweed
from studies of this species’ habitat,
ecology, and life history, as described
below. We have determined that the
following physical or biological features
are essential to the conservation of
beardless chinchweed:
(1) Native-dominated plant
communities, consisting of:
(a) Plains, great basin, and semi-desert
grasslands, oak savanna, or Madrean
evergreen woodland;
(b) Communities dominated by
bunchgrasses with open spacing
(adjacent to and within 10 m (33 ft) of
individual beardless chinchweed) and
with little competition from other
plants; and
(c) Communities with plants for
pollinator foraging and nesting within 1
km (0.62 mi) of beardless chinchweed
populations.
(2) 1,158 to 1,737 m (3,799 to 5,699
ft) elevation.
(3) Eroding limestone or granite
bedrock substrate.
(4) Steep, south-facing, sunny to
partially shaded hillslopes.
(5) The presence of pollinators (i.e.,
flies, bees, and butterflies).
Space for individual and population
growth is needed for beardless
chinchweed, including sites for
germination, pollination, reproduction,
pollen and seed dispersal, and seed
banks in the form of open, native-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Dec 05, 2019
Jkt 250001
dominated desert grasslands, oak
savannas, and oak woodlands at 1,158
to 1,737 m (3,799 to 5,699 ft) in
elevation (SEINet, entire). In addition,
plants need space on steep, southfacing, sunny to partially shaded
hillslopes, with eroding bedrock and
open areas with little competition from
other plants. Native-dominated habitats
have diverse assemblages of vegetation,
each with different-shaped and -sized
canopy and root system, which creates
heterogeneity of form, height, and
patchiness and provides openness.
Beardless chinchweed is presumed to be
a poor competitor due to its preference
for this open habitat and inability to
find the species under dense vegetation
conditions. Pollination is necessary for
effective fertilization, out-crossing, and
seed production in beardless
chinchweed. Beardless chinchweed,
like other yellow-flowered composites,
is most likely pollinated by bees, flies,
and butterflies. Many bees and
butterflies can travel a distance of 1 km
(0.62 mi); consequently, adequate space
for pollinators is needed around
beardless chinchweed populations to
support pollinators and, therefore,
cross-pollination within and among
populations and subpopulations. In
addition, open space is needed in the
form of seedbanks for population
growth. Further, beardless chinchweed
populations need space with soil
moisture and nutrients for individual
and population growth.
Beardless chinchweed needs multiple
populations distributed across its range
that are large enough to withstand
stochastic events, and connectivity to
reestablish extirpated populations.
Species that are widely-distributed are
considered less susceptible to extinction
and more likely to be viable than
species confined to small ranges (Carroll
et al. 2010, entire). Historically, there
were 21 populations across seven
mountain ranges. Nine populations (and
one subpopulation) have been
extirpated in the United States, and all
populations are extirpated from the
Patagonia Mountains in the United
States. This leaves six populations
across four mountains ranges covering
an occupied area of about 2 ha (5 ac) in
the United States and six small
populations in Mexico. Further, two
mountain ranges only have one
population each with fewer than 50
individuals. In addition, the other two
mountain ranges have only two
populations each, both with fewer than
50 individuals each. The current
distribution of this species does not
represent its historical geographical
distribution. Additional populations are
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
67089
needed to increase the redundancy of
the species to secure the species from
catastrophic events like wildfire and
nonnative grass encroachment.
Increased representation in the form of
ecological environments are needed to
secure the species against
environmental changes like increase
temperatures, increase drought, and
increased evapotranspiration.
Specifically, populations at higher
altitudes are likely needed to secure the
species viability.
All populations need protection from
wildfires of high severity and of greater
frequency than was known historically
and from nonnative grass encroachment.
Further, all populations need protection
from stressors related to one or more of
the following activities: Recreation, road
and trail maintenance, grazing,
trampling, and mining. As discussed
above, these stressors are currently, or
will in the near future, impact all
populations. Protection is needed from
these stressors to ensure the
conservation of the species.
The minimum viable population size
for this species is unknown. General
conservation biology indicates that at
least 500 individual are needed for a
minimum viable population. Currently,
11 of the 12 populations have fewer
than 50 individuals. In Arizona, there
are currently 387 individual beardless
chinchweed spread across less than 2 ha
(5 ac) within six extant populations
spread across the four mountain ranges.
Space, in the form of habitat described
above, is needed for an increase in the
number of populations and the number
of individuals per population.
Specific details about the physical or
biological features essential to this
species are described above in the
background section and in the SSA
report (Service 2018a).
Special Management Considerations or
Protection for Beardless Chinchweed
When designating critical habitat, we
assess whether the specific areas within
the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing contain
features which are essential to the
conservation of the species and which
may require special management
considerations or protection. The
features essential to the conservation of
this species may require special
management considerations or
protection to reduce the following
stressors: Altered fire regime, nonnative
grass encroachment, grazing, erosion,
and burial (see Table 11 below). Special
management considerations or
protection are required within critical
habitat areas to address these stressors.
Management activities that could
E:\FR\FM\06DEP3.SGM
06DEP3
67090
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules
ameliorate these stressors include (but
are not limited to): Prescribed fire, fire
breaks, reduction of nonnative grasses,
promotion or introduction of native
forbs and grasses, clean equipment,
exclosure fences, and protection from
erosion and burial. These management
activities will protect the physical or
biological features for the species by
reducing or avoiding the encroachment
or expansion of nonnative grass species,
promoting native vegetation, and
preventing the succession of vegetation
such that open space and sun exposure
are reduced or eliminated.
TABLE 11—FEATURES THAT MAY REQUIRE SPECIAL MANAGEMENT
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Features that may
require special
management
Stressors to features
Native-dominated plant
communities.
Altered fire regime;
nonnative grasses;
grazing; road and
trail maintenance.
Plants for pollinators ....
Altered fire regime;
nonnative grasses.
Open, sunny sites .......
Altered fire regime;
nonnative grasses.
Criteria Used To Identify Critical
Habitat for Beardless Chinchweed
As required by section 4(b)(2) of the
Act, we use the best scientific data
available to designate critical habitat.
Sources of data for this species include
multiple databases maintained by the
Arizona Natural Heritage Program,
existing endangered species reports, and
interviews with species experts. We
have also reviewed available
information that pertains to the habitat
requirements of this species.
In accordance with the Act and our
implementing regulations at 50 CFR
424.12(b), we review available
information pertaining to the habitat
requirements of the species and identify
specific areas within the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time
of listing and any specific areas outside
the geographical area occupied by the
species to be considered for designation
as critical habitat. We are proposing to
designate critical habitat in areas within
the geographical area currently
occupied by the species (i.e., at the time
of proposed listing). We also are
proposing to designate specific areas
outside the geographical area currently
occupied by the species that were
historically occupied, but are presently
unoccupied, because we have
determined that a designation limited to
occupied areas would be inadequate to
ensure the conservation of the species.
The current distribution of beardless
chinchweed is reduced from its
historical distribution to a level where
it is in danger of extinction. We
anticipate that recovery will require
continued protection of existing
populations and habitat, as well as
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Dec 05, 2019
Jkt 250001
Special management or protection to address
stressor
Features protected by
Fire breaks around populations; prescribed
fires; reduction of nonnative grasses; clean
equipment to limit the spread of nonnatives; promotion or introduction of native
forbs and grasses.
Fire breaks around populations; prescribed
fires; reduction of nonnative grasses; promotion or introduction of native forbs and
grasses.
Avoidance of encroachment of nonnatives
from wildfires and drought; promotion of
native species through natural fire regime;
avoidance of introducing nonnative species.
Avoidance of encroachment of nonnatives
from wildfires and drought; promotion of
native species through natural fire regime;
avoidance of introducing nonnative species.
Elimination or reduction of the loss of open
space and sun exposure.
Prescribed fires; reduction of nonnative
grasses; promotion or introduction of native
forbs and grasses.
reestablishment of populations at a
subset of previously occupied habitats
throughout the species’ historical range
in the United States. Reestablishment of
additional populations will help to
ensure that catastrophic events, such as
wildfire, cannot simultaneously affect
all known populations. We have
determined that it is reasonably certain
that the unoccupied areas will
contribute to the conservation of the
species and contain one or more of the
physical or biological features that are
essential to the conservation of the
species.
Areas Occupied at the Time of Listing
The proposed critical habitat
designation does not include all
populations known to have been
occupied by the species historically;
instead, it includes all currently
occupied areas within the historical
range that have retained the necessary
physical or biological features that will
allow for the maintenance and
expansion of these existing populations.
The following populations meet the
definition of areas occupied by the
species at the time of listing: McCleary
Canyon, Audubon Research Ranch,
Scotia Canyon, Coronado National
Memorial, and Ruby Road.
Areas Outside of the Geographic Range
at the Time of Listing
Pena Blanca Lake, Summit Motorway,
Copper Mountain, Lampshire Well,
Harshaw Creek, Flux Canyon,
Washington Camp, Box Canyon, and
Joe’s Canyon are within the historical
range of beardless chinchweed, but are
not within the geographic range
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
currently occupied by the species. We
consider these sites to be extirpated. For
areas not occupied by the species at the
time of listing, we must demonstrate
that these areas are essential to the
conservation of the species in order to
include them in our critical habitat
designation. To determine if these areas
are essential for the conservation of
beardless chinchweed, we considered
the life history, status, and conservation
needs of the species such as: (1) The
importance of the site to the overall
status of the species to prevent
extinction and contribute to future
recovery of beardless chinchweed; (2)
whether the area could be restored to
support beardless chinchweed; (3)
whether the site provides connectivity
between occupied sites for genetic
exchange; and (4) whether a population
of the species could be reestablished in
the area.
Of the unoccupied areas, Lampshire
Well, Harshaw Creek, and Washington
Camp on U.S. Forest Service lands
contain a mixture of native and
nonnative grasses that could be restored
to native conditions, thus making them
suitable for reestablishment of the
species, and they are important to the
overall status of the species. The
reestablishment of the Washington
Camp population would reintroduce the
species into the Patagonia Mountains,
where currently it is extirpated. The
reestablishment of beardless
chinchweed into the Patagonia
Mountains would restore the historical
range of the species in terms of
occupied mountain ranges. This area
would provide key representation and
redundancy needed for conservation of
E:\FR\FM\06DEP3.SGM
06DEP3
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules
the species. Further, the addition of two
reestablished populations in the Canelo
Hills would increase the redundancy of
the species in this area and reduce the
chance that a catastrophic event would
eliminate all populations in this area.
Currently, there is only one population
with 37 individuals in the Canelo Hills.
Of the remaining historical
populations in the United States, Pena
Blanca Lake, Summit Motorway, Copper
Mountain, Box Canyon, Joe’s Canyon,
and Flux Canyon are heavily infested
with nonnative grasses to an extent
where restoration of native vegetation is
not likely feasible. Reestablishment of
the species to these historical sites is not
likely to be successful and, therefore,
not likely to contribute to the recovery
of the species. Therefore, these
remaining historical sites are not
included in the proposed designation of
critical habitat.
In summary, for areas within the
geographic area occupied by the species
at the time of listing (i.e., currently
occupied), we delineated critical habitat
unit boundaries by evaluating the
habitat suitability of areas within the
geographic area occupied at the time of
listing, and retaining those units that
contain some or all of the physical or
biological features to support lifehistory functions essential for
conservation of the species.
For areas outside the geographic area
occupied by the species at the time of
listing, we delineated critical habitat
unit boundaries by evaluating areas not
known to have been occupied at listing
(i.e., that are not currently occupied) but
that are within the historical range of
the species to determine if they are
essential to the survival and recovery of
the species. Essential areas are those
that: (1) Serve to extend an occupied
unit; and (2) expand the geographic
distribution within areas not occupied
at the time of listing across the historical
range of the species.
We conclude that the areas we are
proposing for critical habitat provide for
the conservation of beardless
chinchweed because they include
habitat for all extant populations and
include habitat for connectivity and
dispersal opportunities within units.
Such opportunities for dispersal assist
in maintaining the population structure
and distribution of the species. In
addition, the unoccupied units each
contain one or more of the physical or
biological features and are likely to
provide for the conservation of the
species. Each of the unoccupied areas
are on lands managed by the Coronado
National Forest. The Forest Plan for the
Coronado contains several important
guidelines that would contribute to the
conservation of beardless chinchweed
including control of nonnative
vegetation, promotion of native grasses,
and protections for species listed under
the Endangered Species Act (USDA
Forest Service 2018). Designation of
critical habitat would facilitate the
application of this guidance where it
would do the most good for the
beardless chinchweed.
As a final step, we evaluated occupied
units and refined the area by evaluating
the presence or absence of appropriate
physical or biological features. We
selected the boundary of a unit to
include 1 km (0.62 mi) of foraging and
reproductive habitat for pollinators that
are necessary for beardless chinchweed.
We then mapped critical habitat units
using ArcMap version 10
(Environmental Systems Research
Institute, Inc.), a geographic information
systems (GIS) program.
The areas we are proposing for
designation as critical habitat provide
sufficient habitat for recruitment,
pollinators, seed bank, and seed
dispersal. In general, the physical or
biological features of critical habitat are
contained within 1 km (0.62 mi) of
beardless chinchweed plants within the
population.
When determining proposed critical
habitat boundaries, we made every
effort to avoid including developed
areas such as lands covered by
buildings, pavement, and other
structures because such lands lack the
physical or biological features necessary
for beardless chinchweed. The scale of
the maps we prepared under the
parameters for publication within the
Code of Federal Regulations may not
reflect the exclusion of such developed
lands. Any such lands inadvertently left
inside critical habitat boundaries shown
on the maps of this proposed rule have
been excluded by text in the proposed
rule and are not proposed for
designation as critical habitat.
Therefore, if the critical habitat is made
final as proposed, a Federal action
involving these lands would not trigger
section 7 consultation with respect to
critical habitat and the requirement of
no adverse modification unless the
specific action would affect the physical
or biological features in the adjacent
critical habitat.
We are proposing for designation as
critical habitat lands that we have
determined are occupied at the time of
listing (i.e., currently occupied) and
contain one or more of the physical or
biological features that are essential to
support life-history processes of the
species. We have determined that
occupied areas are inadequate to ensure
the conservation of the species.
Therefore, we have also identified, and
are proposing for designation of critical
habitat, unoccupied areas that are
essential for the conservation of the
species.
Units are proposed for designation
based on one or more of the physical or
biological features being present to
support beardless chinchweed lifehistory processes. Some units contain
all of the identified physical or
biological features and support multiple
life-history processes. Some units
contain only some of the physical or
biological features necessary to support
beardless chinchweed’ particular use of
that habitat.
The critical habitat designation is
defined by the map, as modified by any
accompanying regulatory text, presented
at the end of this document under
Proposed Regulation Promulgation. We
include more detailed information on
the boundaries of the critical habitat
designation in the preamble of this
document. We will make the
coordinates or plot points or both on
which the map is based available to the
public on https://www.regulations.gov at
Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2018–0104, on
our internet site at https://www.fws.gov/
southwest/es/arizona/Docs_
Species.htm, and at the field office
responsible for the designation (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above).
Proposed Critical Habitat Designation
for Beardless Chinchweed
We are proposing to designate
approximately 10,604 ac (4,291 ha) in
eight units as critical habitat for
beardless chinchweed. The critical
habitat areas we describe below
constitute our current best assessment of
areas that meet the definition of critical
habitat for beardless chinchweed. The
eight units we propose as critical habitat
are listed in Table 12.
TABLE 12—PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS AND OCCUPANCY OF BEARDLESS CHINCHWEED
Critical habitat unit
Occupied at the
time of listing
Ownership
1—McCleary Canyon ............................
Yes ........................
Forest Service .......................................
1,686 ac (682 ha).
Fmt 4701
06DEP3
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Dec 05, 2019
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Sfmt 4702
67091
E:\FR\FM\06DEP3.SGM
Size of unit in acres
(hectares)
67092
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 12—PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS AND OCCUPANCY OF BEARDLESS CHINCHWEED—Continued
Critical habitat unit
Occupied at the
time of listing
Ownership
Size of unit in acres
(hectares)
2—Audubon Research Ranch ..............
Yes ........................
3—Scotia Canyon .................................
4—Coronado National Memorial ...........
5—Lampshire Well ................................
6—Harshaw Creek ................................
7—Washington Camp ...........................
8—Ruby Road .......................................
Yes ........................
Yes ........................
No ..........................
No ..........................
No ..........................
Yes ........................
Bureau of Land Management (BLM),
Forest Service, Private (Audubon
Research Ranch).
Forest Service .......................................
National Park Service ...........................
Forest Service .......................................
Forest Service .......................................
Forest Service .......................................
Forest Service .......................................
1,170 ac (474 ha) BLM; 817 ac (331
ha) Forest Service; 300 ac (121 ha)
private.
855 ac (346 ha).
2,109 ac (853 ha).
939 ac (380 ha).
1,013 ac (410 ha).
939 ac (380 ha).
776 ac (314 ha).
Total ...............................................
...............................
...............................................................
10,604 ac (4,291 ha).
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.
proposed unit would overlap with
designated critical habitat for jaguar.
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3
We present brief descriptions of all
units, and reasons why they meet the
definition of critical habitat for
beardless chinchweed, below.
Unit 1: McCleary Canyon
The McCleary Canyon unit occurs in
the northeastern portion of the Santa
Rita Mountains in Pima County,
Arizona, and is managed by the U.S.
Forest Service. This unit is 1,686 ac (682
ha) in size and is currently occupied.
The unit contains two extant
populations: Gunsight Pass and Wasp
Canyon. Each population within the
McCleary Canyon unit supports 32
individual beardless chinchweed plants.
The proposed Rosemont Copper Mine
occurs in this unit, and there is ongoing
and historical mining activity
throughout the Santa Rita Mountains.
This unit also receives significant
recreational pressure and livestock
grazing. The Gunsight Pass population
is one of the few populations within the
range of beardless chinchweed where
native grass species dominate the site.
The Wasp Canyon population has a
mixture of native and nonnative grass
species. The McCleary Canyon unit
provides at least one of the following
essential physical and biological
features needed for this species:
Appropriate native plant communities
(despite the presence of some nonnative
species), elevation, substrates, and slope
aspect. The physical and biological
features in this unit may require special
management considerations including
reduction in nonnative grass presence,
promotion of native forbs and grasses,
removal of livestock between April and
October, and the creation of exclosures.
This unit includes habitat for species
already listed under the Act, including
the jaguar (Panthera onca); ocelot
(Leopardus (=Felis) pardalis); Mexican
spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida);
yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus
americanus); and Chiricahua leopard
frog (Lithobates chiricahuensis). This
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Dec 05, 2019
Jkt 250001
Unit 2: Audubon Research Ranch
The Audubon Research Ranch unit
occurs in the northern portion of the
Canelo Hills in Santa Cruz County,
Arizona, and is managed by the
Audubon Society and some plants occur
on the Coronado National Forest. This
unit is 2,287 ac (926 ha) in size and is
currently occupied. The O’Donnell
Canyon population is currently extant
but there was one additional
population, Post Canyon that occurred
here historically. The Audubon
Research Ranch unit supports 37
individual beardless chinchweed plants
and is dominated by native grass
species. The Audubon Research Ranch
unit provides the physical and
biological features in this unit may
require special management
considerations, including reduction in
nonnative grass presence, promotion of
native forbs and grasses. This unit
includes habitat for species already
listed under the Act: Jaguar, ocelot,
Mexican spotted owl, yellow-billed
cuckoo, Chiricahua leopard frog, Gila
chub (Gila intermedia), northern
Mexican gartersnake (Thamnophis
eques megalops), and Huachuca waterumbel (Lilaeopsis schaffneriana var.
recurva). In addition, this unit includes
designated critical habitat for
Chiricahua leopard frog, Gila chub, and
Huachuca water-umbel, and proposed
critical habitat for northern Mexican
gartersnake.
Unit 3: Scotia Canyon
The Scotia Canyon unit occurs on the
western slopes of the Huachuca
Mountains in Cochise County, Arizona,
and is managed by the U.S. Forest
Service. This unit is 855 ac (346 ha) in
size and is currently occupied by
beardless chinchweed. There is one
extant population that is estimated to
contain 100 individual beardless
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
chinchweed plants. This unit has been
impacted by historical mining, grazing,
and wildfire. High recreational use also
occurs in this unit. The Scotia Canyon
unit is one of the few sites within the
range of beardless chinchweed where
native grass species dominate the site.
The Scotia Canyon unit provides at least
one of the following essential physical
and biological features needed for this
species: Appropriate native plant
communities, elevation, substrates, and
slope aspect. The physical and
biological features in this unit may
require special management
considerations, including reduction in
nonnative grass presence, promotion of
native forbs and grasses, reduction in
road maintenance activity, removal of
livestock between April and October,
and the creation of exclosures. This unit
includes habitat for species already
listed under the Act: Jaguar, ocelot,
Mexican spotted owl, yellow-billed
cuckoo, Chiricahua leopard frog,
northern Mexican gartersnake, and
Huachuca water-umbel. In addition, this
unit includes designated critical habitat
for jaguar and Huachuca water-umbel,
and proposed critical habitat for
northern Mexican gartersnake.
Unit 4: Coronado National Memorial
The Coronado National Memorial unit
occurs in the southern portion of the
Huachuca Mountains in Cochise
County, Arizona, and is managed by the
National Park Service. This unit is 2,109
ac (853 ha) in size and is occupied. The
unit contains two extant
subpopulations: The visitor’s center and
the State of Texas mine. The area
around the visitor’s center supports
approximately 180 individual beardless
chinchweed plants. Another 61 plants
have been documented in the vicinity of
the State of Texas mine. Additionally,
the historical subpopulation, Joe’s
Canyon Trail, occurs within this unit
and is not currently occupied. This unit
supports a high level of recreational use,
E:\FR\FM\06DEP3.SGM
06DEP3
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3
historical mining use, and ongoing
impacts from wildfire. Portions of the
Coronado National Memorial unit are
dominated by native grass species,
while other areas are a mixture of native
and nonnative grasses. The Coronado
National Memorial unit provides at least
one of the following essential physical
and biological features needed for this
species: Appropriate native plant
communities (although there is a
nonnative presence), elevation,
substrates, and slope aspect. The
physical and biological features in this
unit may require special management
considerations, including reduction in
nonnative grass presence and promotion
of native forbs and grasses. This unit
includes habitat for species already
listed under the Act: Jaguar, ocelot,
Mexican spotted owl, yellow-billed
cuckoo, Chiricahua leopard frog,
northern Mexican gartersnake, and
Huachuca water-umbel. In addition, this
unit includes designated critical habitat
for jaguar and Mexican spotted owl.
Unit 5: Lampshire Well
The Lampshire Well unit occurs in
the Canelo Hills in Santa Cruz County,
Arizona, and is managed by the U.S.
Forest Service. This unit is 939 ac (380
ha) in size and is currently unoccupied.
Historically, beardless chinchweed
populations occurred on this unit. This
unit is characterized by communities of
mixed native and nonnative grasses, and
is subject to border activities (foot traffic
and increased fire ignition) and wildfire.
This unit includes habitat for species
already listed under the Act: Jaguar,
ocelot, Mexican spotted owl, yellowbilled cuckoo, Chiricahua leopard frog,
northern Mexican gartersnake,
Huachuca water-umbel, and Canelo
Hills ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes
delitescens). In addition, this unit
includes designated critical habitat for
jaguar and proposed critical habitat
northern Mexican gartersnake.
Although it is considered unoccupied,
this unit contains all of the physical or
biological features essential for the
conservation of the species. This unit
consists of a mix of native and
nonnative grasses, with scattered
Quercus and Juniperus, at an elevation
of 1,646 m (5,400 ft), on granitic
substrate with steep slopes facing the
southwest. There are areas in this unit
with more native grasses than nonnative
grasses. This unit is in Federal
ownership managed by the U.S. Forest
Service. The U.S. Forest Service is
committed to managing for the recovery
of listed species, reducing nonnative
invasive species, and managing fuel
loads to reduce potential for high
intensity wildfire (USDA Forest Service
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Dec 05, 2019
Jkt 250001
2018). The Lampshire Well unit is
essential to the conservation of the
species because it provides for habitat
and population restoration
opportunities, as well as provides
habitat connectivity for beardless
chinchweed and its pollinators.
Recovery of this species will require
new and expanded populations, and
this unit provides for this needed
recovery habitat that will contribute to
the species’ resiliency (larger and more
populations), redundancy (more
populations across the range), and
representation (opportunities for
increased genetic and environmental
variation). We have determined that this
unoccupied unit contains one or more
of the physical or biological features
that are essential to the conservation of
the species and that it is reasonably
certain that it will contribute to the
conservation of the species.
Unit 6: Harshaw Creek
The Harshaw Creek unit occurs in the
Canelo Hills in Santa Cruz County,
Arizona, and is managed by the U.S.
Forest Service. This unit is 1,013 ac (410
ha) in size and is currently unoccupied.
Historically, beardless chinchweed
populations occurred on this unit. This
unit is characterized by communities of
mixed native and nonnative grasses, and
is subject to border activities and
wildfire. This unit includes habitat for
species already listed under the Act:
Jaguar, ocelot, Mexican spotted owl,
yellow-billed cuckoo, Chiricahua
leopard frog, northern Mexican
gartersnake, Huachuca water-umbel,
and Canelo Hills ladies’-tresses. In
addition, this unit includes designated
critical habitat for jaguar and proposed
critical habitat for northern Mexican
gartersnake.
Although it is considered unoccupied,
portions of this unit contain all of the
physical or biological features essential
for the conservation of the species. This
unit consists of a mix of native and
nonnative grasses, with scattered
Quercus and Juniperus, at an elevation
of 1,494 m (4,900 ft), on granitic, rocky
substrate with steep slopes facing the
southwest. There are areas in this unit
with more native grasses than nonnative
grasses. This unit is in Federal
ownership managed by the U.S. Forest
Service. The U.S. Forest Service is
committed to managing for the recovery
of listed species, reducing nonnative
invasive species, and managing fuel
loads to reduce potential for high
intensity wildfire (USDA Forest Service
2018). The Harshaw Creek unit is
essential to the conservation of the
species because it provides for habitat
and population restoration
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
67093
opportunities, as well as provides
habitat connectivity for beardless
chinchweed and its pollinators.
Recovery of this species will require
new and expanded populations, and
this unit provides for this needed
recovery habitat that will contribute to
the species’ resiliency (larger and more
populations), redundancy (more
populations across the range), and
representation (opportunities for
increased genetic and environmental
variation). We have determined that this
unoccupied unit contains one or more
of the physical or biological features
that are essential to the conservation of
the species and that it is reasonably
certain that it will contribute to the
conservation of the species.
Unit 7: Washington Camp
The Washington Camp unit occurs in
the northeastern portion of the
Patagonia Mountains in Santa Cruz
County, Arizona, and is managed by the
U.S. Forest Service. This unit is 939 ac
(380 ha) in size and is currently
unoccupied. This unit is the location of
a number of proposed mining activities
and is also subject to border activities,
recreation, and wildfire. This unit is
characterized by a mixture of native and
nonnative grass species. This unit
includes habitat for species already
listed under the Act: Jaguar, ocelot,
Mexican spotted owl, yellow-billed
cuckoo, Chiricahua leopard frog, and
northern Mexican gartersnake. In
addition, this unit includes designated
critical habitat for jaguar and Mexican
spotted owl, and proposed critical
habitat for northern Mexican
gartersnake.
Although it is considered unoccupied,
portions of this unit contain all of the
physical or biological features essential
for the conservation of the species. This
unit consists of a mix of native and
nonnative grasses, with scattered
Quercus and Juniperus, at an elevation
of 1,646 m (5,400 ft), on granitic
substrate with steep slopes facing the
southwest. There are areas in this unit
with more native grasses than nonnative
grasses. This unit is in Federal
ownership managed by the U.S. Forest
Service. The U.S. Forest Service is
committed to managing for the recovery
of listed species, reducing nonnative
invasive species, and managing fuel
loads to reduce potential for high
intensity wildfire (USDA Forest Service
2018). The Washington Camp unit is
essential to the conservation of the
species because it provides for habitat
and population restoration
opportunities, as well as provides
habitat connectivity for beardless
chinchweed and its pollinators.
E:\FR\FM\06DEP3.SGM
06DEP3
67094
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules
Recovery of this species will require
new and expanded populations, and
this unit provides for this needed
recovery habitat that will contribute to
the species’ resiliency (larger and more
populations), redundancy (more
populations across the range), and
representation (opportunities for
increased genetic and environmental
variation). We have determined that this
unoccupied unit contains one or more
of the physical or biological features
that are essential to the conservation of
the species and that it is reasonably
certain that it will contribute to the
conservation of the species.
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Unit 8: Ruby Road
The Ruby Road unit occurs in the
Atascosa-Pajarito Mountains in Santa
Cruz County, Arizona, and is managed
by the U.S. Forest Service. This unit is
776 ac (314 ha) in size and is currently
occupied. There is one extant
population, Ruby Road, within this unit
that supports approximately 10
individual beardless chinchweed plants.
Despite the fact that nonnative grasses
dominate this unit, beardless
chinchweed is able to overcome this
competition by occurring in areas along
a roadside that is regularly maintained,
which removes much of the nonnative
grass cover. This unit is subject to past
mining activities, border activities,
recreation, grazing, and wildfire. The
Ruby Road unit currently provides at
least one of the following essential
physical and biological features needed
for this species: Appropriate native
plant communities (although there is a
nonnative presence), elevation,
substrates, and slope aspect. The
physical and biological features in this
unit may require special management
considerations, including reduction in
nonnative grass presence, promotion of
native forbs and grasses, reduction in
road maintenance activity, removal of
livestock between April and October,
and creation of exclosures. This unit
includes habitat for species already
listed under the Act: Jaguar, ocelot,
Mexican spotted owl, yellow-billed
cuckoo, Chiricahua leopard frog, and
northern Mexican gartersnake. In
addition, this unit includes designated
critical habitat for critical habitat for
jaguar, Mexican spotted owl, and
Chiricahua leopard frog.
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
Section 7 Consultation
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires
Federal agencies, including the Service,
to ensure that any action they fund,
authorize, or carry out is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Dec 05, 2019
Jkt 250001
any endangered species or threatened
species or result in the destruction or
adverse modification of designated
critical habitat of such species. In
addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act
requires Federal agencies to confer with
the Service on any agency action which
is likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of any species proposed to be
listed under the Act or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of
proposed critical habitat.
We published a final regulation with
a revised definition of destruction or
adverse modification on August 27,
2019 (84 FR 44976). Destruction or
adverse modification means a direct or
indirect alteration that appreciably
diminishes the value of critical habitat
as a whole for the conservation of a
listed species.
If a Federal action may affect a listed
species or its critical habitat, the
responsible Federal agency (action
agency) must enter into consultation
with us. Examples of actions that are
subject to the section 7 consultation
process are actions on State, tribal,
local, or private lands that require a
Federal permit (such as a permit from
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under
section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the
Service under section 10 of the Act) or
that involve some other Federal action
(such as funding from the Federal
Highway Administration, Federal
Aviation Administration, or the Federal
Emergency Management Agency).
Federal actions not affecting listed
species or critical habitat, and actions
on State, tribal, local, or private lands
that are not federally funded,
authorized, or carried out by a Federal
agency, do not require section 7
consultation.
Compliance with the requirements of
section 7(a)(2) is documented through
our issuance of:
(1) A concurrence letter for Federal
actions that may affect, but are not
likely to adversely affect, listed species
or critical habitat; or
(2) A biological opinion for Federal
actions that may affect, and are likely to
adversely affect, listed species or critical
habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion
concluding that a project is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of a
listed species and/or destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat, we
provide reasonable and prudent
alternatives to the project, if any are
identifiable, that would avoid the
likelihood of jeopardy and/or
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. We define ‘‘reasonable
and prudent alternatives’’ (at 50 CFR
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\06DEP3.SGM
06DEP3
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules
proposed or final regulation that
designates critical habitat, activities
involving a Federal action that may
violate 7(a)(2) of the Act by destroying
or adversely modifying such
designation.
Activities that the Services may,
during a consultation under section
7(a)(2) of the Act, find are likely to
destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat include, but are not limited to:
(1) Actions that would remove native
bunchgrass communities. Such
activities could include, but are not
limited to, livestock grazing; fire
management; trails construction and
maintenance; infrastructure and road
construction and maintenance;
recreation management; minerals
extraction and restoration; visitor use
and management; and construction and
maintenance of border roads, fences,
barriers, and towers. These activities
could eliminate or reduce open habitat
necessary for growth, seed production,
seedbank, and pollinators of beardless
chinchweed.
(2) Actions that would result in the
introduction, spread, or augmentation of
nonnative grass species. Such activities
could include, but are not limited to,
livestock grazing; fire management;
trails construction and maintenance;
infrastructure and road construction and
maintenance; recreation management;
minerals extraction and restoration;
visitor use and management; and
construction and maintenance of border
roads, fences, barriers, and towers.
These activities could increase the
amount of nonnative grasses or
introduce nonnative grasses, which
eliminate or reduce open habitat
necessary for growth, seed production,
seedbank, and pollinators of beardless
chinchweed.
(3) Actions that would promote highseverity 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
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Dec 05, 2019
Jkt 250001
U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary determines
in writing that such plan provides a
benefit to the species for which critical
habitat is proposed for designation.’’
There are no Department of Defense
lands within the proposed critical
habitat designation.
Consideration of Impacts Under Section
4(b)(2) of the Act
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that
the Secretary shall designate and make
revisions to critical habitat on the basis
of the best available scientific data after
taking into consideration the economic
impact, national security impact, and
any other relevant impact of specifying
any particular area as critical habitat.
The Secretary may exclude an area from
critical habitat if he determines that the
benefits of such exclusion outweigh the
benefits of specifying such area as part
of the critical habitat, unless he
determines, based on the best scientific
data available, that the failure to
designate such area as critical habitat
will result in the extinction of the
species. In making that determination,
the statute on its face, as well as the
legislative history, are clear that the
Secretary has broad discretion regarding
which factor(s) to use and how much
weight to give to any factor. At this
time, we are not proposing any
exclusions from critical habitat.
Consideration of Economic Impacts
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and its
implementing regulations require that
we consider the economic impact that
may result from a designation of critical
habitat. To assess the probable
economic impacts of a designation, we
must first evaluate specific land uses or
activities and projects that may occur in
the area of the critical habitat. We then
must evaluate the impacts that a specific
critical habitat designation may have on
restricting or modifying specific land
uses or activities for the benefit of the
species and its habitat within the areas
proposed. We then identify which
conservation efforts may be the result of
the species being listed under the Act
versus those attributed solely to the
designation of critical habitat for this
particular species. The probable
economic impact of a proposed critical
habitat designation is analyzed by
comparing scenarios both ‘‘with critical
habitat’’ and ‘‘without critical habitat.’’
The ‘‘without critical habitat’’ scenario
represents the baseline for the analysis,
which includes the existing regulatory
and socio-economic burden imposed on
landowners, managers, or other resource
users potentially affected by the
designation of critical habitat (e.g.,
under the Federal listing as well as
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
67095
other Federal, State, and local
regulations). The baseline, therefore,
represents the costs of all efforts
attributable to the listing of the species
under the Act (i.e., conservation of the
species and its habitat incurred
regardless of whether critical habitat is
designated). The ‘‘with critical habitat’’
scenario describes the incremental
impacts associated specifically with the
designation of critical habitat for the
species. The incremental conservation
efforts and associated impacts would
not be expected without the designation
of critical habitat for the species. In
other words, the incremental costs are
those attributable solely to the
designation of critical habitat, above and
beyond the baseline costs. These are the
costs we use when evaluating the
benefits of inclusion and exclusion of
particular areas from the final
designation of critical habitat should we
choose to conduct a discretionary
section 4(b)(2) exclusion analysis.
For this particular designation, we
developed an incremental effects
memorandum (IEM) considering the
probable incremental economic impacts
that may result from this proposed
designation of critical habitat. The
information contained in our IEM was
then used to develop a screening
analysis of the probable effects of the
designation of critical habitat for
beardless chinchweed (IEc 2018, entire).
We began by conducting a screening
analysis of the proposed designation of
critical habitat in order to focus our
analysis on the key factors that are
likely to result in incremental economic
impacts. The purpose of the screening
analysis is to filter out the geographic
areas in which the critical habitat
designation is unlikely to result in
probable incremental economic impacts.
In particular, the screening analysis
considers baseline costs (i.e., absent
critical habitat designation) and
includes probable economic impacts
where land and water use may be
subject to conservation plans, land
management plans, best management
practices, or regulations that protect the
habitat area as a result of the Federal
listing status of the species. The
screening analysis filters out particular
areas of critical habitat that are already
subject to such protections and are,
therefore, unlikely to incur incremental
economic impacts. Ultimately, the
screening analysis allows us to focus
our analysis on evaluating the specific
areas or sectors that may incur probable
incremental economic impacts as a
result of the designation. The screening
analysis also assesses whether units are
unoccupied by the species and may
E:\FR\FM\06DEP3.SGM
06DEP3
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3
67096
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules
require additional management or
conservation efforts as a result of the
critical habitat designation for the
species that may incur incremental
economic impacts. This screening
analysis, combined with the information
contained in our IEM, is what we
consider our draft economic analysis of
the proposed critical habitat designation
for beardless chinchweed and is
summarized in the narrative below.
Executive Orders (E.O.) 12866 and
13563 direct Federal agencies to assess
the costs and benefits of available
regulatory alternatives in quantitative
(to the extent feasible) and qualitative
terms. Consistent with the E.O.
regulatory analysis requirements, our
effects analysis under the Act may take
into consideration impacts to both
directly and indirectly affected entities,
where practicable and reasonable. If
sufficient data are available, we assess
to the extent practicable the probable
impacts to both directly and indirectly
affected entities.
As part of our screening analysis, we
considered the types of economic
activities that are likely to occur within
the areas likely affected by the critical
habitat designation. In our evaluation of
the probable incremental economic
impacts that may result from the
proposed designation of critical habitat
for beardless chinchweed, first we
identified, in the IEM dated August 28,
2018 (Service 2018, entire), probable
incremental economic impacts
associated with the following categories
of activities: (1) Federal lands
management (National Park Service,
U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land
Management); (2) grazing (U.S. Forest
Service and Bureau of Land
Management); (3) wild and prescribed
fire (National Park Service, U.S. Forest
Service, Bureau of Land Management);
(4) groundwater pumping (U.S. Forest
Service); (5) mining (U.S. Forest
Service); (6) fuels management (National
Park Service, U.S. Forest Service,
Bureau of Land Management); (7)
transportation (road construction and
maintenance; National Park Service,
U.S. Forest Service); and (8) trampling
and dust creation from recreation and
border protection activities (U.S.
Customs and Border Protection, U.S.
Forest Service, National Park Service).
We considered each industry or
category individually. Additionally, we
considered whether their activities have
any Federal involvement. Critical
habitat designation generally will not
affect activities that do not have any
Federal involvement; under the Act, the
designation of critical habitat only
affects activities conducted, funded,
permitted, or authorized by Federal
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Dec 05, 2019
Jkt 250001
agencies. In areas where beardless
chinchweed is present, Federal agencies
already are required to consult with the
Service under section 7 of the Act on
activities they fund, permit, or
implement that may affect the species.
If we finalize this proposed critical
habitat designation, consultations to
avoid the destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat would be
incorporated into the existing
consultation process.
In our IEM, we clarified the
distinction between the effects that
would result from the species being
listed and those attributable to the
critical habitat designation (i.e.,
difference between the jeopardy and
adverse modification standards) for
beardless chinchweed critical habitat.
For species where the designation of
critical habitat is proposed concurrently
with the listing, like beardless
chinchweed, it has been our experience
that it is more difficult to discern which
conservation efforts are attributable to
the species being listed and those which
would result solely from the designation
of critical habitat. However, the
following specific circumstances in this
case help to inform our evaluation: (1)
The essential physical or biological
features identified for critical habitat are
the same features essential for the life
requisites of the species, and (2) any
actions that would result in sufficient
harm or harassment to constitute
jeopardy to beardless chinchweed
would also likely adversely affect the
essential physical or biological features
of critical habitat. The IEM outlines our
rationale concerning this limited
distinction between baseline
conservation efforts and incremental
impacts of the designation of critical
habitat for this species. This evaluation
of the incremental effects has been used
as the basis to evaluate the probable
incremental economic impacts of this
proposed designation of critical habitat.
The proposed critical habitat
designation for beardless chinchweed
totals approximately 7,713 ac (3,121 ha,
or 73 percent of the total proposed
critical habitat designation) of currently
occupied habitat and 2,891 ac (1,170 ha,
or 27 percent of the total proposed
critical habitat designation) of
unoccupied habitat (see Table 12,
above). Every unit of proposed critical
habitat for beardless chinchweed
overlaps with the ranges of a number of
currently listed species and designated
critical habitats. Therefore, the actual
number of section 7 consultations is not
expected to increase; however, the
analysis within these consultations
would expand to consider effects to
critical habitat for the bearded
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
chinchweed. Consequently, there would
likely be a small increase in the time
needed to complete the consultation to
include the assessment of beardless
chinchweed critical habitat units (IEc
2018, entire). Section 7 consultations
involving third parties (State, Tribal, or
private lands) are limited.
Based on the locations of the
proposed critical habitat units and the
types of projects we typically evaluate
for the Coronado National Forest and
the Coronado National Memorial, we
estimate that there would likely be 4 to
6 consultations annually that would
include beardless chinchweed. The
entities that would incur incremental
costs are Federal agencies, because 97
percent of critical habitat is on Federal
land.
In the 7,713 ac (3,121 ha) of occupied
proposed critical habitat (Units 1, 2, 3,
4, and 8), any actions that may affect the
species or its habitat would also affect
proposed designated critical habitat.
Consequently, it is unlikely that any
additional conservation efforts would be
recommended to address the adverse
modification standard over and above
those recommended as necessary to
avoid jeopardizing the continued
existence of beardless chinchweed.
Therefore, only administrative costs are
expected in these occupied units. While
this additional analysis will require
time and resources by the Federal action
agency, the Service, and third parties, it
is believed that, in most circumstances,
these costs would predominantly be
administrative in nature and would not
be significant (IEc 2018, entire). In these
unoccupied areas, any conservation
efforts or associated probable impacts
would be considered incremental effects
attributed to the critical habitat
designation. In units occupied by the
chinchweed, we assume the additional
administrative cost to address
chinchweed critical habitat in the
consultation is minor, costing
approximately $5,100 per consultation
(2017 dollars). For the proposed critical
habitat units that are currently occupied
by beardless chinchweed (Units 1, 2, 3,
4, and 8), we have not identified any
ongoing or future projects or actions that
would warrant additional
recommendations or modifications to
avoid adversely modifying critical
habitat above those that we would
recommend for avoiding jeopardy.
Therefore, project modifications
resulting from section 7 consultations in
occupied units are unlikely to be
affected by the designation of critical
habitat.
In unoccupied units, (units 5, 6, and
7) we assume the incremental
administrative effort will be greater on
E:\FR\FM\06DEP3.SGM
06DEP3
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules
a per consultation basis. Thus, we
assume an incremental per consultation
administrative cost of $15,000 in
unoccupied units (2017 dollars).
In unoccupied units, incremental
project modifications are possible. No
known projects are currently scheduled
to occur within the areas proposed for
designation; however, U.S. Forest
Service staff suggests there is always a
possibility of future projects related to
grazing, transportation, mining, and
recreation activities in this region. We
discuss potential costs resulting from
these activities below.
There are grazing allotments that
overlap with unoccupied critical
habitat. However, only one allotment
overlaps with unoccupied critical
habitat by more than 5 percent of the
allotment’s land area and two
allotments with less than 5 percent of
unoccupied critical habitat. In
unoccupied units, the Service suggests
alterations in amount or timing of
grazing activities are not required
because the species is not present.
However, U.S. Forest Service may
undertake range improvements to
reduce the loss of native plant
communities (e.g., bunchgrass) in the
unoccupied critical habitat overlapping
with grazing allotment units. It
estimates that range improvement
projects in a given year may cost the
agency from $1,000 to $250,000.
During the improvement project,
electric fencing (included in the U.S.
Forest Service cost estimate) would be
installed temporarily to exclude cattle.
During this period, there could be a loss
of forage, depending on the extent of
overlap with existing grazing
allotments, resulting in a temporary
reduction in the number of animal unit
months (AUMs; a measure of the
amount of forage consumed by one cow
and calf during one month) associated
with the relevant allotment. The value
of grazing permits associated with
allotments on Federal land can be used
to estimate the potential loss to ranchers
during exclusion period. We estimated
a range of potential costs related to
grazing, based on two scenarios. In the
low-end scenario, we assumed that
AUM reductions would only occur in
allotments where proposed critical
habitat accounts for greater than 5
percent of the total allotment area.
Otherwise, ranchers are likely to be able
to implement changes in practices that
avoid the need to reduce the amount of
cattle grazed on the allotment, and thus
they avoid costs associated with lost
AUMs. In the high-end scenario, we
assume that ranchers are unable to
change practices, and the loss in AUMs
is proportional to the amount of overlap
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Dec 05, 2019
Jkt 250001
between proposed critical habitat and
the relevant allotment.
To identify the allotments
overlapping proposed unoccupied units
and the number of AUMs permitted in
each allotment, data was obtained from
U.S. Forest Service. That data was then
used to calculate potential AUM
reduction for each allotment unit
overlapping with unoccupied critical
habitat. Only one allotment (San Rafael)
overlaps with unoccupied critical
habitat by more than 5 percent of the
allotment’s land area. In this allotment,
a temporary reduction of 402 AUMs is
possible. For the remaining allotments,
we assume no impact on permitted
AUMs in the low-end scenario. In the
high-end scenario, a temporary
reduction of 747 AUMs is possible if all
of the unoccupied units are fenced to
exclude cattle during range
improvement efforts.
The cost of reducing AUMs from
occupied critical habitat during range
improvement activities is unlikely to
exceed $41,000 in the low-end scenario
or $76,000 in the high-end scenario
(2017 dollars). Impacts associated with
reduced AUMs could be greatest in Unit
7 ($27,000), followed by Unit 6
($25,000) and Unit 5 ($24,000). These
estimates represent perpetuity values,
thus the single year loss would be a
fraction of this amount.
Other activities that could overlap
with unoccupied critical habitat include
mining, and road and trail construction.
To avoid adverse effects to critical
habitat, U.S. Forest Service might
recommend moving these projects, if
feasible, to avoid the proposed units.
This could result in the need to
construct additional linear miles of
road. If projects can easily be moved to
other areas, U.S. Forest Service
estimates total, on-time costs to the
agency, as well as the project
proponents, in the range of $0 to
$500,000. Where avoidance of critical
habitat is prohibitively expensive, U.S.
Forest Service states that it would
instead recommend monitoring and
subsequent treatment for the
introduction or spread of invasive
plants due to project activities. The
costs to U.S. Forest Service and project
proponents of these activities might
range from $1,000 to $500,000. For
projects that result in a significant
amount of vegetation that would not
regrow in a timely manner (e.g., 2
years), U.S. Forest Service might require
more all-inclusive restoration,
reclamation, and revegetation of the
disturbed project footprints. In these
cases, costs to U.S. Forest Service and
project proponents might range from
$10,000 to $1,000,000.
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
67097
The Service estimates a total of four
to six consultations are likely to occur
in a given year in areas proposed for
designation. As a conservative estimate
(i.e., more likely to overestimate than
underestimate costs), we assume that six
consultations will occur and all of the
consultations will be formal. The total
administrative cost of these
consultations is estimated to be $48,000
(IEc 2018, p. 16), including costs to the
Service, the Federal action agency, and
third parties. Incremental project
modifications resulting solely from the
designation of critical habitat are
unlikely in occupied critical habitat. In
unoccupied units, which are all
managed by the U.S. Forest Service,
projects associated with grazing,
mining, road or trail construction and
maintenance, and range improvements
are possible. The costs per project,
including costs to the U.S. Forest
Service and State, local, or private
project proponents, might range from $0
(simply moving a project to avoid
critical habitat where the overlap
between the project and critical habitat
is minor) to $1,000,000 (projects that
result in a significant amount of surface
disturbance, such as a new mining
proposal in an unoccupied unit);
however, it is very difficult to accurately
predict these potential costs as often
they are significantly reduced through
the section 7 consultation process.
Assuming that no more than six
consultations, and therefore projects, are
likely in a given year, the section 7
impacts of the proposed regulation are
unlikely to exceed $10 million in a
given year (IEc 2018, p. 16). However,
as stated above, no known projects are
currently scheduled to occur within the
unoccupied areas proposed for
designation, thus these estimated
impacts are meant to capture a
conservative high-end estimate of
potential impacts. Therefore, our
economic screening analysis indicates
the incremental costs associated with
critical habitat are unlikely to exceed
$100 million in any single year, and,
therefore, would not be significant.
As we stated earlier, we are soliciting
data and comments from the public on
the draft economic analysis, as well as
all aspects of the proposed rule. We may
revise the proposed rule or supporting
documents to incorporate or address
information we receive during the
public comment period. In particular,
we may exclude an area from critical
habitat if we determine that the benefits
of excluding the area outweigh the
benefits of including the area, provided
the exclusion will not result in the
extinction of this species.
E:\FR\FM\06DEP3.SGM
06DEP3
67098
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules
Exclusions
Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we
consider the economic impacts of
specifying any particular area as critical
habitat. In order to consider economic
impacts, we prepared an analysis of the
probable economic impacts of the
proposed critical habitat designation
and related factors. The following land
use sectors potentially occur in one or
more of the proposed critical habitat
units for beardless chinchweed: Border
protection, conservation/restoration, fire
management, forest management,
grazing, mining, recreation, and
transportation (road and trail
construction and maintenance). The
majority of proposed critical habitat
units are on federally owned or
managed lands.
During the development of a final
designation, we will consider any
additional economic impact information
we receive through the public comment
period, and as such areas may be
excluded from the final critical habitat
designation under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act and our implementing regulations at
50 CFR 424.19.
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Exclusions Based on National Security
Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we
consider whether there are lands where
a national security impact might exist.
In preparing this proposal, we have
determined that the lands within the
proposed designation of critical habitat
for beardless chinchweed are not owned
or managed by the Department of
Defense or Department of Homeland
Security. In addition, we did not find
any potential national security impacts
resulting from this proposed
designation; therefore, we anticipate no
impact on national security. However,
during the development of a final
designation, we will consider any
additional information on any potential
national security impacts we receive
through the public comment period, and
as such areas may be excluded from the
final critical habitat designation under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act and our
implementing regulations at 50 CFR
424.19.
Exclusions Based on Other Relevant
Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we
consider any other relevant impacts, in
addition to economic impacts and
impacts on national security. We
consider a number of factors, including
whether there are permitted
conservation plans covering the species
in the area such as HCPs, safe harbor
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Dec 05, 2019
Jkt 250001
agreements, or candidate conservation
agreements with assurances, or whether
there are non-permitted conservation
agreements and partnerships that would
be encouraged by designation of, or
exclusion from, critical habitat. In
addition, we look at the existence of
tribal conservation plans and
partnerships and consider the
government-to-government relationship
of the United States with tribal entities.
We also consider any social impacts that
might occur because of the designation.
In preparing this proposal, we have
determined that there are currently no
HCPs or other management plans for
beardless chinchweed, and the
proposed designation does not include
any tribal lands or trust resources. We
anticipate no impact on tribal lands,
partnerships, or HCPs from this
proposed critical habitat designation.
During the development of a final
designation, we will consider any
additional information on any impacts
to tribal resources, partnerships, or
conservation plans that we receive
through the public comment period, and
as such areas may be excluded from the
final critical habitat designation under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act and our
implementing regulations at 50 CFR
424.19.
IV. Required Determinations
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by Executive Orders
12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1,
1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we
publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address
readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than
jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and
sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever
possible.
If you feel that we have not met these
requirements, send us comments by one
of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To
better help us revise the rule, your
comments should be as specific as
possible. For example, you should tell
us the numbers of the sections or
paragraphs that are unclearly written,
which sections or sentences are too
long, the sections where you feel lists or
tables would be useful, etc.
National Environmental Policy Act (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
We have determined that
environmental assessments and
environmental impact statements, as
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
defined under the authority of the
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not
be prepared in connection with listing
a species as an endangered or
threatened species under the Act. We
published a notice outlining our reasons
for this determination in the Federal
Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR
49244).
It is our position that, outside the
jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to
prepare environmental analyses
pursuant to NEPA in connection with
designating critical habitat under the
Act. We published a notice outlining
our reasons for this determination in the
Federal Register on October 25, 1983
(48 FR 49244). This position was upheld
by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v.
Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995),
cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)).
Because neither species occurs within
the jurisdiction of the Tenth Circuit, we
are not preparing any additional NEPA
analysis.
Government-to-Government
Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President’s
memorandum of April 29, 1994
(Government-to-Government Relations
with Native American Tribal
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive
Order 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments), and the Department of
the Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we
readily acknowledge our responsibility
to communicate meaningfully with
recognized Federal Tribes on a
government-to-government basis. In
accordance with Secretarial Order 3206
of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal
Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust
Responsibilities, and the Endangered
Species Act), we readily acknowledge
our responsibilities to work directly
with tribes in developing programs for
healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that
tribal lands are not subject to the same
controls as Federal public lands, to
remain sensitive to Indian culture, and
to make information available to tribes.
We are not aware of any tribally
owned lands that are currently occupied
by beardless chinchweed or Bartram’s
stonecrop or that are unoccupied lands
that are essential to the conservation of
beardless chinchweed. Therefore, we
are not proposing to designate critical
habitat for beardless chinchweed on
tribal lands. While there are no tribally
owned lands within the proposed
designation of critical habitat, certain
lands proposed for designation may
include areas that are culturally
E:\FR\FM\06DEP3.SGM
06DEP3
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules
significant to the Tohono O’odam Tribe.
We have sought government-togovernment consultation (governmentto-government consultation, not section
7 consultation) with the tribe during the
development of the SSA report and this
proposed rule. This may result in the
modification of some actions to
conserve and protect areas of cultural
significance. On October 23, 2017, we
sent a letter to the Tohono O’odam Tribe
requesting information, explaining the
SSA process, describing the upcoming
rulemaking, and inviting the Tribe to
participate in the SSA process. To date,
we have not received a response from
the Tohono O’odam Tribe. Upon
publication of the proposed rule, we
will notify the Tohono O’odam Tribe of
its availability.
Executive Order 13771
We do not believe this proposed rule
is an E.O. 13771 (‘‘Reducing Regulation
and Controlling Regulatory Costs’’) (82
FR 9339, February 3, 2017) regulatory
action because we believe this rule is
not significant under E.O. 12866;
however, the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has waived their
review regarding their E.O. 12866
significance determination of this
proposed rule.
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Regulatory Planning and Review
(Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)
Executive Order 12866 provides that
the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant
rules. The Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has waived their
review regarding their significance
determination of this proposed rule.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the
principles of E.O. 12866 while calling
for improvements in the nation’s
regulatory system to promote
predictability, to reduce uncertainty,
and to use the best, most innovative,
and least burdensome tools for
achieving regulatory ends. The
executive order directs agencies to
consider regulatory approaches that
reduce burdens and maintain flexibility
and freedom of choice for the public
where these approaches are relevant,
feasible, and consistent with regulatory
objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes
further that regulations must be based
on the best available science and that
the rulemaking process must allow for
public participation and an open
exchange of ideas. We have developed
this rule in a manner consistent with
these requirements.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Dec 05, 2019
Jkt 250001
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended
by the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
(SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
whenever an agency is required to
publish a notice of rulemaking for any
proposed or final rule, it must prepare
and make available for public comment
a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effects of the rule on small
entities (i.e., small businesses, small
organizations, and small government
jurisdictions). However, no regulatory
flexibility analysis is required if the
head of the agency certifies the rule will
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities. The SBREFA amended the RFA
to require Federal agencies to provide a
certification statement of the factual
basis for certifying that the rule will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
According to the Small Business
Administration, small entities include
small organizations such as
independent nonprofit organizations;
small governmental jurisdictions,
including school boards and city and
town governments that serve fewer than
50,000 residents; and small businesses
(13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses
include manufacturing and mining
concerns with fewer than 500
employees, wholesale trade entities
with fewer than 100 employees, retail
and service businesses with less than $5
million in annual sales, general and
heavy construction businesses with less
than $27.5 million in annual business,
special trade contractors doing less than
$11.5 million in annual business, and
agricultural businesses with annual
sales less than $750,000. To determine
if potential economic impacts to these
small entities are significant, we
considered the types of activities that
might trigger regulatory impacts under
this designation as well as types of
project modifications that may result. In
general, the term ‘‘significant economic
impact’’ is meant to apply to a typical
small business firm’s business
operations.
The Service’s current understanding
of the requirements under the RFA, as
amended, and following recent court
decisions, is that Federal agencies are
only required to evaluate the potential
incremental impacts of rulemaking on
those entities directly regulated by the
rulemaking itself, and, therefore, are not
required to evaluate the potential
impacts to indirectly regulated entities.
The regulatory mechanism through
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
67099
which critical habitat protections are
realized is section 7 of the Act, which
requires Federal agencies, in
consultation with the Service, to ensure
that any action authorized, funded, or
carried out by the agency is not likely
to destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat. Therefore, under section 7, only
Federal action agencies are directly
subject to the specific regulatory
requirement (avoiding destruction and
adverse modification) that would be
imposed by critical habitat designation.
Consequently, it is our position that
only Federal action agencies would be
directly regulated by this designation.
There is no requirement under the RFA
to evaluate the potential impacts to
entities not directly regulated.
Moreover, Federal agencies are not
small entities. Therefore, because no
small entities would be directly
regulated by this rulemaking, the
Service certifies that, if adopted, the
proposed critical habitat designation
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
In summary, we have considered
whether the proposed designation
would result in a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. For the above reasons and
based on currently available
information, we certify that, if adopted,
the proposed critical habitat designation
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
business entities. Therefore, an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis is not
required.
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use—
Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211 (Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use) requires agencies
to prepare statements of energy effects
when undertaking certain actions. In
our draft economic analysis, we did not
find that the designation of this
proposed critical habitat would
significantly affect energy supplies,
distribution, or use due to the absence
of any energy supply or distribution
lines in the proposed critical habitat
designation. Therefore, this action is not
a significant energy action, and no
Statement of Energy Effects is required.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2
U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
In accordance with the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et
seq.), we make the following findings:
(1) This rule would not produce a
Federal mandate. In general, a Federal
mandate is a provision in legislation,
E:\FR\FM\06DEP3.SGM
06DEP3
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3
67100
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules
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 nonFederal 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Dec 05, 2019
Jkt 250001
shift the costs of the large entitlement
programs listed above onto State
governments.
(2) We do not believe that this rule
would significantly or uniquely affect
small governments because the lands
proposed for critical habitat designation
are primarily Federal lands, with a
small amount of private land; small
governments would be affected only to
the extent that any programs having
Federal funds, permits, or other
authorized activities must ensure that
their actions would not adversely affect
the designated critical habitat. The
designation of critical habitat imposes
no obligations on State or local
governments. Therefore, a Small
Government Agency Plan is not
required.
Takings—Executive Order 12630
In accordance with E.O. 12630
(Government Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Private
Property Rights), we have analyzed the
potential takings implications of
designating critical habitat for beardless
chinchweed in a takings implications
assessment. The Act does not authorize
the Service to regulate private actions
on private lands or confiscate private
property as a result of critical habitat
designation. Designation of critical
habitat does not affect land ownership,
or establish any closures of, or
restrictions on use of or access to, the
designated areas. Furthermore, the
designation of critical habitat does not
affect landowner actions that do not
require Federal funding or permits, nor
does it preclude development of habitat
conservation programs or issuance of
incidental take permits to permit actions
that do require Federal funding or
permits to go forward. However, Federal
agencies are prohibited from carrying
out, funding, or authorizing actions that
would destroy or adversely modify
designated critical habitat. A takings
implications assessment has been
completed and concludes that this
proposed designation of critical habitat
for beardless chinchweed would not
pose significant takings implications for
lands within or affected by the
designation.
Federalism—Executive Order 13132
In accordance with E.O. 13132
(Federalism), this proposed rule does
not have significant federalism effects.
A federalism summary impact statement
is not required. In keeping with
Department of the Interior and
Department of Commerce policy, we
requested information from, and
coordinated development of this
proposed critical habitat designation
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
with, appropriate State resource
agencies in Arizona. From a federalism
perspective, the designation of critical
habitat directly affects only the
responsibilities of Federal agencies. The
Act imposes no other duties with
respect to critical habitat, either for
States and local governments, or for
anyone else. As a result, the rule does
not have substantial direct effects either
on the States, or on the relationship
between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of
powers and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. The
designation may have some benefit to
these governments because the areas
that contain the features essential to the
conservation of the species are more
clearly defined, and the physical or
biological features of the habitat
necessary to the conservation of the
species are specifically identified. This
information does not alter where and
what federally sponsored activities may
occur. However, it may assist these local
governments in long-range planning
(because these local governments no
longer have to wait for case-by-case
section 7 consultations to occur).
Where State and local governments
require approval or authorization from a
Federal agency for actions that may
affect critical habitat, consultation
under section 7(a)(2) of the Act would
be required. While non-Federal entities
that receive Federal funding, assistance,
or permits, or that otherwise require
approval or authorization from a Federal
agency for an action, may be indirectly
impacted by the designation of critical
habitat, the legally binding duty to
avoid destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat rests
squarely on the Federal agency.
Civil Justice Reform—Executive Order
12988
In accordance with Executive Order
12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the Office
of the Solicitor has determined that the
rule does not unduly burden the judicial
system and that it meets the
requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of the Order. We have proposed
designating critical habitat in
accordance with the provisions of the
Act. To assist the public in
understanding the habitat needs of the
species, this proposed rule identifies the
elements of physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
the species. The proposed areas of
critical habitat are presented on a map,
and the proposed rule provides several
options for the interested public to
obtain more detailed location
information, if desired.
E:\FR\FM\06DEP3.SGM
06DEP3
67101
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
This rule does not contain any new
collections of information that require
approval by Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.). An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in
this rulemaking is available on the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov
and upon request from the Arizona
Scientific name
Authors
The primary authors of this proposed
rule are the staff members of the
Arizona Ecological Services Field
Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species,
Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation.
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.
2. Amend § 17.12(h), the List of
Endangered and Threatened Plants, by
adding entries for ‘‘Graptopetalum
bartramii’’ and ‘‘Pectis imberbis’’ in
alphabetical order under FLOWERING
PLANTS to read as set forth below:
■
V. Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend
part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title
50 of the Code of Federal Regulations,
as set forth below:
Common name
PART 17—ENDANGERED AND
THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
§ 17.12
*
Where listed
Endangered and threatened plants.
*
*
(h) * * *
Status
*
*
Listing citations and applicable
rules
Flowering Plants
*
*
Graptopetalum bartramii ...........
*
Bartram’s stonecrop .................
*
*
Wherever found .......................
T ...........
*
*
Pectis imberbis .........................
*
Beardless chinchweed .............
*
*
Wherever found .......................
E ...........
*
■
*
3. Add § 17.73 to read as follows:
§ 17.73
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3
*
Special rules—flowering plants.
(a) Graptopetalum bartramii
(Bartram’s stonecrop).
(1) Prohibitions. The following
prohibitions apply to Graptopetalum
bartramii, except as provided under
paragraph (a)(2) of this section:
(i) Import or export. It is unlawful to
import or to export any Graptopetalum
bartramii. Any shipment in transit
through the United States is an
importation and an exportation,
whether or not it has entered the
country for customs purposes.
(ii) Remove and reduce to possession.
It is unlawful to remove and reduce to
possession the species from areas under
Federal jurisdiction; maliciously
damage or destroy the species on any
such area; or remove, cut, dig up, or
damage or destroy the species on any
other area in knowing violation of any
law or regulation of any State or in the
course of any violation of a State
criminal trespass law.
(iii) Interstate or foreign commerce. It
is unlawful to deliver, receive, carry,
transport, or ship in interstate or foreign
commerce, by any means whatsoever,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Dec 05, 2019
Jkt 250001
*
*
and in the course of a commercial
activity, any Graptopetalum bartramii.
(iv) Sale or offer for sale. (A) It is
unlawful to sell or to offer for sale in
interstate or foreign commerce any
Graptopetalum bartramii.
(B) An advertisement for the sale of
any Graptopetalum bartramii which
carries a warning to the effect that no
sale may be consummated until a permit
has been obtained from the Service,
shall not be considered an offer for sale
within the meaning of this paragraph.
(v) It is unlawful to attempt to
commit, solicit another to commit, or
cause to be committed, any of the acts
described in paragraph (a)(1) of this
section.
(2) Exceptions from prohibitions. The
following exceptions from prohibitions
apply to Graptopetalum bartramii:
(i) A person may apply for a permit
in accordance with 50 CFR 17.72 that
authorizes an activity otherwise
prohibited by this paragraph for
Graptopetalum bartramii.
(ii)(A) Any employee or agent of the
Service, any other Federal land
management agency, or a State
conservation agency, who is designated
by that agency for such purposes, may,
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
*
*
[Federal Register citation
when published as a final
rule]
*
*
[Federal Register citation
when published as a final
rule]
*
*
when acting in the course of official
duties, remove and reduce to possession
Graptopetalum bartramii from areas
under Federal jurisdiction without a
permit if such action is necessary to:
(1) Care for a damaged or diseased
specimen;
(2) Dispose of a dead specimen; or
(3) Salvage a dead specimen which
may be useful for scientific study.
(B) Any removal and reduction to
possession pursuant to this paragraph
must be reported in writing to the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of
Law Enforcement, P.O. Box 28006,
Washington, DC 20005, within 5 days.
The specimen may only be retained,
disposed of, or salvaged in accordance
with written directions from the
Service.
(iii) Any qualified employee or agent
of the Service or of a State conservation
agency which is a party to a cooperative
agreement with the Service in
accordance with section 6(c) of the Act,
who is designated by that agency for
such purposes, may, when acting in the
course of official duties, remove, cut,
dig up, damage, or destroy
Graptopetalum bartramii on areas under
Federal jurisdiction.
E:\FR\FM\06DEP3.SGM
06DEP3
67102
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules
(b) [Reserved].
4. In § 17.96, amend paragraph (a) by
adding an entry for ‘‘Pectis imberbis
(beardless chinchweed),’’ in
alphabetical order under Family
Asteraceae, to read as follows:
■
§ 17.96
Critical habitat—plants.
(a) Flowering plants.
*
*
*
*
*
Family Asteraceae: Pectis imberbis
(beardless chinchweed)
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted
for Cochise, Pima, and Santa Cruz
Counties, Arizona, on the map below.
(2) Within these areas, the physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of Pectis imberbis consist
of the following components:
(i) Native-dominated plant
communities, consisting of:
(A) Plains, great basin, and semidesert grasslands, oak savanna, or
Madrean evergreen woodland;
(B) Communities dominated by
bunchgrasses with open spacing
(adjacent to and within 10 meters (33
feet) of individual Pectis imberbis
plants) and with little competition from
other plants; and
(C) Communities with plants for
pollinator foraging and nesting within 1
kilometer (0.62 miles) of Pectis imberbis
populations.
(ii) 1,158 to 1,737 meters (3,799 to
5,699 feet) elevation.
(iii) Eroding limestone or granite
bedrock substrate.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Dec 05, 2019
Jkt 250001
(iv) Steep, south-facing, sunny to
partially shaded hillslopes.
(v) The presence of pollinators (i.e.,
flies, bees, and butterflies).
(3) Critical habitat does not include
manmade structures (such as buildings,
aqueducts, runways, roads, and other
paved areas) and the land on which they
are located existing within the legal
boundaries on the effective date of this
rule.
(4) Critical habitat map units. Data
layers defining map units were created
using ArcMap version 10
(Environmental Systems Research
Institute, Inc.), a Geographic
Information Systems program on a base
of USA Topo Maps. Critical habitat
units were then mapped using NAD
1983, Universal Transverse Mercator
(UTM) Zone 12N coordinates. The map
in this entry, as modified by any
accompanying regulatory text,
establishes the boundaries of the critical
habitat designation. The coordinates or
plot points or both on which the map
is based are available to the public at the
Service’s internet site at https://
www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/
Docs_Species.htm, at https://
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(5) Unit 1: McCleary Canyon, Pima
County, Arizona. Unit 1 consists of 682
hectares (1,686 acres) of U.S. Forest
Service lands.
(6) Unit 2: Audubon Research Ranch,
Santa Cruz County, Arizona. Unit 2
consists of 926 hectares (2,287 acres) of
land, of which 331 hectares (817 acres)
are owned by the U.S. Forest Service,
474 hectares (1,686 acres) by the Bureau
of Land Management, and 121 hectares
(300 acres) by the Audubon Research
Ranch.
(7) Unit 3: Scotia Canyon, Cochise
County, Arizona. Unit 3 consists of 346
hectares (855 acres) of U.S. Forest
Service lands.
(8) Unit 4: Coronado National
Memorial, Cochise County, Arizona.
Unit 4 consists of 853 hectares (2,109
acres) of National Park Service lands.
(9) Unit 5: Lampshire Well, Santa
Cruz County, Arizona. Unit 5 consists of
380 hectares (939 acres) of U.S. Forest
Service lands.
(10) Unit 6: Harshaw Creek, Santa
Cruz County, Arizona. Unit 6 consists of
410 hectares (1,013 acres) of U.S. Forest
Service lands.
(11) Unit 7: Washington Camp, Santa
Cruz County, Arizona. Unit 7 consists of
380 hectares (939 acres) of U.S. Forest
Service lands.
(12) Unit 8: Ruby Road, Santa Cruz
County, Arizona. Unit 8 consists of 314
hectares (776 acres) of U.S. Forest
Service lands.
(13) Map of Units 1 through 8 follows:
E:\FR\FM\06DEP3.SGM
06DEP3
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Dec 05, 2019
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\06DEP3.SGM
06DEP3
67103
EP06DE19.000</GPH>
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules
67104
*
*
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules
*
*
Dated: November 26, 2019
Margaret E. Everson
Principal Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Exercising the Authority of
the Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
*
[FR Doc. 2019–26210 Filed 12–5–19; 8:45 am]
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Dec 05, 2019
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\06DEP3.SGM
06DEP3
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 235 (Friday, December 6, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 67060-67104]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-26210]
[[Page 67059]]
Vol. 84
Friday,
No. 235
December 6, 2019
Part III
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species
Status for Beardless Chinchweed With Designation of Critical Habitat,
and Threatened Species Status for Bartram's Stonecrop With Section 4(d)
Rule; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 84 , No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 67060]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2018-0104; 4500030113]
RIN 1018-BD35
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species
Status for Beardless Chinchweed With Designation of Critical Habitat,
and Threatened Species Status for Bartram's Stonecrop With Section 4(d)
Rule
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
list Pectis imberbis (beardless chinchweed), a plant species from
southern Arizona and northern Mexico, as an endangered species and to
designate critical habitat for Beardless chinchweed under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended. In total, we propose
to designate approximately 10,604 acres (4,291 hectares) in southern
Arizona as critical habitat for this plant. We also announce the
availability of a draft economic analysis of the proposed designation
of critical habitat for beardless chinchweed.
In addition, we propose to list Graptopetalum bartramii (Bartram's
stonecrop), a plant species from southern Arizona and northern Mexico,
as a threatened species under the Act and to issue a rule under section
4(d) of the Act to provide for the conservation of Bartram's stonecrop.
We are not proposing to designate critical habitat for Bartram's
stonecrop because we find that a designation is not prudent. If we make
this rule final as proposed, it would extend the Act's protections to
both of these species and to beardless chinchweed's critical habitat.
DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before
February 4, 2020. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59
p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date. We must receive requests for a
public hearing, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT by January 21, 2020.
ADDRESSES:
Written comments: You may submit comments by one of the following
methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R2-ES-2018-0104,
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click on the
Search button. On the resulting page, in the Search panel on the left
side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, click on the
Proposed Rule box to locate this document. You may submit a comment by
clicking on ``Comment Now!''
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R2-ES-2018-0104; U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described
above. We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see Public Comments, below, for more information).
Document availability: The draft economic analysis is available at
https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Docs_Species.htm, at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2018-0104, and at the
Arizona Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
The coordinates or plot points or both from which the map is
generated are included in the administrative record for this critical
habitat designation and are available at https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Docs_Species.htm, at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket
No. FWS-R2-ES-2018-0104, and at the Arizona Ecological Services Field
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Any additional tools or
supporting information that we may develop for this critical habitat
designation will also be available at the Fish and Wildlife Service
website and Field Office set out above, and may also be included in the
preamble and/or at https://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Humphrey, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological Services Field Office,
9828 North 31st Avenue, #C3, Phoenix, AZ 85051-2517; telephone 602-242-
0210. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD)
may call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, if a species is
determined to be an endangered or threatened species throughout all or
a significant portion of its range, we are required to promptly publish
a proposal in the Federal Register and make a determination on our
proposal within 1 year. Under section 4(d) of the Act, the Secretary of
the Interior has the discretion to issue such regulations as he deems
necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of threatened
species. Critical habitat shall be designated, to the maximum extent
prudent and determinable, for any species determined to be an
endangered or threatened species under the Act. Listing a species as an
endangered or threatened species, adopting provisions under section
4(d) of the Act for a threatened species, and designations and
revisions of critical habitat can only be completed by issuing a rule.
What this document does. We propose to list beardless chinchweed as
an endangered species and Bartram's stonecrop as a threatened species.
This proposed rule assesses all available information regarding status
of and stressors to beardless chinchweed and Bartram's stonecrop. We
also propose a rule issued under section 4(d) of the Act to provide for
the conservation of Bartram's stonecrop. In addition, we propose to
designate critical habitat for beardless chinchweed. We are not
proposing critical habitat for Bartram's stonecrop as we have
determined that the designation of critical habitat for this species is
not prudent.
The basis for our action. Under the Act, we can determine that a
species is an endangered or threatened species based on any of five
factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C)
disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its
continued existence.
For beardless chinchweed, we have determined that the key factors
supporting the proposed endangered finding are: Loss of habitat due to
invasion by nonnative species (Factor A); altered fire regime
exacerbated by nonnative invasion (Factors A and E); altered
precipitation, drought, and temperature (Factors A and E); road and
trail maintenance, mining, livestock, wildlife, and post-wildfire
runoff (Factors A and E); grazing from wildlife and livestock (Factor
C); and small population size exacerbating all other stressors (Factor
E). The existing regulatory mechanisms are not adequate to address
these factors such that the species does not meet the definition of
[[Page 67061]]
an endangered or threatened species (Factor D).
For Bartram's stonecrop, we have determined the key factors
supporting the proposed threatened finding are: Reduction in water
availability (Factors A and E); erosion, sedimentation, and burial
(Factors A and E); trampling (Factor E); altered fire regime (Factors A
and E); loss of shade (Factors A and E); altered flooding regime
(Factors A and E); drought (Factors A and E); predation of individuals
and shade trees (Factors A, C, and E); illegal collection (Factor B);
and small population size (Factor E). The existing regulatory
mechanisms are not adequate to address these factors such that the
species does not meet the definition of an endangered or threatened
species (Factor D).
Under the Act, any species that is determined to be an endangered
or a threatened species shall, to the maximum extent prudent and
determinable, have habitat designated that is considered to be critical
habitat. Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall
designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the
best available scientific data after taking into consideration the
economic impact, the impact on national security, and any other
relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat.
The Secretary may exclude an area from critical habitat if he
determines that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of
specifying such area as part of the critical habitat, unless he
determines, based on the best scientific data available, that the
failure to designate such area as critical habitat will result in the
extinction of the species. Under section 4(d) of the Act, the Secretary
of the Interior has the discretion to issue such regulations as he
deems necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of
threatened species.
We prepared an economic analysis of the proposed designation of
critical habitat. In order to consider economic impacts, we prepared an
analysis of the economic impacts of the proposed critical habitat
designation. We hereby announce the availability of the draft economic
analysis and seek public review and comment.
Peer review. In accordance with our joint policy on peer review
published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we
have sought the expert opinions of three appropriate and independent
specialists regarding the scientific information in the species status
assessment upon which this proposed rule is based. The purpose of peer
review is to ensure that our listing determinations and critical
habitat designation are based on scientifically sound data,
assumptions, and analyses. The peer reviewers have expertise with
beardless chinchweed's or Bartram's stonecrop's biology, habitat,
physical or biological factors, or stressors. Species status assessment
reports for beardless chinchweed and Bartram's stonecrop were developed
(Service 2018a and 2018b, entire), which represent a compilation of the
best scientific and commercial data available concerning the status of
the species, including the past, present, and future stressors to the
species. We requested peer review of each species status assessment
report from three independent specialists, with expertise with the
species, to ensure that we based our determinations on scientifically
sound data, assumptions, and analyses. The peer reviewers' comments
have been considered and incorporated where appropriate in the species
status assessment reports (Service 2018a and 2018b, entire), which are
available at https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Docs_Species.htm,
and at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2018-0104.
The peer review comments will be available along with other public
comments in the docket for this proposed rule on https://www.regulations.gov (Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2018-0104).
Information Requested
Public Comments
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request
comments or information from other concerned governmental agencies,
Native American tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any
other interested parties concerning this proposed rule. We particularly
seek comments concerning:
(1) Beardless chinchweed and Bartram's stonecrop biology, range,
and population trends, including:
(a) Biological or ecological requirements of these species,
including habitat requirements for germination, growth, and
reproduction;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range, including distribution in Mexico;
(d) Historical and current population levels, and current and
projected trends; and
(e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for these species, their
habitats, or both.
(2) Factors that may affect the continued existence of these
species, which may include habitat modification or destruction,
overutilization, disease, predation, the inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms, or other natural or manmade factors.
(3) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning
any stressors (or lack thereof) to these species and existing
regulations that may be addressing those stressors.
(4) Additional information concerning the historical and current
status, range, distribution, and population size of these species,
including the locations of any additional populations of these species.
(5) Information related to climate change within the range these
species and how it may affect these species' habitats.
(6) Information on regulations that are necessary and advisable to
provide for the conservation of these species and that the Service can
consider in developing a 4(d) rule for the species. In particular,
information concerning the extent to which we should include any of the
section 9 prohibitions in the 4(d) rule or whether any other forms of
take should be excepted from the prohibitions in the 4(d) rule.
(7) The reasons why areas should or should not be designated as
critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.) including information to inform the following factors such that a
designation of critical habitat may be determined to be not prudent:
(a) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity and
identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the
degree of such threat to the species;
(b) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of a species' habitat or range is not a threat to the
species, or threats to the species' habitat stem solely from causes
that cannot be addressed through management actions resulting from
consultations under section 7(a)(2) of the Act;
(c) Areas within the jurisdiction of the United States provide no
more than negligible conservation value, if any, for a species
occurring primarily outside the jurisdiction of the United States;
(d) No areas meet the definition of critical habitat.
(8) The following specific information on:
(a) The amount and distribution of habitat;
(b) What areas, that are currently occupied and that contain the
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of these
species, should be
[[Page 67062]]
included in a critical habitat designation and why;
(c) Special management considerations or protection that may be
needed for the essential features in potential critical habitat areas,
including managing for the potential effects of climate change; and
(d) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential
for the conservation of the species. We particularly seek comments
regarding:
(i) Whether occupied areas are inadequate for the conservation of
the species; and,
(ii) Specific information that supports the determination that
unoccupied areas will, with reasonable certainty, contribute to the
conservation of the species and, contain at least one physical or
biological feature essential to the conservation of the species.
(9) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
(10) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant
impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final
designation, and the benefits of including or excluding areas that may
be impacted.
(11) Information on the extent to which the description of probable
economic impacts in the draft economic analysis is a reasonable
estimate of the likely economic impacts.
(12) Whether any specific areas we are proposing for critical
habitat designation should be considered for exclusion under section
4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether the benefits of potentially excluding
any specific area outweigh the benefits of including that area under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
(13) The likelihood of adverse social reactions to the designation
of critical habitat, as discussed in the associated documents of the
draft economic analysis, and how the consequences of such reactions, if
likely to occur, would relate to the conservation and regulatory
benefits of the proposed critical habitat designation.
(14) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating
critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation
and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and
comments.
(15) Additional guidance and methods that the Service could provide
or use, respectively, to streamline the implementation of the proposed
4(d) rule for Bartram's stonecrop.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
Please note that submissions merely stating support for or
opposition to the action under consideration without providing
supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in
making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that
determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or a
threatened species must be made ``solely on the basis of the best
scientific and commercial data available.''
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you
send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
If you submit information via https://www.regulations.gov, your
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will
be posted on the website. If your submission is made via a hardcopy
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the
top of your document that we withhold this information from public
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We
will post all hardcopy submissions on https://www.regulations.gov.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Public Hearing
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for a public hearing on this
proposal, if requested. Requests must be received within 45 days after
the date of publication of this proposed rule in the Federal Register
(see DATES, above). Such requests must be sent to the address shown in
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule a public hearing on
this proposal, if requested, and announce the date, time, and place of
the hearing, as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in the
Federal Register and local newspapers at least 15 days before the
hearing.
Previous Federal Actions
Beardless Chinchweed
Beardless chinchweed was a candidate for listing from 1980 to 1996.
It was first a Category 1 candidate species, as identified in our
December 15, 1980, notice of review (45 FR 82480). Category 1 is a term
no longer in use, having been replaced by the term ``candidate
species.'' A candidate species is a species for which the Service has
on file sufficient information on biological vulnerability and
threat(s) to support issuance of a proposed rule to list, but issuance
of the proposed rule is precluded by higher priority actions to amend
the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. In 1983,
beardless chinchweed was reclassified as a Category 2 species (48 FR
53640; November 28, 1983). A Category 2 species referred to a species
for which the Service had some indication that listing as endangered or
threatened might be warranted, but there were insufficient data
available to justify a proposal to list. The species remained so
designated in subsequent annual candidate notices of review (50 FR
39526, September 27, 1985; 55 FR 6184, February 21, 1990; 58 FR 51144;
September 30, 1993). In 1996, the Service eliminated Category 2
species; consequently, this species dropped off the candidate list. The
Service received a petition in July 2010 to list beardless chinchweed
and designate critical habitat under the Act (Center for Biological
Diversity 2010, entire). The Service published a 90-day finding on
August 8, 2012 (77 FR 47352), concluding that the petition presented
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that
listing of the species may be warranted.
Bartram's Stonecrop
Bartram's stonecrop was a candidate for listing from 1980 to 1996.
It was first a Category 1 candidate species, as identified in our
December 15, 1980, notice of review (45 FR 82480), and then in 1983, it
was reclassified as a Category 2 species (48 FR 53640; November 28,
1983). The species remained so designated in subsequent annual
candidate notices of review (50 FR 39526, September 27, 1985; 55 FR
6184, February 21, 1990; 58 FR 51144; September 30, 1993). In 1996, the
Service eliminated Category 2 species; consequently, this species
dropped off the candidate list. The Service received a petition in July
2010 to list Bartram's stonecrop and designate critical habitat under
the Act (Center for Biological Diversity 2010, entire). The Service
published a 90-day finding on August 8, 2012 (77 FR 47352), concluding
that the petition presented substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that listing of the species may be warranted.
[[Page 67063]]
I. Proposed Listings
Background
To provide the necessary and most up-to-date information and
background on which to base our determination, we completed a species
status assessment (SSA) report for beardless chinchweed (Service 2018a,
entire), and an SSA report for Bartram's stonecrop (Service 2018b,
entire), which are available online at https://www.regulations.gov,
under Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2018-0104. The SSA reports document the
results of the comprehensive biological status review for each species,
and each provides an account of the applicable species' overall
viability through the forecasting of the condition of populations into
the future. We generally define viability as the ability of the species
to persist over the long term and, conversely, to avoid extinction
(Service 2016, entire). In the SSA reports, we summarize the relevant
biological data; describe the past, present, and likely future risk
factors (causes and effects); and conduct an analysis of the viability
of the species. The SSA reports provide the scientific basis that
informs our regulatory decision regarding whether these species should
be listed under the Act. This decision involves the application of
standards within the Act, its implementing regulations, and Service
policies (see Determination, below). Further, these SSA reports contain
the risk analysis on which this determination is based, and the
following discussion is a summary of the results and conclusions from
these SSA reports. Species experts and appropriate agencies provided
input into the development of these SSA reports.
Beardless Chinchweed
Beardless chinchweed is plant of the Asteraceae, or sunflower,
family. Beardless chinchweed was first collected by Charles Wright in
the early 1850s in Sonora, Mexico (now part of Santa Cruz County,
Arizona), and was described by Asa Gray in 1853 (Phillips et al. 1982,
p. 1; Keil 1978, p. 135). The name has remained unchanged since that
time, and there are no known synonyms. Based on this information as the
best available scientific and commercial data, we accept the
characterization of beardless chinchweed as a valid species.
Beardless chinchweed is an erect, many-branched, perennial herb
growing 3 to 12 decimeters (1 to 4 feet (ft)) from a slender, woody,
taprooted caudex (stem base) (Keil 1978, p. 143; Phillips et al. 1982,
p. 2; Keil 2017, pers. comm.). The glabrous (without hairs) leaves are
1 to 5 centimeters (cm) (0.4 to 2 inches (in)) in length and 1 to 2
millimeters (mm) (0.04 to 0.08 in) wide with pointed tips (Phillips et
al. 1982, p. 2). Daisy-like flower heads containing yellow ray and disk
flowers are solitary or in open, flat-topped clusters at the tips of
the branches (Phillips et al. 1982, p. 2). In fruit, the heads have red
to purple drying phyllaries (bracts around the flower head of a
composite plant) and have small (<5 mm (0.2 in) long), spreading, awned
black achenes (simple dry fruit) (Fishbein and Warren 1994, p. 19).
Although we do not know exactly how long individual beardless
chinchweed live, experts estimate 5 to 10 years (Keil 2017, pers.
comm.).
Young beardless chinchweed plants have been noted in April (Dahlby
2017, pers. comm.), and are still present in November (Westland 2010,
p. 10). Flowering occurs from August to October, when the plants are
more than 0.5 meters (m) (1.6 ft) in height (Kearney and Peebles 1951,
p. 935; Phillips et al. 1982, p. 8). There have been no reports of the
plant from winter months, when beardless chinchweed is presumed to die
back to the ground. It is unknown how long flowers remain open. In one
measurement of the number of flowers per stem, these range from 0 to
55, with an average of 28.3 per stem (Service 2015, p. 1). It was
estimated that there were 6 to 8 seeds per head, resulting in a
potential of roughly 832 seeds per plant, although seed loss to
grazing, desiccation, and abortion were not accounted for. Germination
and establishment may be sporadic or require specific conditions for
success (Keil 1978, p. 144). There is no information available on the
seedbank longevity of the species; however, we are aware that within
populations, a variety of age classes are represented (Phillips et al.
1982, p. 7; Service 2011, p. 4; Service 2014a, p. 2; Service 2015, p.
1; Sebesta 2017, pers. comm.). Therefore, we believe viable seeds are
being produced and reproduction is occurring.
The species has been reported to reproduce both by seed and
rhizomes (Westland 2010, p. 10), although there is no evidence that the
species is rhizomatous (Keil 2017, pers. comm.). It is not known
whether plants are able to pollinate themselves or require the pollen
of another plant. However, it is likely that the plant requires
pollinators. The pollinators of beardless chinchweed are not known, but
other Pectis species are reported to be pollinated by bees and flies
(Cockerell 1897, pp. 148-149; Cockerell 1911, pp. 136-137, 141-142;
Simpson and Neff 1987, p. 434; Phillip et al. 2006, pp. 532, 535-536,
538), and both an Acmaeodera beetle and a Diadasia bee were noted
visiting beardless chinchweed plants (Sebesta 2017, pers. comm.).
Butterflies may also use this species, as showy yellow heads containing
both ray and disk flowers serve as landing platforms and are easily
accessible to a variety of low energy pollinators such as butterflies
(Schmitt 1980, p. 935; Keil 2017, pers. comm.).
Beardless chinchweed is typically found in oak woodlands at higher
elevations, and desert grasslands and oak savannas at lower elevations
(McLaughlin et al. 2001, pp. 119, 121). However, it has also been found
on disturbed road cuts, arroyo cuts, and unstable rocky slopes, where
it has little competition for sunlight and nutrients (Phillips et al.
1982, pp. 4, 6; Fishbein and Warren 1994, p. 19). It is found at
elevations from 1,158-1,737 m (3,799-5,699 ft) (SEINet 2017, entire).
Plants are typically noted to occur on steep, south-facing, sunny to
partially shaded hillslopes, with eroding bedrock and open areas with
little competition from other plants. The nonstable substrate, which
could be moved through gravity, erosion, or impact, reduces competition
with other vegetation, favoring beardless chinchweed. It is presumed to
be a poor competitor due to its preferred open habitat and inability to
find the species under dense vegetation conditions.
Beardless chinchweed requires a lack of competition from other
plants. The different shaped and sized canopy and root systems of
associated plant species within healthy grasslands, savannas, and
woodlands create heterogeneity of form, height, and open patches needed
by beardless chinchweed. Open patches are created and maintained
through a variety of abiotic and biotic mechanisms (Porensky et al.
2013, p. 591), including natural erosion (from things like
precipitation events, gravity, and animals); the grazing and browsing
of native animals, such as black-tailed prairie dogs (Cynomys
ludovicianus) and pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra americana) (BANWR
2012, entire; Bahre 1995, p. 231; McPherson and Weltzin 2000, p. 4);
and low severity, frequent wildfires (Hoffmeister 1986, pp. 194-195;
McPherson and Weltzin 2000, p. 5; Brooks and Pyke 2002, p. 6; McDonald
and McPherson 2011a, p. 385; Fryer and Leunsmann 2012, entire). The
desert grasslands, oak savannas, and oak woodlands of southern Arizona
historically had large-scale, low severity fire roughly every 10 to 20
years and following periods of adequate moisture (McPherson and Weltzin
2000, p. 5; Brooks and Pyke 2002, p. 6; McDonald and McPherson 2011a,
p. 385; Fryer and
[[Page 67064]]
Leunsmann 2012, entire). Precipitation within the mountain ranges is
bimodal, with dormant season snow and rain, and growing season monsoon
rain. Data are lacking to indicate how beardless chinchweed uses
dormant season versus growing season precipitation; however, we believe
that dormant season precipitation is more important because this is
needed for seed germination and growth.
The historical range of beardless chinchweed was larger than the
current range, with a greater number of populations than persist today
in southeastern Arizona and northern Sonora and Chihuahua Mexico. The
historical distribution included 21 separate beardless chinchweed
populations within the Atascosa-Pajarito, Huachuca, Patagonia, and
Santa Rita Mountains and Canelo Hills of Cochise, Pima, and Santa Cruz
Counties, Arizona, as well as in northern Chihuahua and Sonora Mexico
(see Table 1, below). We define a population of beardless chinchweed as
one or more subpopulations that occur within 1 kilometer (km) (0.62
miles (mi)) of other beardless chinchweed individuals allowing for gene
flow and movement through cross-pollination. Because many bees and
butterflies can travel a distance of 1 km (0.62 mi), we believe plants
within this distance to be a single population. Subpopulations within a
population are separated by between 300 and 999 m (984.3 and 3,278 ft).
Of the 21 populations, 15 were in Arizona and 6 were in Mexico. The
number of individuals seen historically in Mexico is not available, and
no beardless chinchweed have been reported from Mexico since 1940. Nine
populations and one subpopulation in Arizona have become extirpated
since 1962.
Table 1--Current Status of Beardless Chinchweed Populations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpopulation name Subpopulation
Mountain range/country Population name Population status * status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atascosa-Pajarito Mountains, USA Pena Blanca Lake.. Extirpated........ N/A............... Extirpated.
Ruby Road......... Extant............ N/A............... Extant.
Summit Motorway... Extirpated........ N/A............... Extirpated.
Canelo Hills, USA............... Audubon Research Extant............ Post Canyon....... Extirpated.
Ranch.
.................. .................. Tributary of Extant.
O'Donnell Canyon.
Copper Mountain... Extirpated........ N/A............... Extirpated.
Harshaw Creek..... Extirpated........ N/A............... Extirpated.
Lampshire Well.... Extirpated........ N/A............... Extirpated.
Huachuca Mountains, USA......... Scotia Canyon..... Extant............ N/A............... Extant.
Coronado National Extant............ State of Texas Extant.
Memorial. Mine.
.................. .................. Visitor Center.... Extant.
Joe's Canyon Trail Extirpated........ N/A............... Extirpated.
Patagonia Mountains, USA........ Flux Canyon....... Extirpated........ N/A............... Extirpated.
Washington Camp... Extirpated........ N/A............... Extirpated.
Santa Rita Mountains, USA....... Box Canyon Road... Extirpated........ N/A............... Extirpated.
McCleary Canyon-- Extant............ N/A............... Extant.
Gunsight Pass.
McCleary Canyon-- Extant............ N/A............... Extant.
Wasp Canyon.
Chihuahua, Mexico............... Batopililas....... Unknown; presume N/A............... Unknown; presume
extant. extant.
Guasaremos........ Unknown; presume N/A............... Unknown; presume
extant. extant.
Sonora, Mexico.................. Canon de la Unknown; presume N/A............... Unknown; presume
Petaquilla. extant. extant.
Canyon Estrella... Unknown; presume N/A............... Unknown; presume
extant. extant.
Horconcitos....... Unknown; presume N/A............... Unknown; presume
extant. extant.
Los Conejos....... Unknown; presume N/A............... Unknown; presume
extant. extant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* In this column of the table, N/A means ``not applicable.''
Currently, there are 12 populations in Arizona and Mexico. In
Arizona, there are currently 387 individual beardless chinchweed spread
across less than 2 hectares (ha) (5 acres (ac)) within six extant
populations spread across the following four mountain ranges: The
Atascosa-Pajarito, Huachuca, Santa Rita mountain ranges, and the Canelo
Hills (see Table 1, above). Five of the six populations in Arizona
contain fewer than 50 individuals. Most of the mountain ranges in the
United States have been surveyed for beardless chinchweed, and it is
unlikely that any large populations remain unaccounted for therein. In
addition, there are six populations in northern Mexico for which we
have no current information. Inquiries between February 17 and December
12, 2017, with 11 researchers familiar with the flora of Chihuahua and
Sonora revealed no information on the status of the species in Mexico.
We believe these populations are extant, but with few individuals and
with poor habitat condition (similar to the smallest extant populations
in the United States), because much of the grasslands in beardless
chinchweed' historical range in Mexico have been invaded by nonnative
species (Romo et al., 2012, entire; Arriaga et al., 2004, entire).
For beardless chinchweed to maintain viability, its populations or
some representative portion thereof must be resilient. Resiliency
describes the ability of populations to withstand stochastic events
(arising from random factors). We can measure resiliency based on
metrics of population health (for example, germination versus death
rates and population size). Highly resilient populations are better
able to withstand disturbances such as random fluctuations in
germination rates (demographic stochasticity), variations in rainfall
(environmental stochasticity), or the effects of anthropogenic
activities. A beardless chinchweed population with high resiliency is
one in which abundance is high, the number of subpopulations is high
and spatially dispersed, seed production is high,
[[Page 67065]]
recruitment is such that the population remains stable or increases,
and the population is able to withstand stochastic events or recover to
current or better condition from stochastic events from seed bank.
Population resiliency categories for beardless chinchweed are described
in section 3.2 of the SSA report (Service 2018a).
In addition to the above demographic needs, populations also need
habitat elements for resiliency. Based on where the species has
typically been found, a resilient population needs eroding granite or
limestone soils or rock outcrops with native-dominated habitat, on
sunny to partly shaded southern exposures. Beardless chinchweed plants
are also often associated with active disturbances from frequent, low
severity wildfire; grazing and browsing of native animals; and natural
erosion of nonstable substrates, thus reducing competition for
beardless chinchweed. In addition, resilient populations need soil
moisture for seed germination, growth, and reproduction in the form of
dormant season (October through March) precipitation. The minimum
amount of precipitation needed for individual survival is unknown. We
believe that deviation from the timing and amount of precipitation
would impact the resiliency of a population, because soil moisture
would be impacted. This would lead to decreased seed germination,
reduced growth, reduced flowering, and decreased seed production.
Further, the presence of pollinators is needed for effective
fertilization, out-crossing, and seed production in beardless
chinchweed. Habitat resiliency categories for beardless chinchweed are
described in Table 2, below, and in section 3.2 of the SSA report
(Service 2018a).
Table 2--Population Resiliency Category Definitions for Beardless Chinchweed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dormant season
Condition category Subpopulations Abundance Native-dominated (October through
habitat March) precipitation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
High (3)....................... Three or more Number of adults No nonnative More than 12 inches of
subpopulations in each plants. winter rain on
per population. population is average during the
>300 individuals. past 5 years as
recorded at the
nearest weather
station.
Moderate (2)................... Two Number of Native plants Between 6.1 and 12
subpopulations individuals in dominate. inches of winter rain
per population. each population on average during the
is 100 to 300 past 5 years as
individuals. recorded at the
nearest weather
station.
Low (1)........................ One subpopulation Number of Mix of nonnative 6 or fewer inches of
per population. individuals in and native winter rain on
each population plants, where average during the
is <100 there is not a past 5 years as
individuals. clear dominance recorded at the
of either. nearest weather
station.
[Oslash]....................... No No individuals Nonnative plants 6 or fewer inches of
subpopulations; are found during dominate the winter rain on
population is surveys. habitat. average during the
extirpated. past 5 years as
recorded at the
nearest weather
station.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintaining representation in the form of genetic or ecological
diversity is important to maintain the capacity of beardless chinchweed
to adapt to future environmental changes. Representation describes the
ability of a species to adapt to changing environmental conditions.
Representation can be measured by the breadth of genetic or ecological
diversity within and among populations. The more representation, or
diversity a species has, the more it is capable of adapting to changes
(natural or human-caused) in its environment. In the absence of
species-specific genetic and ecological diversity information, we
evaluate representation based on the extent and variability of habitat
characteristics across the geographical range.
Genetic analysis of beardless chinchweed has not been conducted
within or among populations or mountain ranges. However, populations on
different mountain ranges are widely separated, making cross-
pollination highly unlikely, and most of the populations contain small
numbers of individuals. Therefore, there is the potential for genetic
diversity among mountain ranges. However, these populations are
isolated and contain small numbers of individuals. Small, isolated
populations are susceptible to the loss of genetic diversity, genetic
drift, and inbreeding. This could mean that between-population genetic
diversity may be greater than within-population diversity (Smith and
Wayne 1996, p. 333; Lindenmayer and Peakall 2000, p. 200). It is
possible that there has been a loss of genetic diversity in the species
due to the fact that multiple populations are already extirpated.
Currently, there are six extant populations across four widely
separated mountain ranges in the United States, and six populations in
northern Mexico that are presumed extant.
Beardless chinchweed has been reported from both decomposing
granite and limestone substrates. This variability of substrate
preference may be important in maintaining environmental and genetic
diversity. Similarly, the species is found over a relatively wide range
of elevations of 1,158 to 1,737 m (3,799 to 5,699 ft) and vegetation
communities (oak woodlands at higher elevations, and grasslands and oak
savannas at lower elevations), which could be important in terms of
representation. The precise genetic and ecological diversity needed is
unknown, but given the loss of populations, the low number of
individuals in the majority of the populations, and the distance among
populations, it is likely that some diversity has been lost.
Consequently, at a minimum, we likely need to retain populations
throughout the range of the species to maintain the overall potential
genetic and life-history attributes that can buffer the species'
response to environmental changes over time.
Beardless chinchweed needs to have multiple resilient populations
distributed throughout its range to provide for redundancy. Redundancy
describes the ability of a species to withstand catastrophic events,
measured by the number of populations, and their resiliency,
distribution, and connectivity. The more populations, and the wider the
distribution of those populations, the more redundancy the species will
exhibit. Redundancy reduces the risk that a large portion of the
species' range will be negatively affected by a catastrophic natural or
anthropogenic event at a given point in time. Species that are well-
distributed across their historical range are considered less
susceptible to extinction and more likely to be viable than species
confined to a small portion of their range (Carroll et al. 2010,
entire).
[[Page 67066]]
With the known six extant populations being separated by as much as 35
km (21.8 mi) in southern Arizona and even farther with the six
populations believed to be extant in northern Mexico, a localized
stressor such as grazing during flowering would impact only those
groups of plants nearby the activity. Conversely, such distance among
populations reduces connectivity among populations and mountain ranges,
which may be important for genetic exchange and recolonization.
Nonnative plant invasion and repeated, large-scale, moderate and high
severity fires have impacted and will continue to impact many
populations throughout the plant's range. The minimum number of
populations needed to provide for sufficient redundancy is unknown.
However, based on the number of populations now extirpated and the
wide-ranging impacts from nonnatives and wildfire, the species likely
needs to retain its existing population redundancy across multiple
mountain ranges throughout the range to minimize impacts from
catastrophic events.
Bartram's Stonecrop
Bartram's stonecrop is a plant of the Crassulaceae or stonecrop
family (Phillips et al. 1982, p. 2; Moran 1994, p. 192). Acevedo et al.
(2004, entire) investigated the phylogenetic relationship of
Graptopetalum and other genera of Crassulaceae. Their work clearly
separates Bartram's stonecrop from other species (Acevedo et al. 2004,
p. 1101). The Flora of North America (2008, p. 227) recognizes
Graptopetalum and Dudleya as distinct, and recognizes this species as
Bartram's stonecrop in the genus Graptopetalum. Based on this
information as the best available scientific and commercial data, the
Service accepts this taxonomy.
Bartram's stonecrop is a small, succulent (fleshy), acaulescent
(without a stem) perennial plant (Phillips et al. 1982, p. 2; Moran
1994, p. 192). Bartram's stonecrop has a basal rosette that is 7 to 16
centimeters (cm) (2.75 to 6.3 in) wide comprised of 20 or more flat to
concave, smooth, blue-green leaves (Rose 1926, p. 2; Phillips et al.
1982, p. 2; Moran 1994, p. 192). One to seven showy inflorescences
(includes stems, stalks, bracts, and flowers) up to 30.5 cm (12 in) in
height are produced in equilateral panicles (pyramidal loosely branched
flower cluster). The branches of the panicles produce one to six
(usually three) flowers each (Rose 1926, p. 2). The fruits are
follicles (capsule that splits along one side to release seeds), with
minute seeds (0.5 to 0.9 mm (0.02 to 0.04 in) in length)) having little
or no endosperm (tissue surrounding the embryo that provides nutrition;
Shohet 1999, pp. 3, 48). The lifespan of Bartram's stonecrop is thought
to be approximately 5 years (Ferguson, 2017b, tables 1-3; Ferguson
2017, pers. comm.).
The inflorescence stalks of Bartram's stonecrop grow for 30 to 40
days, around July and August, before coming to their full height, with
the flowers then opening primarily between September and November
(Kearney and Peebles 1951, p. 361; Phillips et al. 1982, pp. 2, 7;
Shohet 1999, p. 25). Individual flowers produce both male and female
parts, but the timing of male and female flower stages differs.
Individual flowers open in succession, such that the length of time
each flower remains open overlaps, allowing for various stages of
flowering and fruiting to be simultaneous within an individual plant
for a month or more. The two stages of floral growth may reduce the
probability of self-pollination, though it likely does still occur
(Ferguson 2017, pers. comm.). Flowering is triggered by fall rains and
does not occur during periods of water stress (Shohet 1999, pp. 22, 25,
36, 39).
Bartram's stonecrop requires pollination for reproduction. The
major pollinators of Bartram's stonecrop are Sarcophaga spp. (true
flies) and Musca spp. (house flies), although Apis mellifera (honey
bee) may also play a role in pollination. Other species noted on
Bartram's stonecrop include wasps, butterflies, and Tachinidae and
Bombyliidae flies (Shohet 1999, p. 41; Ferguson 2014, p. 26; Ferguson
2017b, p. 13). Fertilization success is greatest in earliest opening
flowers, possibly due to more pollinators being available earlier in
the season, but having a long period of flowering increases overall
chance of pollination (Shohet 1999, p. 57). Of the seeds produced,
approximately 20 percent are viable under optimal conditions (Shohet
1999, p. 48). Because seedlings (plants less than 1.5 cm [0.6 in] in
diameter) have been located in most populations, we believe pollinator
availability is not a limiting factor for this species. Given their
geographic location in the landscape (i.e., in canyons with springs and
streams), it is possible that seeds are transported by water and that
populations may have been founded by a single individual plant or seed
(Shohet 1999, p. 58). Seeds may also be dispersed via gravity and wind.
There is little information available regarding the seedbank of
Bartram's stonecrop. In general, a seed that is very tiny has evolved a
requirement of sunlight for germination, as they cannot successfully
emerge from deep burial (Venable and Brown 1987, p. 360). Similarly, it
is thought that Bartram's stonecrop seeds reside at the soil surface
beneath the litter (Shohet 1999, p. 48). It is possible that because
the seed is so small, with little endosperm, mycorrhizae (the symbiotic
association of a fungus with the roots of plants) may be required for
seedling establishment and growth, but this has not been studied
(Felger 2017, pers. comm.). Researchers at the Desert Botanical Gardens
have attempted to grow Bartram's stonecrop from seed. They had no
difficulty with seed germination; however, they have experienced high
seedling mortality, perhaps related to a requirement for mycorrhizae
for seedling establishment.
The species typically occurs on rocky outcrops with erodible soils
in deep, narrow canyons in heavy cover of litter and shade within
Madrean woodlands at elevations ranging from 1,067 to 2,042 m (3,500 to
6,700 ft). Madrean woodlands are a forested community dominated by
evergreen oaks, but also containing junipers and pine trees, and
characterized by mild winters and warm wet summers (Brown 1982, p. 59).
Madrean evergreen woodland is typically bounded by semi-desert
grasslands and savanna at warmer, drier sites in the lower elevations,
and by evergreen and broadleaf forests on more mesic and cooler sites
at higher elevation, at north aspect, or near riparian areas. Bartram's
stonecrop root into crevices on rock ledges and cliffs on slopes of
various aspects (Shohet 1999, p. 22; Ferguson 2014, p. 41; NPS 2016, p.
7). In addition, Bartram's stonecrop are almost always located near
water sources (springs, seeps, or intermittent streams), but above the
floodline (Phillips et al. 1982, p. 4; Shohet 1999, p. 22; NPS 2014, p.
2). Plants are typically within 10 m (32.8 ft) from a streambed in the
bottom of canyons on rocky outcrops, but can be much farther on
occasion (Shohet 1999, p. 5; Ferguson 2014, p. 41; NPS 2014, p. 2;
Ferguson 2016a, p. 14). Based on microhabitats in which the species is
typically found, the species' needs include crevices (with or without
soil) for seeds to lodge and germinate, shade and deep leaf litter to
help maintain soil moisture, and a humid microhabitat in this arid
environment. Proximity to water may provide humidity for the plant's
microclimate. The deep, narrow canyons and associated overstory species
provide shade during a portion of the day, creating a cooler
temperature and aiding in maintaining a humid microenvironment. In
addition, the vegetation litter provides retention of
[[Page 67067]]
soil moisture, further promoting the humid microenvironment. The
specific substrate component does not seem to be critical. In addition,
for reestablishment, moist soil for seedbank may be important for this
species following extended periods of drought.
Madrean evergreen woodlands of the sky island mountain ranges have
evolved with frequent, low-severity fire and have warm wet summers and
mild winters. The maximum interval between the relatively widespread
fires typically ranged from about 10 to 30 years in the pine-dominant
forests (Swetnam et al. 2001, p. 4). Precipitation within the sky
island mountain ranges is bimodal, with winter snow and rain, and
summer monsoon rain. Mean annual precipitation in the Madrean woodland
habitat of southern Arizona is 250 to 450 mm (10 to 17 in), with more
than 50 percent occurring in summer. The winter snow and rain coincide
with Bartram's stonecrop seed germination and growth. Winter
precipitation is needed for Bartram's stonecrop germination (although
some germination likely occurs following summer rains), and both summer
(July and August) and fall precipitation (captured partially in the
October and November ``winter'' data) is needed for Bartram's stonecrop
flower production.
Bartram's stonecrop is known to have historically occurred in 33
separate populations within 13 isolated sky island mountain ranges, 10
in southern Arizona and 3 in northern Mexico. While the overall range
of the species is likely unchanged, the number and size of populations
has been reduced. Four populations have become extirpated in the United
States in recent years, and a fifth population has contracted in size.
In three instances, extirpation was associated with the drying of
habitat, which rendered it no longer suitable for the species to
persist; we do not know the cause of extirpation in the fourth
instance. In addition, there have been many changes in the southeastern
Arizona landscape since the 1890s due to intensive cattle grazing,
water development, and fire suppression (e.g., Bahre 1991, entire).
These impacts may have reduced the range or number of populations and
individuals.
We define a population as occurring within the same water course
(i.e., stream) in a sky island range and within the distance
pollinators can travel. A population may consist of one or more
subpopulations of Bartram's stonecrop. These subpopulations are
separated by up to 8 km (5 mi). Within each subpopulation are groupings
of plants. Groupings are separated by up to 1.7 km (1 mi).
As of 2017, when the SSA analysis was completed, there were 29
extant populations across 12 mountain ranges in the United States and
Mexico: 26 extant populations from 9 mountain ranges in southern
Arizona and 3 presumed extant populations from 3 mountain ranges in
northern Mexico (see Table 3, below). Within these 29 populations,
there are approximately 3,756 individuals within about 2 ha (5 ac).
In 2018, four additional populations were located in the United
States in the Rincon Mountains, one additional population was located
in Mexico, and a known population in Mexico, which we did not have
recent data for, was confirmed. The new populations in the United
States included the Upper Rincon Creek population with 38 individuals
(including ``many'' seedlings), Turkey Creek population with 4
individuals (seedlings not differentiated, but photos look like adult
rosettes and flowering), Deer Creek population with 10 individuals
(adult rosettes and flowering), and Chiminea Tributary population with
13 plants (seedlings not differentiated). In Sonora, Mexico, a new
population (Mesa Tres Rios population) with 80 living and 28 dead
plants was found in Mesa Tres Rios. In the R[iacute]o Piedras Verdes
near Colonia Pacheo area of Chihuahua, seven individuals were located,
confirming the presence of an extant population ``near Colonia
Pacheco''; it is unknown if this is the exact historical location.
Seedlings were not differentiated in either of the Mexico surveys. In
total, only 145 new individuals were found, including seedlings, with
65 from the United States and 80 from Mexico. All but one population
(Mesa Tres Rios) are small populations with fewer than 150 individuals.
The number of extant populations as of 2018 is 34 across 13 mountain
ranges in the United States and Mexico.
Table 3--Current Status of Bartram's Stonecrop Populations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpopulation
Mountain ranges Population Population status Subpopulation status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baboquivari Mountains........... Brown Canyon...... Extant............ Brown Canyon...... Extant.
Thomas Canyon..... Extant............ Thomas Canyon..... Extant.
Chiricahua Mountains............ Echo Canyon....... Extant............ Echo Canyon....... Extant.
Rhyolite Canyon... Extant.
Sugarloaf Mountain Extant.
Indian Creek...... Extirpated........ Indian Creek Extirpated.
Canyon.
Dragoon Mountains............... Carlink Canyon.... Extirpated........ Carlink Canyon.... Extirpated.
Jordan Canyon..... Extant............ Jordan Canyon..... Extant.
Sheepshead........ Extant............ Sheepshead........ Extant.
Slavin Gulch...... Extant............ Lower Slavin Gulch Extant.
Stronghold Canyon Extant............ Cochise Spring.... Extant.
East. Park Canyon....... Extant.
Stronghold Canyon Extant............ Rockfellow Dome Extant.
West. Trail. Extant.
Stronghold Canyon Extant.
West.
Stronghold Canyon--
hanging canyon
drainage.
Empire Mountains................ Empire Mountains.. Extirpated........ Empire Mountains.. Extirpated.
Mule Mountains.................. Juniper Flat...... Extant............ Juniper Flat and Extant.
vicinity.
Pajarito/Atascosa Mountains..... Alamo Canyon...... Extant............ Alamo Canyon...... Extant.
Holden Canyon..... Extant............ Holden Canyon..... Extant.
Sycamore Canyon... Extant............ Montana Peak Extant.
Vicinity. Extant.
Montana Canyon.... Extant.
Mule Ridge........
[[Page 67068]]
Penasco Canyon; Extant.
below dam. Extant.
Summit Motorway... Extant.
Sycamore Canyon...
Warsaw Canyon..... Extant............ Warsaw/Old Glory Extant.
Canyons.
Patagonia Mountains............. Alum Gulch........ Extant............ Alum Gulch........ Extant.
Flux Canyon....... Extant.
Rincon Mountains................ Chimenea-Madrona Extant............ Chimenea Canyon + Extant.
Canyons. Manning Camp
Trail + Madrona
Canyon.
Happy Valley North Extirpated........ Happy Valley North Extirpated.
Happy Valley South Extant............ Happy Valley South Extant.
Upper Rincon Creek Extant............ Upper Rincon Creek Extant.
Turkey Creek...... Extant............ Turkey Creek...... Extant.
Deer Creek........ Extant............ Deer Creek........ Extant.
Chiminea Tributary Extant............ Chiminea Tributary Extant.
Santa Rita Mountains............ Adobe Canyon...... Extant............ Adobe Canyon...... Extant.
Gardner Canyon.... Extant............ Cave Creek Canyon. Extant.
Gardner Canyon.... Extant.
Sawmill Canyon.... Extant.
Josephine Canyon.. Extant............ Bond Canyon....... Extant.
Josephine Canyon.. Extant.
Madera Canyon..... Extant............ Madera Canyon..... Extant.
Squaw Gulch....... Extant............ Squaw Gulch....... Extant.
Sycamore Canyon... Extant............ Sycamore Canyon... Extant.
Temporal Gulch.... Extant............ Temporal Gulch.... Extant.
Upper Jones Canyon Extant.
Walker Canyon..... Extant............ Big Casa Blanca Extant.
Canyon. Extant.
Walker Canyon
Basin.
Whetstone Mountains............. Death Trap Canyon. Extant............ Death Trap Springs Extant.
French Joe Canyon. Extant............ French Joe Canyon. Extant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MEXICO
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sierra Las Avispas, Sonora...... Sierra Las Presumed Extant... Sierra Las Presumed Extant.
Avispas, Sonora. Avispas, (Nogales
County).
Sierra La Escuadra, Chihuahua... Sierra La Extant............ Near Colonia Extant.
Escuadra, Pacheco (in the
Chihuahua. Municipio Nuevo
Casas Grandes).
Sierra La Estancia, Chihuahua... Sierra La Presumed Extant... Cuarenta Casas Presumed Extant.
Estancia, (northwest of Las
Chihuahua. Varas, Municipio
Madera).
Sierra Los Mojones.............. Mesa Tres Rios.... Extant............ Mesa Tres Rios.... Extant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The number of populations within each sky island mountain ranges
from one population (e.g., Mule Mountains) to as many as eight
populations (e.g., Santa Rita Mountains). Each of these populations
contains from one to eight subpopulations, which can be separated by up
to 8 km (5 mi). Within each subpopulation, plants grow in groups or
clusters of one to eight groups, which are separated by up to 1.7 km (1
mi). Within each subpopulation, plants grow across an area of 1 to 140
m (3.3 to 459 ft) (Ferguson 2014, entire; Ferguson 2016a, p. 14).
Bartram's stonecrop typically occurs in small populations with
limited numbers of individuals. Most populations contain fewer than 100
plants (Ferguson 2014, entire; Ferguson 2016a, entire), but
occasionally hundreds of plants can be found within a single
population. The number of individuals in a given population can vary
greatly from year to year and from season to season, depending on
weather and stressors present (Ferguson 2017b, pp. 8, 15).
For Bartram's stonecrop to maintain viability, its populations or
some representative portion thereof must be resilient. Resiliency
describes the ability of populations to withstand stochastic events
(arising from random factors). We can measure resiliency based on
metrics of population health (for example, germination versus death
rates and population size). Highly resilient populations are better
able to withstand disturbances such as random fluctuations in
germination rates (demographic stochasticity), variations in rainfall
(environmental stochasticity), or the effects of anthropogenic
activities. Resilient Bartram's stonecrop populations must be large
enough that stochastic events do not eliminate the entire population. A
highly resilient population of Bartram's stonecrop consists of multiple
subpopulations, with a large number of individuals in each
subpopulation. Highly resilient Bartram's stonecrop populations must
also produce and disperse seeds, establish seedlings that survive, and
maintain mature reproductive individuals in the population; recruitment
should exceed or be equal to mortality. This allows for shared
pollinators and seed dispersal between subpopulations and groups within
the population, which can allow the population to recover from
disturbance events and maintain or increase genetic diversity.
Population resiliency categories for Bartram's stonecrop are described
in section 3.2 of the SSA report (Service 2018b, entire).
In addition to the above demographic needs, populations also need
habitat elements for resiliency. Based on where the species has
typically been found, a resilient population needs riparian
characteristics (i.e., proximity to water and associated vegetation),
[[Page 67069]]
precipitation, shade, and bedrock or soil pockets in rock ledges and
cliffs. Precipitation is needed to maintain soil moisture, cooler
temperatures, and humidity in the microenvironment; shade from trees,
canyon walls, and leaf litter aid in moisture retention. Small
population size has the potential to decrease Bartram's stonecrop's
population resiliency, as all stressors are exacerbated in populations
with only a small number of individuals. Area of occupied habitat,
abundance, number of subpopulations, and recruitment all affect
population resiliency. Habitat resiliency categories for Bartram's
stonecrop are described in Table 4, below, and in section 3.2 of the
SSA report (Service 2018b).
Table 4--Population Resiliency Category Definitions for Bartram's Stonecrop
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population factors Habitat factors
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Condition category Winter (October
Subpopulations Abundance Recruitment Riparian elements through March) Shade
precipitation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
High (3)............ Three or more Number of adults in Populations contain Water is within 10 m More than 12 inches Overstory cover of
subpopulations of each population is more seedlings from individuals or of winter rain on Juniperus, Quercus,
plants/population. >300 individuals. (<1.5 cm [0.6 in]) riparian vegetation average during the Pinus or other is
than dying present indicating past 5 years as >80%.
individuals. subsurface water recorded at the
nearby. nearest weather
station.
Moderate (2)........ Two subpopulations Number of Populations contain Water at or near the Between 6.1 and 12 Overstory cover of
of plants/ individuals in each an equal number of surface (riparian inches of winter Juniperus, Quercus,
population. population is 150 seedlings (<1.5 cm vegetation present rain on average Pinus or other is
to 300 individuals. [0.6 in]) to dying indicating during the past 5 between 50 and 80%.
individuals. subsurface water) years as recorded
is within 10-20 m at the nearest
from individuals. weather station.
Low (1)............. One subpopulation of Number of Populations contain Water at or near the 6 or fewer inches of Overstory cover of
plants/population. individuals in each fewer seedlings surface (riparian winter rain on Juniperus, Quercus,
population is <150 (<1.5 cm [0.6 in]) vegetation present average during the Pinus or other is
individuals. than dying indicating past 5 years as between 20 and 50%.
individuals. subsurface water) recorded at the
is within 20-30 m nearest weather
from individuals. station.
[Oslash]............ No subpopulations... No individuals are Population is made Streambed near 6 or fewer inches of Overstory cover has
found during up primarily of plants is dry and winter rain on been removed.
surveys in dead and dying invaded by non- average during the
appropriate individuals that do riparian plant past 5 years as
microhabitat. not produce seed or species indicating recorded at the
no individuals shift of vegetation nearest weather
found. community and station.
complete loss of
suitable habitat.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintaining representation in the form of genetic or ecological
diversity is important to maintain the capacity of Bartram's stonecrop
to adapt to future environmental changes. Representation describes the
ability of a species to adapt to changing environmental conditions.
Representation can be measured by the breadth of genetic or ecological
diversity within and among populations. The more representation, or
diversity, a species has, the more it is capable of adapting to changes
(natural or human-caused) in its environment. In the absence of
species-specific genetic and ecological diversity information, we
evaluate representation based on the extent and variability of habitat
characteristics across the geographical range.
Genetic analysis of Bartram's stonecrop has not been conducted
within or among populations or mountain ranges. However, populations on
different mountain ranges are widely separated (ranging from roughly 14
to 42 km (8.7 to 26 mi) apart), making cross-pollination highly
unlikely, and most of the populations contain small numbers of
individuals. Therefore, there is the potential for genetic diversity
among mountain ranges. Because multiple populations have been
extirpated, it is possible that there has been a loss of genetic
diversity. There may be genetic diversity between populations within
and among the sky island mountain ranges due to response to elevational
and other environmental differences between locations. As such,
maintaining representation in the form of genetic diversity across
multiple populations and sky island mountain ranges may be important to
the capacity of Bartram's stonecrop to adapt to future environmental
change.
The species is found over a relatively wide range of elevations of
1,067 to 2,042 m (3,500 to 6,700 ft) and vegetation communities (oak
woodlands at higher elevations, and grasslands and oak savannas at
lower elevations), which could be important in terms of representation.
Such variability in elevation could aid in survival of future
environmental changes, such as warming temperatures or decreased
precipitation from climate change. At a minimum, we likely need to
retain populations throughout the geographic and elevational ranges of
the species to maintain the overall potential genetic and environmental
diversity that can maximize the species' response to environmental
changes over time.
Bartram's stonecrop needs to have multiple resilient populations
distributed throughout its range to provide for redundancy such that a
catastrophic event will not result in the loss of all populations.
Redundancy describes the ability of a species to withstand catastrophic
events, measured by the number of populations, and their resiliency,
distribution, and connectivity. The more populations, and the wider the
distribution of those populations, the more redundancy the species will
exhibit. Redundancy reduces the risk that a large portion of the
species' range will be negatively affected by a catastrophic natural or
anthropogenic event at a given point in time. Species that are well-
distributed across their historical range are considered less
susceptible to extinction and more likely to be viable than species
confined to a small portion of their range (Carroll et al. 2010,
entire). There is little connectivity potential between the sky island
mountain ranges (separated from roughly 14 to 42 km (8.7 to 26 mi)
apart); therefore, a localized stressor such as dewatering from a mine
or a high-severity wildfire would impact only those populations near
the activity. Regional drought and altered fire regime could impact
many populations throughout the plant's range. There are 34 populations
spread throughout the range of the species, many with multiple
subpopulations. Conversely, such distance among populations reduces
connectivity among populations and mountain ranges, which may be
important for genetic exchange and recolonization. At a minimum, the
species likely requires retaining population redundancy across multiple
sky island mountain ranges throughout
[[Page 67070]]
the species' range to minimize impacts from catastrophic events.
Summary of Biological Status and Stressors
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining
whether a species is an ``endangered species'' or a ``threatened
species.'' The Act defines an endangered species as a species that is
``in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of
its range,'' and a threatened species as a species that is ``likely to
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range.'' The Act requires that we
determine whether any species is an ``endangered species'' or a
``threatened species'' because of any of the following factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative
effects or may have positive effects.
We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat''
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action
or condition or the action or condition itself.
However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not
necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' In determining
whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all
identified threats by considering the expected response by the species,
and the effects of the threats--in light of those actions and
conditions that will ameliorate the threats--on an individual,
population, and species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected
effects on the species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of
the threats on the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative
effect of the threats in light of those actions and conditions that
will have positive effects on the species--such as any existing
regulatory mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines
whether the species meets the definition of an ``endangered species''
or a ``threatened species'' only after conducting this cumulative
analysis and describing the expected effect on the species now and in
the foreseeable future.
The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which
appears in the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' Our
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for
evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis. The term
foreseeable future extends only so far into the future as the Services
can reasonably determine that both the future threats and the species'
responses to those threats are likely. In other words, the foreseeable
future is the period of time in which we can make reliable predictions.
``Reliable'' does not mean ``certain''; it means sufficient to provide
a reasonable degree of confidence in the prediction. Thus, a prediction
is reliable if it is reasonable to depend on it when making decisions.
It is not always possible or necessary to define foreseeable future
as a particular number of years. Analysis of the foreseeable future
uses the best scientific and commercial data available and should
consider the timeframes applicable to the relevant threats and to the
species' likely responses to those threats in view of its life-history
characteristics. Data that are typically relevant to assessing the
species' biological response include species-specific factors such as
lifespan, reproductive rates or productivity, certain behaviors, and
other demographic factors.
We completed a comprehensive assessment of the biological status of
beardless chinchweed and Bartram's stonecrop, and prepared an SSA
report for each species (Service 2018a and 2018b, entire), which
provides a thorough account of the species' overall viability. We
define viability here as the ability of the species to persist over the
long term and, conversely, to avoid extinction. In the following
discussion, we summarize the conclusions of the SSA reports, which can
be accessed at Docket FWS-R2-ES-2018-0104 on https://www.regulations.gov
and at https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Docs_Species.htm.
Beardless Chinchweed
Several stressors influence whether beardless chinchweed
populations will grow to maximize habitat occupancy, which increases
the resiliency of a population to stochastic events. We evaluated the
past, current, and future stressors (i.e., negative changes in the
resources needed by beardless chinchweed) that are affecting what
beardless chinchweed needs for viability. These stressors are described
in detail in chapter 4 of the SSA report (Service 2018a). Stressors
that have the potential to affect beardless chinchweed population
resiliency include:
Loss of habitat due to invasion by nonnative species;
Altered fire regime exacerbated by invasion by nonnative
species;
Altered precipitation, drought, and temperature;
Erosion, sedimentation, and burial from road and trail
maintenance, mining, livestock, wildlife, and post-wildfire runoff;
Grazing from wildlife and livestock; and
Small population size exacerbating all other stressors.
The stressors that pose the largest risk to future viability of the
species are: (1) Loss of habitat caused by the invasion of nonnative
grasses that compete for space, water, light, and nutrients and that
alter wildfire regimes; and (2) small population size (fewer than 50
individuals), which potentially causes other stressors to seriously
damage or extirpate populations. The size of fewer than 50 individuals
as a small population was determined by assessing the range of known
population sizes. Much of the historical range of beardless chinchweed
in both the United States and Mexico has been altered by an invasion of
nonnative grasses and herbaceous plants. Although there are many
nonnative plant species growing in historical beardless chinchweed
habitats in both the United States and Mexico, two species in
particular are most problematic to beardless chinchweed at this time:
Lehman's lovegrass (Eragrostis lehmanniana) and rose natal (Melinis
repens). Both of these species are strong competitors on southern
exposures where beardless chinchweed occurs.
Habitat Loss Caused by Nonnative Grasses
Lehman's lovegrass, a nonnative grass from South Africa, has
numerous
[[Page 67071]]
competative advantages over native grasses in southern Arizona.
Lehman's lovegrass resprouts from roots and tiller nodes not killed by
hot fire, is not hampered by the reduction in mycorrhizae associated
with fire and erosion, is able to respond to winter precipitation when
natives grasses are dormant, is able to produce copious seed earlier
than native grasses, maintains larger seed banks than native grasses,
and has higher seedling survival and establishment than native grasses
during periods of drought (Anable 1990, p. 49; Anable et al. 1992, p.
182; Robinett 1992, p. 101; Fernandez and Reynolds 2000, pp. 94-95;
Crimmins and Comrie 2004, p. 464; Geiger and McPherson 2005, p. 896;
Schussman et al. 2006, p. 589; O'Dea 2007, p. 149; Archer and Predick
2008, p. 26; Mathias et al. 2013, entire). This species outcompetes
native grasses for water, light, and nutrients, forming nonnative-
dominated grasslands that reduce structural, species, and spatial
diversity and that produce two to four times the biomass of native
grasslands (D'Antonio and Vitousek 1992, p. 70; McPherson 1995, pp.
136-137; VanDevender et al. 1997, p. 4; Huang et al. 2009, pp. 903-
904;). This change in vegetation structure results in a higher fuel
load that is highly lignified (long-lasting through slow decomposition)
and results in more frequent fires that have longer flames, faster
rates of spread, and higher severity and frequency than historical low-
intensity burns of native desert grasslands (Anable et al. 1992, p.
186; Dennet et al. 2000, pp. 22-23; Williams and Baruch 2000, p. 128;
Crimmins and Comrie 2004, p. 464). In addition, Lehman's lovegrass-
dominated grasslands recover quickly from fire, as fires scarify the
ample seeds and remove canopy, allowing for high seedling emergence
(Cable 1965, p. 328; Anable 1990, p. 15; Roundy et al. 1992, p. 81;
McPherson 1995, p. 137; Biedenbender and Roundy 1996, p. 160).
Rose natal, a native of Africa and Madagascar, is invasive in many
locations, including southern Arizona and northern New Mexico (Stevens
and Fehmi 2009, p. 379; Romo et al. 2012, p. 34). Similar to Lehman's
lovegrass, rose natal is capable of growing in low moisture situations
and has many advantages to outcompete native grasses of southern
Arizona, such as prolific seed production and culms that root from the
nodes (Stokes et al. 2011, p. 527). This aggressive grass displaces
native vegetation in shrublands and oak stands, and increases fire
frequency (Romo et al. 2012, p. 35; Center for Agriculture and
Biosciences International 2017, entire).
In addition, several other African grasses (e.g., Eragrostis
cilianensis [stinkgrass], Eragrostis curvula [Boer lovegrass],
Eragrostis echinochloidea [African lovegrass], and Dichanthium
annulatum [Kleberg's bluestem]) have been documented in southern
Arizona and northern Mexico (Van Devender and Reina 2005, p. 160;
NatureServe, entire; Fire Effects Information System, entire; SEINet,
entire), as has the Asian grass, Bothriochloa ischaemum (yellow
bluestem). Studies of other nonnative grasses in Mexico show rapid
expansion and degradation of native communities, with the potential to
invade large areas of northern Mexico (Arriaga et al. 2004, p. 1504).
There are no beardless chinchweed populations in the United States that
are more than 1 km (0.6 mi), and no beardless chinchweed populations in
Mexico that are more than 27 km (16.8 mi), from documented nonnative
grasses (SEINet, entire; Heitholt 2017, pers. comm.). Because we have
seen nonnative infestations in the field in locations not shown in
SEINet, we believe only a small portion of nonnative plants are
reported into the SEINet system in either country. Based on the above
information, we believe that it is unlikely any beardless chinchweed
population is free of nonnative plants. This encroachment of nonnatives
has reduced beardless chinchweed population numbers and habitat, and as
nonnatives continue to encroach on beardless chinchweed populations,
the number of individuals and available habitat will continue to
decrease.
Altered Fire Regime
The desert grasslands, oak savannas, and oak woodlands of southern
Arizona historically had large-scale, low-severity fire roughly every
10 to 20 years and following periods of adequate moisture (McPherson
and Weltzin 2000, p. 5; Brooks and Pyke 2002, p. 6; McDonald and
McPherson 2011a, p. 385; Fryer and Leunsmann 2012, entire). Fires now
are more frequent and intense due to the unnaturally dense and evenly
spaced canopies of nonnative-dominated communities (as compared to more
open and heterogeneous native-dominated grasslands), coupled with more
frequent fire starts from recreationist and cross-border violators
(Anable et al. 1992, p. 186; D'Antonio and Vitousek1992, p. 75; Dennet
et al. 2000, pp. 22-23; Williams and Baruch 2000, p. 128; Crimmins and
Comrie 2004, p. 464; Emerson 2010, pp. 15, 17; United States Government
Accountability Office 2011, p. 1; Wildland Fire Lesson's Learned Center
2011, entire). Nonnative grasses have higher seed output and large seed
banks, earlier green-up in the spring, and greater biomass production
than native grasses; all of these characteristics help to perpetuate a
grass-fire cycle (e.g., D'Antonio and Vitousek 1992, p. 73; Zouhar et
al. 2008, pp. 17, 21; Steidl et al. 2013, p. 529).
In many locations in southern Arizona in recent decades, repeat
fires have occurred within short periods of time, aided by the
dominance of nonnative grasses in the landscape. For example, in the
Pajarito and Atascosa Mountains area, multiple fires burned the
landscape between 2008 and 2016 (Figure 4.4 in Service 2018a). This
landscape is now dominated by both nonnative Lehman's lovegrass and
rose natal (Service 2014c, entire; Heitholt 2017, entire), and many
historically documented locations that supported beardless chinchweed
have not been found again (Service 2014c, entire; Fernandez 2017, pers.
comm.; Haskins and Murray 2017, p. 4). High-severity wildfires burn
hotter than fires that beardless chinchweed evolved with; consequently,
we believe the plant is not capable of surviving high-severity fires.
Altered Precipitation, Drought, and Temperature
Altered precipitation timing and form (snow versus rain), as well
as reduced winter and spring precipitation and prolonged drought, are
currently occurring and projected to increase or be altered from normal
in the Southwest (Garfin et al. 2014, entire). Recently there has been
a decrease in the amount of snowpack, earlier snowmelt, and increased
drought severity in the Southwest (Garfin et al. 2013, entire; Garfin
2013b p. 465). Further, more wintertime precipitation is falling as
rain rather than snow in the western United States (IPCC 2013, p. 204;
Garfin 2013b p. 465). This means that the amount of runoff in the
spring when snow melts is reduced, as is soil moisture. Precipitation
is bimodal with the mountain ranges where beardless chinchweed occurs,
with dormant season snow and rain, and growing season monsoon rains
(CLIMAS 2014, entire). We believe that precipitation during October
through March is important for beardless chinchweed germination and
growth. In addition, beardless chinchweed does not flower until it
reaches a height of more than 0.5 m (1.6 ft) tall; without sufficient
precipitation, beardless chinchweed may be unable to attain adequate
size for reproduction (Phillips et al. 1982, p.
[[Page 67072]]
8). Further, reduced precipitation, change in the timing and type of
precipitation, and prolonged drought impact soil and ambient moisture
availability for beardless chinchweed germination, growth, and
flowering. In addition, due to increased nonnative competition during
times of reduced precipitation and drought, impacts from these
stressors to beardless chinchweed would be exacerbated (Anable 1990, p.
49; Robinett 1992, p. 101; Fernandez and Reynolds 2000, pp. 94-95;
Geiger and McPherson 2005, p. 896; Schussman et al. 2006, p. 589;
Archer and Predick 2008, p. 26; Mathias et al. 2013, entire).
Under a continuation of A2-high emissions scenario, reduced winter
and spring precipitation is consistently projected for the southern
part of the Southwest by 2100, as part of the general global
precipitation reduction in subtropical areas (Garfin et al. 2014, p.
465). Analyses of the southwestern United States indicate future
drying, primarily due to a decrease in winter precipitation under both
the RCP 4.5 and 8.5 scenarios (IPCC 2013, p. 1080). The annual
projected changes in precipitation for 2025 to 2049 under the RCP 4.5
and 8.5 scenarios range from an increase of 1.3 cm/month (0.5 in/month)
to a decrease of 1.5 cm/month (0.5 in/month), with a an annual average
of no change compared to 1981 to 2010 (USGS 2019, entire). However,
winter and spring precipitation under both emission scenarios is
projected to decrease from -0.3 to -1 cm (-0.1 to -0.4 inches) (MACA
2019) or a decrease up to 10 percent for 2016-2035 relative to 1986-
2005 under RCP 4.5 (IPCC 2013, p. 985). The decrease in winter and
spring precipitation would likely be greater under the RCP 8.5
scenario. There is some evidence from comparing observations with
simulations of the recent past that climate models might be
underestimating the magnitude of changes in precipitation in many
regions (IPCC 2013, p. 986). The climate-model-projected simulations
indicate that a high degree of variability of annual precipitation will
continue during the coming century, for both low and high emission
scenarios (Garfin 2013, p. 110). This suggests that the Southwest will
remain susceptible to unusually wet spells and, on the other hand, will
remain prone to occasional drought episodes (Garfin 2013, p. 110).
However, decrease in soil moisture across much of the Southwest is
projected under both scenarios by mid-century, due to increased
evaporation (IPCC 2013, p. 1259). Late winter-spring mountain snowpack
in the Southwest is predicted to continue to decline over the 21st
century under the high emission scenario (A2), mostly because of
projected increased temperature (Garfin et al. 2013, p. 6). Reduced
rain and snow, earlier snowmelt, and drying tendencies cause a
reduction in late-spring and summer runoff. Together these effects,
along with increases in evaporation, result in lower soil moisture by
early summer (Gafrin 2013, p. 117).
Climatic events such as snowpack, earlier snowmelt, and increased
drought are regional and will impact all populations of beardless
chinchweed. Precipitation timing and amount impacts the germination,
growth, and flowering of beardless chinchweed, resulting in the loss of
individuals and recruitment, and overall reducing the population size.
In the Southwest, temperatures increased 2.7 degrees Celcius
([deg]C) (1.6 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F)) plus or minus 0.9 [deg]C
(0.5 [deg]F), between 1901 and 2010, and more heat waves occurred over
the Southwest during 2001-2010 compared to average occurrences in the
20th century. In the future, under RCP 4.5, the annual maximum
temperature is projected to increase by 5 [deg]C (2.7 [deg]F) for 2025-
2049 and 7.3 [deg]C (4 [deg]F) for 2050-2074, and 5 [deg]C (2.7 [deg]F)
for 2025-2049 and 10.4 [deg]C (5.7 [deg]F) for 2050-2074 under RCP 8.5,
all relative to 1981-2010 (USGS 2019, entire). When temperatures rise,
as has been occurring in recent decades and as is projected to continue
into the future, evapotranspiration rates also increase and soil
moisture decreases. Along with projected warming and increased
evapotranspiration, it is highly likely that droughts will become more
severe (Garfin 2013, pp. 137-138). A decrease of up to 4 percent soil
moisture is projected under RCP 4.5 scenario for 2016-2035, relative to
1986-2005. The decrease in soil moisture would likely be greater under
the RCP 8.5 scenario. Further, the evaporation deficient increases
under RCP 4.5 and increases more in RCP 8.5 in 2025 to 2049, relative
to 1981 to 2010. Based on the high emissions scenario, the current 100-
year drought will become commonplace in the second half of this century
and future droughts will be much more severe than those previously
recorded (Garfin 2013, p. 138). This projection of intensified drought
conditions on the Colorado River is not due to changes in
precipitation, but rather due directly to warming and its effect on
reducing soil moisture (Garfin 2013, p. 138). Physiological effects of
CO2 may involve both the stomatal response, which acts to
restrict transpiration, and an increase in plant growth and leaf area,
which acts to increase evapotranspiration (IPCC 2013, p. 986). An
increase in evapotranspiration results in water loss from the plant and
increases stress on the plant. This increase in stress impacts
photosynthesis, respiration, transpiration, water use efficiency, leaf
conductance, growth rate, vigor, and gas exchange. These impacts result
in reduced growth, flowering, and seed production and, therefore, in
reduced overall recruitment and population numbers.
Although rare species in the southwestern United States evolved
with drought, recent changes in temperature, and rainfall patterns
present stressful conditions of increased magnitude greater than what
the species faced historically and raise the question of whether the
species, can persist. Some species may shift their distributions in
response to warming of the climate (McLaughlin et al. 2002, p. 6070).
However, it is highly unlikely that beardless chinchweed would be able
to naturally shift its range to keep up with current and high projected
rates of climate change, due to its overall population decline and
inability to maintain current populations. Since plants are not mobile,
expanding the distribution of this species is dependent on seed
dispersal. Further, extant populations are small, which limit the
amount of seed production for dispersal. It is highly unlikely that
under elevated environmental stress associated with climate change, the
species would be able to both maintain populations and also colonize
new areas with more suitable climate conditions. Thus localized
extirpations over portions of the beardless chinchweed range could
result (lower elevations), and, in other portions of its distribution,
the occupied range (higher elevation) may expand, depending upon
habitat availability.
Erosion, Sedimentation, and Burial
General road maintenance and widening could disturb populations
along road cuts and create erosion (Phillips et al. 1982, p. 8). Of the
six extant U.S. populations, the Ruby Road and Scotia Canyon
populations, and the State of Texas Mine subpopulation of Coronado
National Memorial occur along roadcuts; similarly, the Visitor Center
subpopulation of the Coronado National Memorial population contains
some plants that occur along a maintained trail. These plants could be
damaged or removed by road or trail maintenance. Impacts from such
stressors could be profound for
[[Page 67073]]
populations with fewer than 50 individuals. In addition, nonnative
plant introduction and spread often occur in areas of disturbance, such
as along roadways, along trails, in mining sites, and in areas of
recreational use (Gelbard and Belnap 2003, p. 421; Brooks 2007, pp.
153-154; Anderson et al. 2015, p. 1).
The McCleary Canyon--Gunsight Pass population is in the path of a
proposed alignment of a secondary access road for the proposed Rosemont
Mine (Westland 2010, p. iv), and the McCleary Canyon--Wasp Canyon
population is within the processing facility portion of the proposed
Rosemont Mine (Westland 2017, entire). Collectively, these plants
represent approximately 33 percent of the total beardless chinchweed
populations known across the U.S. range and 16 percent of all known
individuals. The proposed road alignment would eliminate these
populations.
Dust from mining operations or recreational travel can impact
beardless chinchweed populations along dirt roadways. Dust may
negatively affect plant growth and vigor as a result of changes in
physiological and biochemical processes (e.g., photosynthesis,
respiration, transpiration, water use efficiency, leaf conductance,
growth rate, vigor, and gas exchange) and reduced pollination (Phillips
et al. 1982, pp. 9-10; Chibuike and Obiora 2014, p. 1; Waser et al.
2017, p. 90). These impacts could affect those populations within 30
meters (98 feet) of roads and mine sites (Waser et al. 2017, p. 90).
This stressor could impact four of the six populations in the United
States.
Grazing
There are two different perspectives on the influence of grazing on
beardless chinchweed:
(1) Wildfire historically maintained native open habitat where
beardless chinchweed occurred, but with fire suppression, overgrazing
may have alternatively provided native open habitats for this species
to expand its range in the early 1900s, even without frequent fire
(Schmalzel 2015, p. 2), due to open space being created and maintained
by cattle; and
(2) Grazing pressure may have contributed to the species' rareness
(Keil 1982, entire) due to reduced reproduction and alteration in
habitat.
Regardless, grazing that occurs in small populations (fewer than 50
individuals) of beardless chinchweed would have a negative population-
level impact through the reduction of flowers and seeds, and possibly
individuals. Beardless chinchweed does not flower until it reaches a
height of more than 0.5 m (1.6 ft) tall, suggesting that grazing in
summer or fall when the plant is growing and flowering could reduce
seed production and recruitment.
Small Populations
Small population size has the potential to affect beardless
chinchweed' population resiliency, as all stressors are exacerbated in
populations with only a small number of individuals (fewer than 50).
Known population sizes of beardless chinchweed were used to quantify
the size of a small population. Small populations are less able to
recover from losses caused by random environmental changes (Shaffer and
Stein 2000, pp. 308-310), such as fluctuations in reproduction
(demographic stochasticity), variations in rainfall (environmental
stochasticity), or changes in the frequency or severity of
disturbances, such as wildfires. Five of the six extant beardless
chinchweed populations in the United States contain fewer than 50
individuals. Based on populations in the United States, which are
mostly small and occur in habitat dominated by nonnatives, we believe
that the six populations in Mexico are of similar size but may be in
worse condition, because of limited native habitat management, similar
climate change impacts, equally frequent wildfires, and likely more
impacts from grazing. Loss due to mining, erosion, road and trail
maintenance, trampling, grazing, or other stressors mentioned above are
exacerbated in small populations, and have the potential to seriously
damage or completely remove these small populations. Synergistic
interactions among wildfire, nonnative grasses, decreased
precipitation, and increased temperatures cumulatively and cyclically
impact beardless chinchweed, and all stressors are exacerbated in small
populations.
Current Condition of Beardless Chinchweed
Since 1962, we are aware of nine populations and one subpopulation
of beardless chinchweed in the United States that have become
extirpated. Currently, six extant beardless chinchweed populations are
spread across four mountain ranges in southern Arizona: The Atascosa-
Pajarito, Huachuca, Santa Rita, and the Canelo Hills. These six
populations consist of 387 individuals spread across less than 2 ha (5
ac). Additionally, six populations have been reported from northern
Mexico, but this information is from 1940 or earlier.
Population Resiliency of Beardless Chinchweed
To help determine current condition, we assessed each population in
terms of its resiliency. Our analysis of the past, current, and future
stressors on the resources that beardless chinchweed needs for long-
term viability revealed that there are a number of stressors impacting
this species. All beardless chinchweed populations likely contain
nonnative grasses. Further, altered fire regime has the potential to
affect all populations. This altered fire regime enhances the spread of
nonnatives, and all populations of beardless chinchweed contain
nonnatives. Consequently, fire will aid in the spread of nonnatives,
and is currently a risk to all populations of beardless chinchweed and
will be further exacerbated by nonnative grasses in the near future
(approximately 10 years). Altered precipitation, increased
temperatures, increased evapotranspiration, decreased soil moisture,
and decreased winter and spring precipitation are current and ongoing
regional actions that are impacting all populations of beardless
chinchweed. These environmental conditions exacerbate an altered fire
regime, which in turn further drives the spread of nonnatives. In
addition, nonnative grasses have competitive advantage over native
grasses during periods of drought.
Road maintenance is likely resulting in the direct killing of
individuals in three populations (Ruby Road, Scotia Canyon, and
Coronado National Memorial). In addition, all individuals in these
three populations are currently being impacted by dust from the road.
These three populations are already of low resiliency. Two additional
populations (McCleary Canyon--Gunsight Pass and McCleary Canyon--Wasp
Canyon) will be impacted by Rosemont mining operations and dust in the
near future (approximately 10 years; Westland 2010, p. iv). One of
these populations is already of low resiliency, and the other is of
moderate resiliency. Eleven of the 12 populations (92 percent) are
small population (fewer than 50 individuals). Synergistic interactions
among wildfire, nonnative grasses, decreased precipitation, and
increased temperatures cumulatively and cyclically impact beardless
chinchweed, and all stressors are exacerbated in small populations. Of
the six extant populations, two are moderately resilient and four are
in low resiliency (Table 5, below). Population resiliency categories
are described in Table 2, above, and in the SSA report (Service 2018a).
[[Page 67074]]
Table 5--Beardless Chinchweed Current Population Condition
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Mountain range/country Population individuals Current condition
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atascosa-Pajarito Mountains, USA....... Pena Blanca Lake......... 0 Extirpated.
Ruby Road................ 10 Low.
Summit Motorway.......... 0 Extirpated.
Canelo Hills, USA...................... Audubon Research Ranch... 37 Low.
Copper Mountain.......... 0 Extirpated.
Harshaw Creek............ 0 Extirpated.
Lampshire Well........... 0 Extirpated.
Huachuca Mountains, USA................ Scotia Canyon............ 40 Low.
Coronado National 241 Low.
Memorial.
Joe's Canyon Trail....... 0 Extirpated.
Patagonia Mountains, USA............... Flux Canyon.............. 0 Extirpated.
Washington Camp.......... 0 Extirpated.
Santa Rita Mountains, USA.............. Box Canyon............... 0 Extirpated.
McCleary Canyon--Gunsight 32 Moderate.
Pass.
McCleary Canyon--Wasp 32 Low.
Canyon.
Chihuahua, Mexico...................... Batopililas, Rio Mayo.... ~10 Low.
Guasaremos, Rio Mayo..... ~10 Low.
Sonora, Mexico......................... Canon de la Petaquilla... ~10 Low.
North of Horconcitos..... ~10 Low.
Canyon Estrella, Sierra ~10 Low.
de los Cendros;
southeast of Tesopaco.
Los Conejos, Rio Mayo.... ~10 Low.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beardless Chinchweed Representation
No genetic studies have been conducted within or between the 21
historical populations of beardless chinchweed in southern Arizona and
Mexico. Mountain ranges that have only one or two populations, or have
only have one subpopulation per population, or low numbers of
individuals per population with several miles between mountain ranges,
may not be as genetically diverse because pollination or transport of
seeds between populations may be very limited or nonexistent. Five of
the six extant U.S. populations do not have multiple subpopulations.
The Coronado National Memorial population has two subpopulations. The
six extant U.S. populations are separated geographically into the
Atascosa-Pajarito, Huachuca, and Santa Rita Mountains, and the Canelo
Hills, which are separated by 16 to 61 km (9.9 to 37.9 mi). There is
likely genetic diversity among mountain ranges, but reduced genetic
diversity within populations. Further, overall genetic diversity is
likely reduced given that some populations are extirpated.
The 15 historical beardless chinchweed populations in the United
States range in elevation from 1,158 m (3,799 ft) to 1,737 m (5,699
ft). Of these, eight (about 53 percent) fall below 457 m (1,500 ft)
elevation. Of these eight, six have become extirpated in recent
decades. This essentially indicates a loss at this lower elevational
range and possibly loss of some local adaptation to warmer or dryer
environments and genetic differentiation among populations.
In the Ruby Road, Scotia Canyon, and Coronado National Memorial
populations, plants have been reported over many decades, indicating
that these populations may have the genetic and environmental diversity
needed to adapt to changing conditions. Note, however, that both the
Ruby Road and Scotia Canyon populations have been reduced in size in
the past 30 years, and we have no previous count data at Coronado
National Memorial for comparison.
Beardless Chinchweed Redundancy
The beardless chinchweed populations in the United States and
Mexico are naturally fragmented between mountain ranges. Currently, six
extant beardless chinchweed U.S. populations are spread across
Atascosa-Pajarito, Huachuca, and Santa Rita Mountains and the Canelo
Hills. The Atascosa-Pajarito Mountains and the Canelo Hills have only
one extant population each, while the Santa Rita and Huachuca Mountains
have two extant populations each. These mountain ranges are separated
from each other by 16 to 61 km (9.9 to 37.9 mi), so natural gene
exchange or re-establishment following extirpation is very unlikely. In
addition, six historical populations of beardless chinchweed are
distributed across two general areas in northern Chihuahua and Sonora,
Mexico. Their status is unknown, but we believe they are small
populations with poor habitat based on populations in the United
States, which are small and dominated by nonnative species. Although
this may imply some level of redundancy across the range of beardless
chinchweed, note that five of the six extant populations in the United
States contain fewer than 50 individual plants. Further, nine
populations and one subpopulation have been extirpated in recent
decades, largely from the lower elevations of the species' range, and
several populations have been reduced in size in recent decades.
Future Condition of Beardless Chinchweed
We also assessed the future condition of beardless chinchweed under
several plausible scenarios in our SSA report (Service 2018a, entire).
We present a summary of the relevant information here; the detailed
future condition analysis is available in the SSA report.
We developed four scenarios incorporating the stressors that are
ongoing or will occur in the future to consider the range of possible
future conditions. For each scenario, we describe the level of impact
from the identified stressors that would occur in each population. All
of the scenarios involve some degree of uncertainty; however, they
present a range of realistic and plausible future conditions (Table 6).
All scenarios consider impacts from nonnative invasion, altered
wildfire regime, and drought because there is no likely future scenario
where these stressors would not affect the species. In addition,
effects on individual plants (small population size) from multiple
stressors are assessed, including cross-border
[[Page 67075]]
violator traffic, mining, trampling, erosion, road and trail
maintenance, and grazing. We projected the likelihood of each scenario
occurring at 40-years. We chose 40 years because this is within the
range of available hydrological and climate change model forecasts, is
within the time period of the Rosemont Mine effects, and it represents
four generations of the plant.
Below is a summary of the four scenarios. For more detail, see
Chapter 6 of the SSA (Service 2018a, entire).
Table 6--Future Scenarios for Beardless Chinchweed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Risks Mining activity Altered fire regime * Climate Individual effects Conservation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Risk described..................... Burial....... Lightning.... Reduction in Grazing..... Conservation actions
Removal...... Nonnative available water **. Trampling... implemented.
Dust......... plants. Seedling Trail and
Cross border desiccation. road maintenance.
violators. Flowering Erosion.....
Recreation... halt.
Scenario 1 Continuation continuing Rosemont mine Number of wildfires Available water and Applied to No new individuals,
into the future. implemented with annually increases at drought continue at populations <50 subpopulations or
indirect and direct the same rate as the the same level as in individuals. populations found.
impacts. last 10 years. the past 10 years, No augmentation of
emissions 4.5. existing
populations, little
seed preservation,
nonnatives not
controlled, some
woodland areas
thinned.
Scenario 2 Conservation............ Rosemont mine Number of wildfires Available water Applied to Sites revisited and
implemented with does not increase remains stable, populations <50 additional plants
indirect and direct from current rate. emissions 4.5. individuals. are located, sites
impacts; with are augmented, or
mitigation. new sites are
established, some
nonnatives are
controlled, and
additional woodland
areas are thinned.
Scenario 3 Moderate increase in Rosemont mine Number of wildfires Available water is Applied to No new individuals,
negative effects. implemented with increases. reduced per 4.5 populations <50 subpopulations or
direct impacts and emissions scenario. individuals. populations found.
additional mines No augmentation of
implemented with existing
indirect impacts. populations, little
seed preservation,
nonnatives not
controlled, some
woodland areas
thinned.
Scenario 4 Major increase in Rosemont mine Number of wildfires Available water is Applied to No new individuals,
negative effects. implemented and increases. reduced per 8.5 populations <50 subpopulations or
additional mines emissions scenario. individuals. populations found.
implemented with No augmentation of
direct impacts. existing
populations, little
seed preservation,
nonnatives not
controlled, some
woodland areas
thinned.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ``continuation'' scenario evaluates the condition of beardless
chinchweed if there is no increase in risk of stressors to the
populations relative to what exists today. The other scenarios evaluate
the response of the species to changes in those risks. The
``conservation'' scenario takes into account realistically possible
additional protective measures, which may or may not happen. The
``moderate effects'' scenario is an increase in the risk of stressors
to populations. The ``major effects'' scenario is a further increase in
risk of stressors to populations.
We examined the resiliency, representation, and redundancy of
beardless chinchweed under each of these plausible scenarios (see table
6.7 in the SSA report). The overall resiliency categories are the same
as those used for current condition. We expect the six extant beardless
chinchweed populations to experience changes to aspects of their
habitat in different ways under the different scenarios. We projected
the expected future resiliency, representation, and redundancy of
beardless chinchweed based on the risk of stressors that would occur
under each scenario (see Table 7). Under the ``continuation'' scenario,
we would expect the viability of beardless chinchweed to be
characterized by a loss of resiliency, representation, and redundancy
at the level that is currently occurring. Under the ``conservation''
scenario, we would expect the viability of beardless chinchweed to be
characterized by higher levels of resiliency, representation, and
redundancy than it exhibits under the current condition. Under the
``moderate effects'' scenario, we would expect the viability of
beardless chinchweed to be characterized by lower levels of resiliency,
representation, and redundancy than it has in the ``continuation''
scenario. Under the ``major effects'' scenario, we would expect all
populations of beardless chinchweed to be extirpated at the 40-year
time step.
Table 7--Beardless Chinchweed Population Conditions Under the Current Condition and All Future Scenarios
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Continuation Conservation Moderate effects Major effects
Mountain range Population name Current condition scenario scenario scenario scenario
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atascosa-Pajarito............... Pena Blanca Lake.. Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated.
Ruby Road......... Low............... Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated.
Summit Motorway... Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated.
Canelo Hills.................... Audubon Research Low............... Low............... Low............... Extirpated........ Extirpated.
Ranch.
Copper Mountain... Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated.
Harshaw Creek..... Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated.
Lampshire Well.... Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated.
Huachuca........................ Scotia Canyon..... Low............... Low............... Low............... Extirpated........ Extirpated.
Coronado National Low............... Low............... Low............... Low............... Extirpated.
Memorial.
Joe's Canyon Trail Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated.
Patagonia....................... Flux Canyon....... Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated.
Washington Camp... Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated.
Santa Rita...................... Box Canyon Road... Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated.
McCleary Canyon-- Moderate.......... Low............... Low............... Extirpated........ Extirpated.
Gunsight Pass.
McCleary Canyon-- Low............... Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated.
Wasp Canyon.
Chihuahua, MX................... Batopililas....... Low............... Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated.
Guasaremos........ Low............... Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated.
[[Page 67076]]
Sonora, MX...................... Canon de la Low............... Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated.
Petaquilla.
Canyon Estrella... Low............... Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated.
Horconcitos....... Low............... Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated.
Los Conejos....... Low............... Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bartram's Stonecrop
Several factors influence whether Bartram's stonecrop populations
will grow to increase habitat occupancy, which increases the resiliency
of a population to stochastic events. We evaluated the past, current,
and future stressors that are affecting what Bartram's stonecrop needs
for viability. These stressors are described in detail in the chapter 4
of the SSA report (Service 2018b, entire). Stressors that have the
potential to affect Bartram's stonecrop population resiliency include:
Loss of water in nearby drainages from mining and drought;
Erosion, sedimentation, and burial from mining, livestock,
wildlife, recreation trails and roads, cross-border violators, and
post-wildfire runoff;
Trampling from humans, wildlife, and livestock, and
predation;
Altered fire regime resulting from fires ignited by
recreationists, cross-border violators, and lightning;
Illegal collection;
Altered precipitation, drought, flooding, and freezing
regime from current and future climate change, resulting in loss of
seedling, immature, and adult plants, and in loss of reproduction; and
Small population size exacerbating all other stressors.
The stressors that pose the largest risk to future viability of the
species, which are related to habitat changes, include:
(1) Groundwater extraction and prolonged drought that may reduce
nearby water levels and humidity within Bartram's stonecrop habitat;
and
(2) Altered fire regimes leading to erosion of Bartram's stonecrop
habitat, sedimentation that could cover individuals, and loss of
overstory shade trees. These stressors play a large role in the future
viability of Bartram's stonecrop, especially for smaller populations.
These stressors may reduce nearby water levels, shade, and humidity
within Bartram's stonecrop habitat and may directly impact individuals.
Loss of Water
Dewatering of streams from mining operations may lead to overstory
canopy losses and resulting loss of shade, as well as reduction in
spring and stream flow and humidity in nearby Bartram's stonecrop
populations. The Rosemont Mine Final Environmental Impact Statement
states that no Bartram's stonecrop were found in the project area or
the footprint of the connected actions; however, individuals growing in
the analysis area could experience indirect impacts from groundwater
drawdown (USFS 2013a, p. 676). According to the Rosemont Mine Final
Environmental Impact Statement (USFS 2013a, p. 339), the proposed mine
pit would create a permanent drawdown of the water table, and
groundwater would flow toward the pit and be lost to evaporation. The
water would be perpetually replenished in part by groundwater from the
regional aquifer, and the pit would act as a hydraulic sink. Given that
Bartram's stonecrop is consistently found in locations with nearby
springs or other water sources, the loss of groundwater at the nearby
unmapped spring in Box Canyon/Sycamore Canyon confluence, between
Ruelas Spring and the Singing Valley Road residences, could
significantly impact these Bartram's stonecrop plants. In the range of
Bartram's stonecrop, there are many mining claims, trenching and
exploration drilling activities, and a few active and proposed mines.
Many currently undeveloped areas of locatable mineral deposits may be
explored and/or mined in the future. We do not know the extent of
future mine activity within the range of Bartram's stonecrop; however,
a number of proposed mines are identified for development within
Bartram's stonecrop habitat. The range of current and projected mining
activities varies from 1 to 10 per sky island mountain range containing
Bartram's stonecrop (USFS 2012, entire). The loss of water in any
Bartram's stonecrop population could lead to extirpation of that
population.
Erosion, Sedimentation, and Burial
Bartram's stonecrop typically occurs on steep slopes with erodible
soils and areas susceptible to rock fall, making the plant particularly
vulnerable to physical damage to its environment (Phillips et al. 1982,
p. 10; Shohet 1999, p. 50; Ferguson 2014, p. 42; Ferguson 2016a, pp.
15, 26). Soil erosion can result in burying plants, eroding the soil
the plant is growing in, or dislodging plants. While displaced plants
may re-root (Shohet 1999, pp. 50-51, 60), it is more likely that these
plants will not survive (Ferguson 2015, p. 2). The potential of soil
disturbance and erosion within or above Bartram's stonecrop habitat or
the trampling of individual Bartram's stonecrop plants may occur from a
variety of activities, including livestock and wildlife movement; the
placement and maintenance of infrastructure, trails, and roads; and
recreationists or cross-border violators traveling along established
trails or cross country (Phillips et al. 1982, p. 10; Shohet 1999, p.
60; Ferguson 2014, p. 42; NPS 2015, p. 4; Ferguson 2016a, p. 26).
Direct removal of Bartram's stonecrop individuals and substrate due
to erosion, or burial of individuals, may occur due to the placement of
mineral extraction sites and debris piles. These impacts could severely
impact small Bartram's stonecrop populations. Erosion from test pits
(an excavation made to examine the subsurface conditions of a potential
mine site) has been documented to remove portions of habitat occupied
by Bartram's stonecrop in Flux Canyon (Phillips et al. 1982, pp. 9-10).
Trampling
The trampling of individual Bartram's stonecrop plants may occur
from a variety of activities, including livestock and wildlife
movement; the placement and maintenance of infrastructure, trails, and
roads; and recreationists or cross-border violators traveling along
established trails or cross country (Phillips et al. 1982, p. 10;
Shohet 1999, p. 60; Ferguson 2014, p. 42; NPS 2015, p. 4; Ferguson
2016a, p. 26). Given the potential for these stressors, those
populations with fewer than 50 individuals may be heavily impacted
during periods of unusual recreational use. This stressor is considered
in our analysis of future viability only when it may impact a
population with fewer than 50 individuals.
Altered Fire Regime
Since the mid-1980s, wildfire frequency in western forests has
nearly quadrupled compared to the average of the period 1970 to 1986
(Westerling et
[[Page 67077]]
al. 2006, p. 941). The timing, frequency, extent, and destructiveness
of wildfires are likely to continue to increase (Westerling et al.
2006, p. 943), especially given historical land management actions, an
increase in fire starts from cross-border violators and recreationists
(e.g., from campfires, cigarettes, target shooting), nonnative plant
invasion, and continuing drought conditions (Westerling et al. 2006, p.
940; FireScape 2016, entire; Fire Management Information System 2016,
p. 2; Tersey 2017, pers. comm.). Altered fire regimes can have direct
and indirect impacts to Bartram's stonecrop and its habitat. Direct
impacts include burning of individual Bartram's stonecrop plants,
resulting in injury, reduction in reproductive structures, or death.
Indirect impacts of fire on Bartram's stonecrop may include increased
runoff of floodwaters, post-fire flooding, deposition of debris and
sediment originating in the burned area, erosion, changes in vegetation
community composition and structure, increased presence of nonnative
plants, alterations in the hydrologic and nutrient cycles, and loss of
overstory canopy shade essential for maintaining Bartram's stonecrop
microhabitat (Griffis et al. 2000, p. 243; Crawford et al. 2001, p.
265; Hart et al. 2005, p. 167; Smithwick et al. 2005, p. 165; Stephens
et al. 2014, p. 42; Ferguson 2014, p. 43; Ferguson 2016a, p. 26).
We are aware of 11 wildfires (Alamo, Brown, Elkhorn, Hog, Horseshoe
II, La Sierra, Lizard, Mule Ridge, Murphy, Soldier Basin, and Spring)
that have occurred in known Bartram's stonecrop sites in the past
decade that killed some Bartram's stonecrop individuals and removed
shade in some instances. When looking at the number of acres burned per
sky island mountain range in comparison to the number of adult
individuals known from that range, the two largest populations occur in
sky island mountain ranges that have had the fewest acres burned in the
past 10 years. It is not known if this is coincidence or is of
significance, as we do not have pre-fire population counts in any
population to address this question. Wildfires have burned in all nine
sky island mountain ranges of southern Arizona that support Bartram's
stonecrop during this time period. Fires did not burn through Bartram's
stonecrop populations in all cases, but fire could occur in any
population within this 10-year timeframe. Wildfire could potentially
cause extirpation of small Bartram's stonecrop populations throughout
the range of the species and have negative impacts on larger
populations. In addition, because it is thought that Bartram's
stonecrop seeds reside at the soil surface and the seeds are very tiny
(Shohet 1999, p.48), it is likely that the seeds would not survive a
wildfire.
The nonnative plants in the uplands and within Bartram's stonecrop
populations include nonnative grass species such as Lehman's lovegrass
and rose natal, both of which have numerous advantages over native
grasses. Lehman's lovegrass resprouts from roots and tiller nodes not
killed by hot fire, is not hampered by the reduction in mycorrhizae
associated with fire and erosion, responds to winter precipitation when
natives grasses are dormant, produces copious seed earlier than native
grasses, maintains larger seedbanks than native grasses, and has higher
seedling survival and establishment than native grasses during periods
of drought (Anable 1990, p. 49; Anable et al. 1992, p. 182; Robinett
1992, p. 101; Fernandez and Reynolds 2000, pp. 94-95; Crimmins and
Comrie 2004, p. 464; Geiger and McPherson 2005, p. 896; Schussman et
al. 2006, p. 589; O'Dea 2007, p. 149; Archer and Predick 2008, p. 26;
Mathias et al. 2013, entire). Rose natal is capable of growing in low
moisture situations, has prolific seed production, and culms that root
from the nodes (Stokes et al. 2011, p. 527). Both species outcompete
native plants, reduce structural and spacial diversity of habitats, and
increased biomass and fuel loads, increasing the fire frequency.
Nonnative grasses have been reported with Bartram's stonecrop
individuals in two instances, at French Joe Canyon and Juniper Flat
populations, increasing the likelihood of fire occurrence and
subsequent impacts to these two populations (Heritage Database
Management System, E.O. ID 55; Simpson 2017, pers. comm.). Nonnative
plant species increase the frequency and severity of wildfires, such
wildfires can directly and indirectly impact individuals and
populations.
Illegal Collection
Bartram's stonecrop is an attractive small plant that can be easily
collected by gardeners and succulent enthusiasts. Tagged individuals
were uprooted and taken from two sites in the Santa Rita Mountains, one
near a campsite (Shohet 1999, p. 60). In a 2016 on-line Google search
for Bartram's stonecrop for sale, an advertisement from a collector in
Texas offered to pay cash for Bartram's stonecrop seedlings or rooted
cuttings. One website notes that the similar southern Arizona occurring
species, G. rusbyi, is cultivated and legally available for sale from
cactus nurseries; however, Bartram's stonecrop is not (because it is
more difficult to propagate and maintain in captivity) and is therefore
vulnerable to collection. Small populations may not be able to recover
from collection, especially if the mature, reproductive plants are
removed. The removal of mature plants reduces the overall reproductive
effort of the population, thereby reducing the overall resilience of
the population.
Altered Precipitation, Drought, Flooding, and Freezing Regimes
Precipitation within the sky island mountain ranges is bimodal,
with winter snow and rain, and summer monsoon rain (CLIMAS 2014,
entire). Fall and winter (October through March) precipitation is
needed for Bartram's stonecrop germination, and both summer (July and
August) and fall precipitation (October and November) is needed for
Bartram's stonecrop flower production. Flowering is triggered by fall
rains and does not occur during periods of water stress (Shohet 1999,
pp. 22, 25, 36, 39). Altered precipitation timing and form (i.e., snow
versus rain), as well as reduced precipitation in the winter and spring
and prolonged drought, are important considerations in the analysis of
the future stressors to Bartram's stonecrop due to increased nonnative
competition during times of reduced precipitation and drought, which
exacerbate impacts from stressors (Anable 1990, p. 49; Robinett 1992,
p. 101; Fernandez and Reynolds 2000, pp. 94-95; Geiger and McPherson
2005, p. 896; Schussman et al. 2006, p. 589; Archer and Predick 2008,
p. 26; Mathias et al. 2013, entire). In addition, reduced precipitation
in the winter and spring and drought will also impact moisture
availability for Bartram's stonecrop's germination, growth, and
flowering.
Altered precipitation timing and form (snow versus rain), as well
as reduced winter and spring precipitation and prolonged drought, are
currently occurring and projected to increase or be altered from normal
in the Southwest (Garfin et al. 2014, entire). Recently there has been
a decrease in the amount of snowpack, earlier snowmelt, and increased
drought severity in the Southwest (Garfin et al. 2013, entire; Garfin
2013b, p. 465). Further, more wintertime precipitation is falling as
rain rather than snow in the western United States (IPCC 2013, p. 204;
Garfin 2013b p. 465). This means that the amount of runoff in the
spring when snow melts is reduced, as is soil moisture.
Under a continuation A2-high emissions scenario, reduced winter and
[[Page 67078]]
spring precipitation is consistently projected for the southern part of
the Southwest by 2100, as part of the general global precipitation
reduction in subtropical areas (Garfin et al. 2014, p. 465). Analyses
of the southwestern United States indicate future drying, primarily due
to a decrease in winter precipitation under both the RCP 4.5 and 8.5
scenarios (IPCC 2013, p. 1080). The annual projected changes in
precipitation for 2025 to 2049 under RCP 4.5 and 8.5 scenarios ranges
from an increase of 1.3 cm/mo (0.5 to a decrease of 0.5 in/mo), with an
annual average of no change compared to 1981 to 2010 (USGS 2019,
entire). However, winter and spring precipitation under both emission
scenarios is projected to decrease from -0.3 to -1 cm (-0.1 to -0.4 in)
(MACA 2019) or a decrease up to 10 percent for 2016-2035 relative to
1986-2005 under RCP 4.5 (IPCC 2013, p. 985). The decrease in winter and
spring precipitation would likely be greater under the RCP 8.5
scenario. There is some evidence from comparing observations with
simulations of the recent past that climate models might be
underestimating the magnitude of changes in precipitation in many
regions (IPCC 2013, p. 986). The climate-model-projected simulations
indicate that a high degree of variability of annual precipitation will
continue during the coming century, for both low and high emission
scenarios (Garfin 2013, p. 110). This suggests that the Southwest will
remain susceptible to unusually wet spells and, on the other hand, will
remain prone to occasional drought episodes (Garfin 2013, p. 110).
However, decrease in soil moisture across much of the Southwest is
projected under both scenarios by mid-century, due to increased
evaporation (IPCC 2013 p. 1259). Late winter-spring mountain snowpack
in the Southwest is predicted to continue to decline over the 21st
century under the high emission scenario (A2), mostly because of
projected increased temperature (Garfin et al. 2013, p. 6). Reduced
rain and snow, earlier snowmelt, and drying tendencies cause a
reduction in late-spring and summer runoff. Together these effects,
along with increases in evaporation, result in lower soil moisture by
early summer (Gafrin 2013, p. 117).
Precipitation timing and amount impacts the germination, growth,
and flowering of Bartram's stonecrop, resulting in the loss of
individuals and recruitment, and overall reducing the population size.
In the Southwest, temperatures increased 2.7[deg]C (1.6 [deg]F)
plus or minus 0.9 [deg]C (0.5 [deg]F), between 1901 and 2010, and more
heat waves occurred over the Southwest during 2001-2010 compared to
average occurrences in the 20th century. In the future, under RCP 4.5,
the annual maximum temperature is projected to increase by 5[deg]C
(2.7[deg]F) for 2025-2049 and 7.3 [deg]C (4[deg]F) for 2050-2074, and 5
[deg]C (2.7[deg]F) for 2025-2049 and 10.4 [deg]C (5.7[deg]F) for 2050-
2074 under RCP 8.5, all relative to 1981-2010 (USGS 2019, entire). When
temperatures rise, as has been occurring in recent decades and as is
projected to continue into the future, evapotranspiration rates also
increase and soil moisture decreases. Along with projected warming and
increased evapotranspiration, it is highly likely that droughts will
become more severe (Garfin 2013, pp. 137-138). A decrease of up to 4
percent soil moisture is projected under RCP 4.5 for 2016-2035,
relative to 1986-2005. The decrease in soil moisture would likely be
greater under RCP 8.5. Further, the evaporation deficient increases
under RCP 4.5 and increases more in RCP 8.5 in 2025 to 2049, relative
to 1981 to 2010. Based on the high emissions scenario, the current 100-
year drought will become commonplace in the second half of this century
and future droughts will be much more severe than those previously
recorded (Garfin 2013, p. 138). This projection of intensified drought
conditions on the Colorado River is not due to changes in
precipitation, but rather due directly to warming and its effect on
reducing soil moisture (Garfin 2013, p. 138). Physiological effects of
CO2 may involve both the stomatal response, which acts to
restrict transpiration, and an increase in plant growth and leaf area,
which acts to increase evapotranspiration (IPCC 2013 p. 986). An
increase in evapotranspiration results in water loss from the plant and
increases stress on the plant. This increase in stress impacts
photosynthesis, respiration, transpiration, water use efficiency, leaf
conductance, growth rate, vigor, and gas exchange. These impacts result
in reduced growth, flowering, and seed production, and, therefore,
reduces overall recruitment and population numbers.
Although rare species in the southwestern United States evolved
with drought, recent changes in temperature and rainfall patterns
present stressful conditions of increased magnitude above what the
species faced historically and raise the question of whether the
species in this rule can persist. Some species will shift their
distributions in response to warming of the climate (McLaughlin et al.
2002, p. 6070). It is highly unlikely that Bartram's stonecrop would be
able to naturally shift its range to keep up with current and high
projected rates of climate change due to its general state of
population decline, lack of suitable intervening habitat, and abundant
nonnative competitors. Thus, localized extinctions over portions of
Bartram's stonecrop's range could result.
Small Populations
Stressors are exacerbated in populations with only a small number
(e.g., fewer than 50) of individuals. Small populations are less able
to recover from losses caused by random environmental changes (Shaffer
and Stein 2000, pp. 308-310), such as fluctuations in reproduction
(demographic stochasticity), variations in rainfall (environmental
stochasticity), or changes in the frequency or severity of wildfires.
Approximately half of the extant Bartram's stonecrop populations
contain 50 or fewer individuals. Loss due to erosion, trampling,
collection, predation, fire, severe frost, or other stressors have the
potential to seriously damage or completely remove these small
populations.
In summary, the stressors that pose the largest risk to future
species viability are primarily related to habitat changes: Groundwater
extraction from mining, long-term drought, and alteration in wildfire
regime. These stressors may reduce nearby water levels, shade, and
humidity within Bartram's stonecrop habitat and may directly impact
individuals. Other important stressors include erosion or trampling
from livestock, wildlife, or human activities; illegal collection;
predation of Bartram's stonecrop or their shade trees by wildlife and
insects; abnormal freezing or flooding events; or other stressors that
have the potential to seriously damage or completely remove small
populations. Synergistic interactions among wildfire, drought, altered
precipitation, and increased temperatures cumulatively and cyclically
impact Bartram's stonecrop, and all stressors are exacerbated in small
populations.
Current Condition of Bartram's Stonecrop
Historically, we know of 33 populations spread across 13 mountain
ranges. Four populations have been extirpated in the United States in
recent years, and a fifth population has likely contracted in size. In
addition, the southeastern Arizona landscape has experienced many
changes since the 1890s, resulting from intensive cattle grazing, water
development, and fire
[[Page 67079]]
suppression (e.g., Bahre 1991, entire). These impacts may have reduced
the range or number of populations and individuals. Currently, 29
extant populations occur across 12 mountain ranges in the United States
and Mexico: 9 in southern Arizona and 3 in northern Mexico. The U.S.
populations total 3,726 individuals within occupied habitats that total
about 2 ha (5 ac). Data are lacking for the Mexico populations;
however, based on populations in the United States, which are mostly
small, we believe that the three populations in Mexico are of similar
size to U.S. populations but may be in worse condition, because of
limited native habitat management, similar climate change impacts,
equally frequent wildfires, and likely more livestock impacts (Romo et
al. 2012, entire; Arriaga et al. 2004, entire; Fishbein and Warren
1994, p. 20).
Population Resiliency for Bartram's Stonecrop
To help determine current condition, we assessed each population in
terms of its resiliency and assessed the species' representation and
redundancy. Our analysis of the past, current, and future stressors on
the resources that Bartram's stonecrop needs for long-term viability
revealed a number of stressors to this species. All Bartram's stonecrop
populations likely contain nonnative grasses. Further, altered fire
regime has the potential to affect all populations. This altered fire
regime enhances the spread of nonnatives. Consequently, all populations
of Bartram's stonecrop will be further impacted by nonnative grasses in
the near future. Altered precipitation, increased temperatures, and
decreased annual precipitation are current and ongoing regional
conditions that are impacting all populations of Bartram's stonecrop.
These environmental conditions exacerbate an altered fire regime,
which, in turn, further drives the spread of nonnatives. In addition,
nonnative grasses have competitive advantage over native grasses during
periods of drought. Many currently undeveloped areas of locatable
mineral deposits may be explored or mined in the future. We do not know
the extent of future mine activity within the range of Bartram's
stonecrop; however, there are 12 mining projects currently ongoing or
proposed within 8 km (5 mi) of Bartram's stonecrop populations in
Arizona. The range of current and projected mining activities varies
from 1 to 10 per sky island mountain range containing Bartram's
stonecrop (USFS 2012, entire). One population, Sycamore Canyon (115
adult individuals), would be affected by groundwater drawdown due to
the Rosemont Mine. Sycamore Canyon is currently in moderate condition.
Further, this species is collected and sold. Synergistic interactions
among wildfire, nonnative grasses, decreased precipitation, and
increased temperatures cumulatively and cyclically impact Bartram's
stonecrop, and all stressors are exacerbated in small populations. In
addition, because approximately 41 percent (12 populations) of the
extant Bartram's stonecrop populations contain 50 or fewer individuals,
loss due to erosion, trampling, collection, predation, fire, severe
frost, or other stressors have the potential to seriously damage or
completely remove these small populations. Of the 29 extant
populations, 1 population (3 percent) is in high condition, 21
populations (72 percent) are in moderate condition, and 7 populations
(24 percent) are in low condition (Table 8, below). Population
resiliency categories are described in Table 4, above, and in the SSA
report (Service 2018b).
Table 8--Bartram's Stonecrop Current Population Condition
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Sky Island Population individuals Current condition
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baboquivari............................. Brown Canyon.............. 112 Moderate.
Thomas Canyon............. 5 Low.
Chiricahua.............................. Echo Canyon............... 186 Moderate.
Indian Creek.............. 0 Extirpated.
Dragoon................................. Carlink Canyon............ 0 Extirpated.
Jordan Canyon............. 415 Moderate.
Sheephead................. 45 Moderate.
Slavin Gulch.............. 9 Moderate.
Stronghold Canyon East.... 188 Moderate.
Stronghold Canyon West.... 533 High.
Empire.................................. Empire Mountains.......... 0 Extirpated.
Mule.................................... Juniper Flat.............. 798 Moderate.
Pajarito-Atascosa....................... Alamo Canyon.............. 134 Moderate.
Holden Canyon............. 7 Moderate.
Sycamore Canyon........... 298 Moderate.
Warsaw Canyon............. 13 Moderate.
Patagonia............................... Alum Gulch................ 123 Moderate.
Rincon.................................. Chimenea-Madrona Canyon... 9 Moderate.
Happy Valley North........ 0 Extirpated.
Happy Valley South........ 14 Moderate.
Santa Rita.............................. Adobe Canyon.............. 82 Moderate.
Gardner Canyon............ 14 Moderate.
Josephine Canyon.......... 71 Moderate.
Madera Canyon............. 76 Moderate.
Squaw Gulch............... 5 Low.
Sycamore Canyon........... 115 Moderate.
Temporal Gulch............ 7 Moderate.
Walker Canyon............. 3 Moderate.
Whetstone............................... Deathtrap Canyon.......... 135 Low.
French Joe Canyon......... 87 Low.
Sierra Las Avispas, Sonora.............. Sierra Las Avispas........ 10 Low.
Sierra La Escuadra, Chihuahua........... Near Colonia Pacheco...... 10 Low.
Sierra La Estancia, Chihuahua........... Cuarenta Casas............ 10 Low.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 67080]]
Bartram's Stonecrop Representation
No genetic studies have been conducted within or between the 33
historical populations of Bartram's stonecrop in southern Arizona and
Mexico. However, we assessed representation for Bartram's stonecrop in
the form of its geographic distribution across the range. Some genetic
exchange likely occurs within populations containing many
subpopulations or many plants per subpopulation. Sky island populations
on different mountain ranges are widely separated (ranging from roughly
14 to 42 km (8.7 to 26 mi) apart), making cross-pollination across sky
islands highly unlikely. Mountain ranges that have only one or two
populations, have only one subpopulation per population, or have low
numbers of individuals per population with several miles between
mountain ranges may not be as genetically diverse because pollination
or transport of seeds between populations may be very limited. However,
there may be genetic diversity between populations within and between
the sky island mountain ranges in response to elevational and other
environmental differences between locations. Due to the loss of four
populations, it is possible that there has been a loss of genetic
diversity. However, because the species occurs across 29 populations in
12 mountain ranges, it is likely some genetic diversity exists among
mountain ranges.
In addition, because the plant occurs on multiple substrate types
and at a range of elevations (1,067 to 2,042 m (3,500 to 6,700 ft)),
there is likely some local adaptation and genetic differentiation among
populations. This range in elevation provides a variety of climatic
conditions for the species to inhabit. Lastly, in at least three
locations (Flux Canyon, Sycamore Canyon (Pajarito-Atascosa Mountains),
and Gardner Canyon populations), Bartram's stonecrop have been reported
over many decades, indicating that these populations may have the
genetic and environmental diversity to adapt to changing conditions.
Bartram's Stonecrop Redundancy
The Bartram's stonecrop populations in the United States and Mexico
are naturally fragmented between mountain ranges. Currently, 29 extant
Bartram's stonecrop populations are spread across 12 different mountain
ranges in southern Arizona and northern Mexico. Although these numbers
may imply redundancy across its range, note that 24 of the 29 extant
populations contain fewer than 150 total individual plants. Further, 14
of the 29 populations have 50 individuals or less, and 4 populations
have been extirpated over recent (approximately 10) years. Five
mountain ranges (Baboquivari, Chiricahua, Mule, Whetstone, and
Patagonia Mountains) have only one or two populations each or have only
have one subpopulation per population, and low numbers of individuals
per population. These sky island mountain ranges are several miles away
from the other sky island mountain ranges, so natural gene exchange or
re-establishment following extirpation is unlikely. In addition, the
Mule Mountains contain large number of Bartram's stonecrop individuals,
but there is only one population and it is approximately 38 km (23.6
mi) away from the nearest population, making natural re-establishment
of populations unlikely. In addition, this population is known to be
contracting in size due to drying of habitat (The Nature Conservancy
1987, p. 2).
Future Condition of the Bartram's Stonecrop
We now consider the species' future condition of population
resiliency and the species' representation and redundancy are likely to
be. The future viability of Bartram's stonecrop depends on maintaining
multiple resilient populations over time. The resiliency of Bartram's
stonecrop populations depends on moisture in their microenvironment
maintained by shade from overstory vegetation, spring and winter
precipitation, proximity to water, and vegetation litter. We expect the
29 extant Bartram's stonecrop populations to experience changes to all
of these aspects of their habitat, although it may be in different ways
under the different conditions. In addition, direct impacts to
Bartram's stonecrop through being dislodged, buried, or collected will
continue to impact the species.
Given our uncertainty regarding the scope of the stressors
manifesting and the species' response, we forecasted future conditions
of Bartram's stonecrop under four plausible future scenarios (see
chapter 6 of the SSA report; Service 2018b). We developed these
scenarios to span a range of potential stressors that are ongoing or
will occur in the future that we believe will influence the future
status of the species. We chose 10 years to evaluate the current
condition, as well as future projections out to 40 years because this
is within the range of predictions of available hydrological and
climate change model forecasts and is within the time period of the
Rosemont Mine effects. This time frame represents eight generations of
the Bartram's stonecrop, which allows us to assess reproductive effects
on the species and allows the species opportunities to rebound after
poor water years. The ten-year time step also represents a reasonable
timeframe to judge the species' current vulnerability to threats as
they are manifested now, without projecting changes to threats that
longer timeframes would provide. Thus, the future scenarios forecast
the viability of Bartram's stonecrop over the next 40 years. See table
9 below for a summary of the four scenarios. For more detail, see
Chapter 6 of the SSA report (Service 2018b, entire).
Table 9--Future Scenarios for Bartram's Stonecrop
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Risks Mining activity Altered fire regime Climate Climate Individual effects Conservation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Risk described........... Water extraction, Lightning Reduction in Dislodging from Livestock Conservation
Excavation, Burial, Recreation Cross available water * flooding events, Recreation actions
Shade reduction. border violators and/or shade. Seedling Trampling implemented.
Nonnative plants. desiccation, Predation
Flowering halt, Collection.
Shade removal.
Scenario 1. Continuation Ongoing or planned Number of wildfires Available water and Number and severity Applied to No new individuals,
continuing into the mining activities annually increases drought continue of flooding events populations <50 subpopulations or
future. as of 2012 (~20). at the same rate at the same level continues at the individuals. populations found.
as the last 10 as in the past 10 past 10 years. No augmentation of
years. years. Emissions Emissions <4.5. existing
8.5. populations, no
seed preservation,
nonnatives
controlled, and
forest thinned.
Scenario 2. Conservation. Number of mining Number of wildfires Available water Flooding events do Applied to Sites revisited and
activities does not does not increase remains stable. not increase. populations <50 additional plants
increase from from current rate. Emissions 4.5. Emissions <4.5. individuals. are located, sites
current condition. are augmented, or
new sites are
established,
nonnatives
controlled, and
forest thinned.
[[Page 67081]]
Scenario 3. Moderate 1-3 new mining Number of wildfires Available water is Increases in flash Applied to No new individuals,
increase in negative activities (above increases in reduced per 8.5 flooding per 4.5 populations <50 subpopulations, or
effects. the 2012 number) uplands. emissions scenario. emissions scenario. individuals. populations found,
are implemented and/ and no
or existing mines augmentation of
expand. existing
populations,
nonnatives
controlled, and
forest thinned.
Scenario 4. Major >3 new mining Number of wildfires Available water is Increases in flash Applied to No new individuals,
increase in negative activities are increases in reduced per 8.5 flooding per 8.5 populations <50 subpopulations or
effects. implemented and/or uplands. emissions scenario. emissions scenario. individuals. populations found,
existing mines and no
expand. augmentation of
existing
populations,
nonnatives
controlled, and
forest thinned.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Available water includes precipitation, soil moisture, humidity, surface water, aquifer recharge, reduction in riparian vegetation, and increased
number of days without water.
All scenarios consider impacts from mining, wildfire, and climate.
In addition, effects on individual plants from multiple stressors are
assessed, including livestock, recreation, trampling, predation, and
collection. The ``continuation'' scenario evaluates the condition of
Bartram's stonecrop if there is no increase in risks to the populations
relative to what exists today, while the other scenarios evaluate the
response of the species to changes in those risks. The ``conservation''
scenario takes into account realistically possible additional
protective measures which may or may not happen. The ``moderate
effects'' scenario is an increase in the risks to populations with
changes in climate as projected in a lower (8.5) emissions scenario
along with increases in other stressors. The ``major effects'' scenario
is a further increase in risks to populations, with changes in climate
projected at a higher (8.5) emissions scenario, and with additional
increases in other stressors. These are described in more detail in
chapter 6 of the SSA report (Service 2018b).
The most likely scenario is the ``moderate effects'' scenario, with
impacts to the species occurring around the 40-year time step. Under
the ``moderate effects'' scenario, water flow reduction due to drought
and groundwater extraction continues to reduce the humid microhabitat
for this species. Cross-border violator traffic continues, and risk of
catastrophic wildfire is high due to dry conditions; invasion of
nonnatives in the uplands; and increased risk of fire starts from
illegal activity, recreation, and natural causes. Mining impacts
individuals in the Patagonia and Santa Rita Mountains. Collection,
trampling, freezing, predation, and human impacts also continue at
current or increased levels. The full analyses of all scenarios are
available in the SSA report (Service 2018b, chapter 6); however, we are
only presenting the full results of the ``moderate effects'' scenario
here because it gives the most realistic projection of the future
condition of the species.
Under the ``moderate effects'' scenario, within the 40-year
timeframe, we expect Bartram's stonecrop's viability to be
characterized by lower levels of resiliency, representation, and
redundancy than it has currently, which is already reduced as described
above. Under the ``moderate effects'' scenario, no populations would be
in high condition, 4 populations (12 percent) would remain in moderate
condition, 16 populations (52 percent) would be in low condition, and
13 populations (36 percent) would be extirpated, further reducing
population redundancy and connectivity (see table 6.6 in the SSA
report; Service 2018b). Under the ``moderate effects'' scenario,
because of the intensity of stressors discussed above, 22 populations
would be reduced from their current condition (see Table 10, and see
figure 6.3 and table 6.6 in the SSA report (Service 2018b)). We further
believed that in the ``moderate effects'' scenario, one of the three
small populations in Mexico becomes extirpated due to the amount of
nonnatives contributing to fire, reduction in precipitation, increase
in drought, and low resiliency of a small population.
Table 10--Bartram's Stonecrop Population Conditions Under the ``Moderate Effects'' Scenario
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Condition under the ``moderate effects''
Sky Island Population scenario
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baboquivari............................ Brown Canyon.............. Low.
Thomas Canyon............. Low.
Chiricahua............................. Echo Canyon............... Low.
Indian Creek.............. Extirpated.
Dragoon................................ Carlink Canyon............ Extirpated.
Jordan Canyon............. Moderate.
Sheephead................. Low.
Slavin Gulch.............. Low.
Stronghold Canyon East.... Moderate.
Stronghold Canyon West.... Moderate.
Empire................................. Empire Mountains.......... Extirpated.
Mule................................... Juniper Flat.............. Low.
Pajarito-Atascosa...................... Alamo Canyon.............. Low.
Holden Canyon............. Extirpated.
Sycamore Canyon........... Moderate.
Warsaw Canyon............. Extirpated.
Patagonia.............................. Alum Canyon............... Extirpated.
Rincon................................. Chimenea-Madrona Canyon... Low.
Happy Valley North........ Extirpated.
Happy Valley South........ Low.
Santa Rita............................. Adobe Canyon.............. Low.
Gardner Canyon............ Low.
Josephine Canyon.......... Low.
[[Page 67082]]
Madera Canyon............. Extirpated.
Squaw Gulch............... Extirpated.
Sycamore Canyon........... Extirpated.
Temporal Gulch............ Low.
Walker Canyon............. Extirpated.
Whetstone.............................. Deathtrap Canyon.......... Low.
French Joe Canyon......... Extirpated.
Sierra Las Avispas, Sonora............. Sierra Las Avispas........ Low.
Sierra La Escuadra, Chihuahua.......... Near Colonia Pacheco...... Extirpated.
Sierra La Estancia, Chihuahua.......... Cuarenta Casas............ Low.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Determination
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing
regulations at 50 CFR part 424, set forth the procedures for adding
species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we may list a species based
on (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C)
disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its
continued existence.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future stressors
to beardless chinchweed and Bartram's stonecrop.
The Act defines an endangered species as any species that is ``in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range'' and a threatened species as any species ``that is likely to
become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range
within the foreseeable future.''
Therefore, on the basis of the best available scientific and
commercial information, we propose listing beardless chinchweed as
endangered in accordance with sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act and
Bartram's stonecrop as threatened in accordance with sections 3(20) and
4(a)(1) of the Act.
Beardless Chinchweed
Historically there were 21 populations. Nine populations have been
extirpated, leaving 12 extant populations (six in the United States and
six in Mexico). The six populations in the United States consist of 387
individuals spread across less than 2 ha (5 ac). The six populations
have been reported from northern Mexico, but this information is from
1940 or earlier.
The proliferation of invasive nonnative grasses throughout most of
the beardless chinchweed's range has greatly affected this species
through increased competition and altered fire regimes. Many of these
historical locations no longer support beardless chinchweed due to this
alteration of habitat (National Park Service 2014, pp. 3-4; Service
2014b, pp. 1-2; Service 2014c, entire; Service 2014d, pp. 1-2).
All beardless chinchweed populations likely contain nonnative
grasses, resulting in habitat loss (Factor A). Further, altered fire
regime (Factors A and E), which is currently or in the near future
impacting all populations, drives the spread of nonnatives (Factor A),
exacerbating the encroachment of nonnative grasses. Consequently, all
remaining populations of beardless chinchweed are impacted by nonnative
grasses now or will be in the near future. Altered precipitation
(Factors A and E), increased temperatures (Factors A and E), and
decreased annual precipitation (Factors A and E) are current and
ongoing regional conditions that are impacting all populations of
beardless chinchweed. These environmental conditions exacerbate an
altered fire regime, which, in turn, drives the spread of nonnatives.
In addition, nonnative grasses have competitive advantage over native
grasses during periods of drought. Road and trail maintenance (Factors
A and E) is altering habitat and likely resulting in the direct killing
of individuals in three populations (Ruby Road, Scotia Canyon, and
Coronado National Memorial). In addition, all individuals in these
three populations are being impacted by dust (Factor E) from the road.
These three populations are already of low resiliency. Two additional
populations (McCleary Canyon--Gunsight Pass and McCleary Canyon--Wasp
Canyon) will be impacted by roads (Factor A) related to mining
operations in the near future (Westland 2010, p. iv). All individuals
of these two populations will also be impacted by dust (Factor E). One
of these populations is already of low resiliency and the other is of
moderate resiliency. Of the 12 populations, 11 (92 percent) are small
populations (fewer than 50 individuals). Synergistic interactions among
wildfire, nonnative grasses, decreased precipitation, and increased
temperatures cumulatively and cyclically impact beardless chinchweed,
and all stressors are exacerbated in small populations (Factor E). No
conservation efforts have been implemented for this species.
We consider beardless chinchweed to have poor representation in the
form of potential genetic diversity (Factor E). All but one population
has fewer than 50 individuals. Small populations are susceptible to the
loss of genetic diversity, genetic drift, and inbreeding. There are
currently six populations spread across four mountain ranges in the
United States and six populations in northern Mexico that are presumed
extant. Five of the six extant U.S. populations do not have multiple
subpopulations (all but the Coronado National Memorial population,
which has two subpopulations). Mountain ranges that have only one or
two populations, have only have one subpopulation per population, or
have low numbers of individuals per population with several miles (16
to 61 km (9.9 to 37.9 mi)) between mountain ranges, may not be
genetically diverse because pollination or transport of seeds between
populations may be very limited. This could mean that between-
population genetic diversity may be greater than within-population
diversity (Smith and Wayne 1996, p. 333; Lindenmayer and Peakall 2000,
p. 200). Further, nine populations are extirpated, and it is possible
that there has been a loss of genetic diversity.
Beardless chinchweed populations in the United States range in
elevation from 1,158 m (3,799 ft) to 1,737 m (5,699 ft) in elevation.
Of the 15 historical U.S. populations, 8
[[Page 67083]]
(approximately 53 percent) fall below 457 m (1,500 ft) elevation. Of
these eight, six have become extirpated in recent decades. This
essentially indicates a loss at this lower elevational range and
possibly loss of some local adaptation to warmer or dryer environments
and genetic differentiation among populations (Factor E).
Beardless chinchweed needs to have multiple resilient populations
distributed throughout its range to provide for redundancy. Beardless
chinchweed needs multiple resilient populations spread over their range
that are distributed in such a way that a catastrophic event will not
result in the loss of all populations. With the known extant
populations being separated by as much as 35 km (21.8 mi) in southern
Arizona and even farther in northern Mexico, there is little connection
potential between known disjunct populations. Therefore, a localized
stressor such as grazing during flowering would impact only those
groups of plants nearby the activity. However, repeated, large-scale,
moderate- and high-severity fires, nonnative plant invasion, and
climatic changes occur across the region and could impact all
populations now or in the near future. The distance among populations
reduces connectivity among populations and mountain ranges, making it
unlikely that a site that is extirpated can be naturally recolonized by
another population (Factor E).
We find that beardless chinchweed is presently in danger of
extinction throughout its entire range based on the severity and
immediacy of stressors currently impacting the species. The overall
range has been significantly reduced (nine populations extirpated), and
the remaining habitat and populations are threatened by a variety of
factors acting in combination to reduce the overall viability of the
species. The risk of extinction is high because the remaining
populations are small, isolated, and have limited potential for natural
recolonization. Therefore, on the basis of the best available
scientific and commercial information, we propose listing beardless
chinchweed as endangered in accordance with sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1)
of the Act. We find that a threatened species status is not appropriate
for beardless chinchweed because of the species's current precarious
condition due to its contracted range, because the stressors are severe
and occurring rangewide, and because the stressors are ongoing and
expected to continue into the future.
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is endangered or threatened throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. Because we have determined that
beardless chinchweed is endangered throughout all of its range, we find
it unnecessary to proceed to an evaluation of potentially significant
portions of the range. Where the best available information allows the
Service to determine a status for the species rangewide, that
determination should be given conclusive weight because a rangewide
determination of status more accurately reflects the species' degree of
imperilment and better promotes the purposes of the statute. Under this
reading, we should first consider whether listing is appropriate based
on a rangewide analysis and proceed to conduct a ``significant portion
of its range'' analysis if, and only if, a species does not qualify for
listing as either endangered or threatened according to the ``all''
language. We note that the court in Desert Survivors v. Department of
the Interior, No. 16-cv-01165-JCS, 2018 WL 4053447 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24,
2018), did not address this issue, and our conclusion is therefore
consistent with the opinion in that case.
Therefore, on the basis of the best available scientific and
commercial information, we propose to list beardless chinchweed as an
endangered species across its entire range in accordance with sections
3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
Bartram's Stonecrop
Bartram's stonecrop has experienced population declines and four
populations have been lost entirely. Currently, there are 29 extant
populations. All Bartram's stonecrop populations contain or are near
nonnative grasses resulting in habitat loss in the future (Factor A).
Further, altered fire regime (Factors A and E), which is currently and
in the future impacting all populations, drives the spread of
nonnatives (Factor A), exacerbating the encroachment of nonnative
grasses. Consequently, all populations of Bartram's stonecrop will be
impacted by nonnative grasses in the future. Altered precipitation
(Factors A and E), increased temperatures (Factors A and E), and
decreased annual precipitation (Factors A and E) are current and
ongoing regional conditions that are impacting all populations of
Bartram's stonecrop. These environmental conditions exacerbate an
altered fire regime, which, in turn, drives the spread of nonnatives.
In addition, nonnative grasses have competitive advantage over native
grasses during periods of drought. Many currently undeveloped areas of
locatable mineral deposits may be explored or mined in the future
(Factors A and E). The range of current and projected mining activities
varies from 1 to 10 per sky island mountain range containing Bartram's
stonecrop (USFS 2012, entire). One population, Sycamore Canyon (115
adult individuals), will be affected by groundwater drawdown due to the
Rosemont Mine, which will impact the shade and moist microclimate this
species needs (Factor A). This species is known to be collected and
sold (Factor B), and plants in close proximity to trails or roads have
higher discovery potential and are, therefore, more likely to be
collected. In addition, because approximately 47 percent of the extant
Bartram's stonecrop populations contain 50 or fewer individuals (Factor
E), loss due to erosion (Factors A and E), trampling (Factor E),
collection (Factor B), predation (Factor C), and fire (Factors A and E)
has the potential to seriously damage or completely remove these small
populations. Synergistic interactions among wildfire, nonnative
grasses, decreased precipitation, and increased temperatures
cumulatively and cyclically impact Bartram's stonecrop, and all
stressors are exacerbated in small populations (Factor E). No
conservation efforts have been implemented for this species.
We consider Bartram's stonecrop to have poor representation in the
form of potential genetic diversity. Sky island populations on
different mountain ranges are widely separated (ranging from roughly 14
to 42 km (8.7 to 26 mi) apart), making genetic exchange highly
unlikely. There is likely genetic diversity among mountain ranges, but
reduced genetic diversity within populations. Further, overall genetic
diversity is likely reduced given that four populations are extirpated.
However, it is likely that the species' genetic representation will be
lost given the impacts to populations through the reduction in the
number of individuals per population and the loss of populations
(Factor E). In addition, it is likely that ecological representation
will continue to decline as those populations at lower elevations are
lost due to reduced precipitation and increased temperatures (Factor
E).
The Bartram's stonecrop populations in the United States and Mexico
are naturally fragmented between mountain ranges. Currently, 29 extant
Bartram's stonecrop populations are spread across 12 different mountain
ranges in southern Arizona and northern Mexico. Although this may imply
redundancy
[[Page 67084]]
across its range, note that 24 of the 29 extant populations contain
fewer than 150 total individual plants. Further, 14 of the 29
populations have 50 individuals or less, and 4 populations have been
extirpated. Five mountain ranges (Baboquivari, Chiricahua, Mule,
Whetstone, and Patagonia Mountains) have only one or two populations
each, have only one subpopulation per population, or have low numbers
of individuals per population. These sky island mountain ranges are
several miles away from the other sky island mountain ranges, so
natural gene exchange or re-establishment following extirpation is
unlikely. In addition, the Mule Mountains contain large number of
Bartram's stonecrop individuals, but there is only one population, and
it is approximately 38 km (23.6 mi) away from the nearest population,
making natural re-establishment of populations unlikely. In addition,
this population has contracted in size due to drying of habitat (The
Nature Conservancy 1987, p. 2; Rawoot 2017, pers. comm.).
The overall range of the species has not been significantly
reduced, although four populations are extirpated due to habitat
drying. Currently, 29 extant populations are spread across 12 mountain
ranges, providing protection from catastrophic events in the near
future (approximately 10 years). While there are multiple stressors to
the remaining populations, these stressors are not immediately
impacting all populations such that Bartram's stonecrop is in danger of
extinction. The stressors that pose the largest risk to future species
viability are primarily related to habitat changes: Groundwater
extraction from mining, long-term drought, and alteration in wildfire
regime. These are stressors that we have high confidence in occurring
and impacting Bartram's stonecrop within the next 40 years. We chose a
foreseeable future of 40 years (approximately 2060) because this is
within the range of predictions of available hydrological and climate
change model forecasts, is within the time period of the Rosemont Mine
effects, and represents eight generations of the Bartram's stonecrop,
which allows us to assess reproductive effects on the species and
allows the species opportunities to rebound after poor water years. The
primary sources we examined in determining foreseeable future include
the IPCC (2013 and 2014 entire) and Garfin et al. 2013 entire. The IPCC
emission scenarios projections are for 2025 to 2049 and 2050--2074, or
approximately mid-century, under RCP 4.5 and 8.5 scenarios. This is 6
to 30 and 31 to 55 years, respectively, in the future. The IPCC has
high confidence for climate projections of increased temperature during
this interval. In addition, we examined literature pertaining to
wildfire frequency and severity, including Westerling et al. 2006,
FireScape 2016, and Fire Management Information System 2016. An
increase in temperature results in increased evapotranspiration rates
and soil drying, resulting in the effects of future droughts becoming
more severe (Garfin 2013, pp. 137-138) and wildfires becoming more
frequent and of increased intensity. Given that climate change
projections are for mid-century and that wildfire is influenced by a
drying climate, we used 40 years as the foreseeable future for this
species. We find that Bartram's stonecrop is likely to become an
endangered species within the foreseeable future (approximately 40
years) throughout all of its range based on the severity and immediacy
of stressors.
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is endangered or threatened throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. Because we have determined that the
Bartram's stonecrop is likely to become an endangered species within
the foreseeable future throughout its range, we find it unnecessary to
proceed to an evaluation of potentially significant portions of the
range. Where the best available information allows the Service to
determine a status for the species rangewide, that determination should
be given conclusive weight because a rangewide determination of status
more accurately reflects the species' degree of imperilment and better
promotes the purposes of the statute. Under this reading, we should
first consider whether listing is appropriate based on a rangewide
analysis and proceed to conduct a ``significant portion of its range''
analysis if, and only if, a species does not qualify for listing as
either endangered or threatened according to the ``all'' language. We
note that the court in Desert Survivors v. Department of the Interior,
No. 16-cv-01165-JCS, 2018 WL 4053447 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2018), did not
address this issue, and our conclusion is therefore consistent with the
opinion in that case.
Therefore, on the basis of the best available scientific and
commercial information, we propose to list Bartram's stonecrop as a
threatened species across its entire range in accordance with sections
3(20) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened species under the Act include recognition, recovery actions,
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain
practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness, and
conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies; private
organizations; and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the
States and other countries and calls for recovery actions to be carried
out for listed species. The protection required by Federal agencies and
the prohibitions against certain activities are discussed, in part,
below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered
and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The
ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these
listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of
the Act. Section 4(f) of the Act calls for the Service to develop and
implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and
threatened species. The recovery planning process involves the
identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the
species' decline by addressing the stressors to its survival and
recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a
point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning
components of their ecosystems.
Recovery planning includes the development of a recovery outline
shortly after a species is listed and preparation of a draft and final
recovery plan. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation
of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to be used to
develop a recovery plan. Revisions of the plan may be done to address
continuing or new stressors to the species, as new substantive
information becomes available. The recovery plan also identifies
recovery criteria for review of when a species may be ready for
downlisting (reclassification from endangered to threatened) or
delisting (removal from listed status), and methods for monitoring
recovery progress. Recovery plans also establish a framework for
agencies to coordinate their recovery efforts and provide estimates of
the cost of implementing recovery tasks. Recovery teams (composed of
species experts, Federal and State agencies, nongovernmental
organizations, and stakeholders) are often established to develop
recovery plans. When completed, the recovery outline, draft
[[Page 67085]]
recovery plan, and the final recovery plan will be available on our
website (https://www.fws.gov/endangered), or from our Arizona Ecological
Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal
agencies, States, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, businesses,
and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat
restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive
propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The
recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on
Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or solely on non-
Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires
cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and Tribal lands.
If these species are listed, funding for recovery actions will be
available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State
programs, and cost share grants for non-Federal landowners, the
academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition,
pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the State of Arizona would be
eligible for Federal funds to implement management actions that promote
the protection or recovery of beardless chinchweed and Bartram's
stonecrop. Information on our grant programs that are available to aid
species recovery can be found at: https://www.fws.gov/grants.
Although beardless chinchweed and Bartram's stonecrop are only
proposed for listing under the Act at this time, please let us know if
you are interested in participating in recovery efforts for this
species. Additionally, we invite you to submit any new information on
this species whenever it becomes available and any information you may
have for recovery planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their
actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as an
endangered or threatened species and with respect to its critical
habitat, if any is designated. Regulations implementing this
interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR
part 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to
confer with the Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of a species proposed for listing or result in
destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a
species is listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires
Federal agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or
carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the
species or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a
Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the
responsible Federal agency must enter into consultation with the
Service.
Beardless Chinchweed
Federal agency actions within the species' habitat that may require
conference or consultation or both as described in the preceding
paragraph include management and any other landscape-altering
activities on Federal lands administered by the U.S. Forest Service
(Coronado National Forest), Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Customs and
Border Protection, and National Park Service (Coronado National
Memorial).
With respect to endangered plants, prohibitions at section 9 of the
Act and 50 CFR 17.61 make it illegal for any person subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States to import or export, transport in
interstate or foreign commerce in the course of a commercial activity,
sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce, or to remove
and reduce to possession any such plant species from areas under
Federal jurisdiction. In addition, for endangered plants, the Act
prohibits malicious damage or destruction of any such species on any
area under Federal jurisdiction, and the removal, cutting, digging up,
or damaging or destroying of any such species on any other area in
knowing violation of any State law or regulation, or in the course of
any violation of a State criminal trespass law. Exceptions to these
prohibitions are set forth at 50 CFR 17.62 and 17.63.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered plants under certain circumstances. Regulations
governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.62 and 17.63. With regard
to endangered plants, the Service may issue a permit authorizing any
activity otherwise prohibited by 50 CFR 17.61 for scientific purposes,
for enhancing the propagation or survival of endangered plants, or for
economic hardship. At this time, we are unable to identify specific
activities that would not be considered to result in a violation of
section 9 of the Act because beardless chinchweed occurs in a variety
of habitat conditions across its range.
Based on the best available information, the following activities
may potentially result in a violation of section 9 of the Act; this
list is not comprehensive:
(1) Unauthorized handling or collecting of the species;
(2) Ground-disturbing activities within 30 m (98 ft) of individual
beardless chinchweed plants;
(3) Dislodging and trampling by livestock;
(4) Livestock grazing during April through October where the
species occurs; and
(5) Herbicide applications within 30 m (98 ft) of individual
beardless chinchweed plants.
Bartram's Stonecrop
Federal agency actions within the species' habitat that may require
conference or consultation or both as described in the preceding
paragraph include management and any other landscape-altering
activities on Federal lands administered by the U.S. Forest Service
(Coronado National Forest), Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Customs and
Border Protection, and National Park Service (Chiricahua National
Monument and Saguaro National Park).
With respect to threatened plants, the Act allows the Secretary to
promulgate regulations to prohibit activities to provide for the
conservation of the species. Under II. Proposed Section 4(d) Rule for
Bartram's stonecrop, below, we explain what activities we are proposing
to prohibit.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving threatened plants under certain circumstances. Regulations
governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.72. With regard to
threatened plants, a permit issued under this section must be for one
of the following: Scientific purposes, the enhancement of the
propagation or survival of threatened species, economic hardship,
botanical or horticultural exhibition, educational purposes, or other
activities consistent with the purposes and policy of the Act.
It is our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1,
1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the maximum extent practicable at
the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not
constitute a violation of the Act. The intent of this policy is to
increase public awareness of the effect of a proposed listing on
proposed and ongoing activities within the range of the species
proposed for listing. At this time, we are unable to identify specific
activities that would not be considered to result in a violation of the
Act because the Bartram's stonecrop occurs in a variety of habitat
conditions across its range.
[[Page 67086]]
Based on the best available information, the following activities
may potentially result in a violation of the Act; this list is not
comprehensive:
(1) Unauthorized handling or collecting of the species;
(2) Ground-disturbing activities within 30 m (98 ft) of individual
Bartram's stonecrop plants;
(3) Herbicide applications within 30 m (98 ft) of individual
Bartram's stonecrop plants; and
(4) Dislodging and trampling by livestock.
Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a
violation of the Act should be directed to the Arizona Ecological
Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
II. Proposed Section 4(d) Rule for Bartram's Stonecrop
Background
Section 4(d) of the Act states that the ``Secretary shall issue
such regulations as he deems necessary and advisable to provide for the
conservation'' of species listed as threatened. In Webster v. Doe, 486
U.S. 592 (1988), the U.S. Supreme Court noted that similar ``necessary
or advisable'' language ``fairly exudes deference'' to the agency.
Conservation is defined in section 3 of the Act as the use of all
methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered
species or threatened species to the point at which the measures
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Additionally,
section 4(d) of the Act states that the Secretary ``may by regulation
prohibit with respect to any threatened species any act prohibited''
under section 9(a)(2) of the Act. Thus, regulations promulgated under
section 4(d) of the Act provide the Secretary with wide latitude of
discretion to select appropriate provisions tailored to the specific
conservation needs of the threatened species. The statute grants
particularly broad discretion to the Service when adopting the
prohibitions under section 9.
The courts have recognized the extent of the Secretary's discretion
under this standard to develop rules that are appropriate for the
conservation of a species. For example, the Secretary may decide not to
include a taking prohibition for threatened wildlife, or to include a
limited taking prohibition. See Alsea Valley Alliance v. Lautenbacher,
2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 60203 (D. Or. 2007); Washington Environmental
Council v. National Marine Fisheries Service, and 2002 U.S. Dist. Lexis
5432 (W.D. Wash. 2002). In addition, as affirmed in State of Louisiana
v. Verity, 853 F.2d 322 (5th Cir. 1988), the rule need not address all
the stressors to the species. As noted by Congress when the Act was
initially enacted, ``once an animal is on the threatened list, the
Secretary has an almost infinite number of options available to him
with regard to the permitted activities for those species. He may, for
example, permit taking, but not importation of such species,'' or he
may choose to forbid both taking and importation but allow the
transportation of such species, as long as the prohibitions, and
exceptions to those prohibitions, will ``serve to conserve, protect, or
restore the species concerned in accordance with the purposes of the
Act'' (H.R. Rep. No. 412, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. 1973).
The Service has developed a species-specific 4(d) rule that is
designed to address Bartram's stonecrop's specific stressors and
conservation needs. Although the statute does not require the Service
to make a ``necessary and advisable'' finding with respect to the
adoption of specific prohibitions under section 9, we find that this
regulation is necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation
of Bartram's stonecrop. As discussed under Summary of Biological Status
and Stressors, above, the Service has concluded that Bartram's
stonecrop is at risk of extinction within the foreseeable future
primarily due to groundwater extraction and prolonged drought that may
reduce nearby water levels and humidity within Bartram's stonecrop's
microenvironment, and altered fire regimes leading to erosion of
Bartram's stonecrop that could dislodge plants, sedimentation that
could cover individuals, and loss of overstory shade trees. In
addition, collection, trampling, predation, flooding, and dislodging
and burial from recreationists, cross-border violators, and domestic
and wild animals contribute to the risk of extinction within the
foreseeable future due to the majority of populations being small and
isolated. The provisions of this proposed 4(d) rule would promote
conservation of Bartram's stonecrop by encouraging management of the
landscape in ways that meet land management needs while meeting the
conservation needs of Bartram's stonecrop. The provisions of this rule
are one of many tools that the Service would use to promote the
conservation of Bartram's stonecrop. This proposed 4(d) rule would
apply only if and when the Service makes final the listing of Bartram's
stonecrop as a threatened species.
Provisions of the Proposed Protective Regulation
This proposed 4(d) rule would provide for the conservation of the
Bartram's stonecrop by applying all of the prohibitions applicable to
an endangered plant, except as otherwise authorized or permitted:
Import or export; certain acts related to removing, damaging, and
destroying; delivery, receipt, transport, or shipment in interstate or
foreign commerce in the course of commercial activity; or sale or
offering for sale in interstate or foreign commerce. Bartram's
stonecrop is an attractive and small plant that can be easily collected
by gardeners and succulent enthusiasts. We have confirmed collection
from the wild and sale in interstate commerce. Because Bartram's
stonecrop is difficult to propagate and maintain in captivity, it is
more vulnerable to collection than other plants in this genus. Small
populations may not be able to recover from collection, especially if
the mature, reproductive plants are removed.
As discussed under Summary of Biological Status and Stressors,
above, multiple factors are affecting the status of Bartram's
stonecrop. A range of activities have the potential to impact Bartram's
stonecrop, including:
(1) Unauthorized handling or collecting of the species;
(2) Ground-disturbing activities where the species occurs;
(3) Activities that would affect pollinators where the species
occurs and in the surrounding area;
(4) Activities that would promote high-severity wildfires where the
species occurs;
(5) Activities that would reduce shade, reduce proximity to water,
and lower the water table such that the cooler, humid microenvironment
is affected; and
(6) Herbicide applications where the species occurs.
Regulating these activities will help conserve the species'
remaining populations; slow their rate of decline; and decrease
synergistic, negative effects from other stressors.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities,
including those described above, involving threatened plants under
certain circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50
CFR 17.72. With regard to threatened plants, a permit may be issued for
the following purposes: For scientific purposes, to enhance propagation
or survival (control of nonnatives and fuel load), for economic
hardship, for botanical or horticultural exhibition, for
[[Page 67087]]
educational purposes, or other activities consistent with the purposes
of the Act. There are also certain statutory exemptions from the
prohibitions, which are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
The Service recognizes the special and unique relationship with our
State natural resource agency partners in contributing to conservation
of listed species. State agencies often possess scientific data and
valuable expertise on the status and distribution of endangered,
threatened, and candidate species of wildlife and plants. State
agencies, because of their authorities and their close working
relationships with local governments and landowners, are in a unique
position to assist the Services in implementing all aspects of the Act.
In this regard, section 6 of the Act provides that the Services shall
cooperate to the maximum extent practicable with the States in carrying
out programs authorized by the Act. Therefore, under this proposed 4(d)
rule, any qualified employee or agent of a State conservation agency
which is a party to a cooperative agreement with the Service in
accordance with section 6(c) of the Act, who is designated by his or
her agency for such purposes, would be able to conduct activities
designed to conserve Bartram's stonecrop that may result in otherwise
prohibited activities without additional authorization.
Nothing in this proposed 4(d) rule would change in any way the
recovery planning provisions of section 4(f) of the Act, the
consultation requirements under section 7 of the Act, or the ability of
the Service to enter into partnerships for the management and
protection of Bartram's stonecrop. However, interagency cooperation may
be further streamlined through planned programmatic consultations for
the species between Federal agencies and the Service. We ask the
public, particularly State agencies and other interested stakeholders
that may be affected by the proposed 4(d) rule, to provide comments and
suggestions regarding additional guidance and methods that the Service
could provide or use, respectively, to streamline the implementation of
this proposed 4(d) rule (see Information Requested, above).
III. Proposed Critical Habitat Designation for Beardless Chinchweed and
Prudency Determination for Bartram's Stonecrop
Background
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which
are found those physical or biological features
(a) Essential to the conservation of the species, and
(b) Which may require special management considerations or
protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the species.
Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define the geographical area
occupied by the species as an area that may generally be delineated
around species' occurrences, as determined by the Secretary of the
Interior (i.e., range). Such areas may include those areas used
throughout all or part of the species' life cycle, even if not used on
a regular basis (e.g., migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, and
habitats used periodically, but not solely by vagrant individuals).
Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise
relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation
with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is
not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect
land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or
other conservation area. Such designation does not allow the government
or public to access private lands. Such designation does not require
implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by
non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner requests Federal agency
funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed species
or critical habitat, the consultation requirements of section 7(a)(2)
of the Act would apply, but even in the event of a destruction or
adverse modification finding, the obligation of the Federal action
agency and the landowner is not to restore or recover the species, but
to implement reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid destruction
or adverse modification of critical habitat.
Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they
contain physical or biological features (1) which are essential to the
conservation of the species and (2) which may require special
management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best
scientific and commercial data available, those physical or biological
features that are essential to the conservation of the species (such as
space, food, cover, and protected habitat). In identifying those
physical or biological features that occur in specific areas, we focus
on the specific features that are essential to support the life-history
needs of the species, including but not limited to, water
characteristics, soil type, geological features, prey, vegetation,
symbiotic species, or other features. A feature may be a single habitat
characteristic, or a more complex combination of habitat
characteristics. Features may include habitat characteristics that
support ephemeral or dynamic habitat conditions. Features may also be
expressed in terms relating to principles of conservation biology, such
as patch size, distribution distances, and connectivity.
Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the
species. When designating critical habitat, the Secretary will first
evaluate areas occupied by the species. The Secretary will only
consider unoccupied areas to be essential where a critical habitat
designation limited to geographical areas occupied by the species would
be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species. In addition,
for an unoccupied area to be considered essential, the Secretary must
determine that there is a reasonable certainty both that the area will
contribute to the conservation of the species and that the area
contains one or more of those physical or biological
[[Page 67088]]
features essential to the conservation of the species.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on
the basis of the best scientific data available. Further, our Policy on
Information Standards Under the Act (published in the Federal Register
on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the Information Quality Act (section
515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for
Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658)), and our associated
Information Quality Guidelines, provide criteria, establish procedures,
and provide guidance to ensure that our decisions are based on the best
scientific data available. They require our biologists, to the extent
consistent with the Act and with the use of the best scientific data
available, to use primary and original sources of information as the
basis for recommendations to designate critical habitat.
When we are determining which areas should be designated as
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the
information from the SSA report and information developed during the
listing process for the species. Additional information sources may
include any generalized conservation strategy, criteria, or outline
that may have been developed for the species; the recovery plan for the
species; articles in peer-reviewed journals; conservation plans
developed by States and counties; scientific status surveys and
studies; biological assessments; other unpublished materials; or
experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another
over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a
particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that
we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species.
For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that
habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be needed
for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the
conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act; (2) regulatory
protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act
for Federal agencies to ensure their actions are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened
species; and (3) the Act's prohibitions on taking any individual of the
species, including taking caused by actions that affect habitat.
Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed species outside
their designated critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy
findings in some cases. These protections and conservation tools will
continue to contribute to recovery of this species. Similarly, critical
habitat designations made on the basis of the best available
information at the time of designation will not control the direction
and substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans
(HCPs), or other species conservation planning efforts, if new
information available at the time of these planning efforts calls for a
different outcome.
Prudency Determination
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing
regulations (50 CFR 424.12), require that, to the maximum extent
prudent and determinable, the Secretary shall designate critical
habitat at the time the species is determined to be an endangered or
threatened species. Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that
the Secretary may, but is not required to, determine that a designation
would not be prudent in the following circumstances:
(i) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity and
identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the
degree of such threat to the species;
(ii) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of a species' habitat or range is not a threat to the
species, or threats to the species' habitat stem solely from causes
that cannot be addressed through management actions resulting from
consultations under section 7(a)(2) of the Act;
(iii) Areas within the jurisdiction of the United States provide no
more than negligible conservation value, if any, for a species
occurring primarily outside the jurisdiction of the United States;
(iv) No areas meet the definition of critical habitat; or
(v) The Secretary otherwise determines that designation of critical
habitat would not be prudent based on the best scientific data
available.
Beardless Chinchweed
We did not identify any of the factors above to apply to the
beardless chinchweed. Therefore, we find designation of critical
habitat is prudent for the species.
Bartram's Stonecrop
As described above, there is currently an imminent threat of take
attributed to collection or vandalism identified under Factor B for
this species, and identification and mapping of critical habitat is
expected to increase such threat because when we designate critical
habitat, we publish detailed maps and descriptions of species'
occurrences in the Federal Register, which in this case, could make
this species more vulnerable to the threats identified under Factor B.
Because we have determined that the designation of critical habitat
will likely increase the degree of threat to the species, we find that
designation of critical habitat is not prudent for Bartram's stonecrop.
Critical Habitat Determinability for Beardless Chinchweed
Having determined that designation is prudent for beardless
chinchweed, under section 4(a)(3) of the Act, we must find whether
critical habitat for the species is determinable. Our regulations at 50
CFR 424.12(a)(2) state that critical habitat is not determinable when
one or both of the following situations exist:
(i) Data sufficient to perform required analyses are lacking, or
(ii) The biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well
known to identify any area that meets the definition of ``critical
habitat.''
When critical habitat is not determinable, the Act allows the
Service an additional year to publish a critical habitat designation
(16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)).
We reviewed the available information pertaining to the biological
needs of the species and habitat characteristics where this species is
located. This and other information represent the best scientific data
available and led us to conclude that the designation of critical
habitat is determinable for beardless chinchweed.
Physical or Biological Features for Beardless Chinchweed
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at
50 CFR 424.12(b), in determining which areas within the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time of listing to designate as
critical habitat, we consider the physical or biological features that
are essential to the conservation of the species and which may require
special management considerations or protection. For example, physical
features might include gravel of a particular size required for
spawning, alkali soil for seed germination, protective cover for
migration, or susceptibility to flooding or fire that maintains
necessary early-successional habitat characteristics. Biological
features might include prey species,
[[Page 67089]]
forage grasses, specific kinds or ages of trees for roosting or
nesting, symbiotic fungi, or a particular level of nonnative species
consistent with conservation needs of the listed species. The features
may also be combinations of habitat characteristics and may encompass
the relationship between characteristics or the necessary amount of a
characteristic needed to support the life history of the species. In
considering whether features are essential to the conservation of the
species, the Service may consider an appropriate quality, quantity, and
spatial and temporal arrangement of habitat characteristics in the
context of the life-history needs, condition, and status of the
species. These characteristics include, but are not limited to, space
for individual and population growth and for normal behavior; food,
water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological
requirements; cover or shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction, or
rearing (or development) of offspring; and habitats that are protected
from disturbance.
Summary of Essential Physical or Biological Features
We derive the specific physical or biological features essential to
the conservation of beardless chinchweed from studies of this species'
habitat, ecology, and life history, as described below. We have
determined that the following physical or biological features are
essential to the conservation of beardless chinchweed:
(1) Native-dominated plant communities, consisting of:
(a) Plains, great basin, and semi-desert grasslands, oak savanna,
or Madrean evergreen woodland;
(b) Communities dominated by bunchgrasses with open spacing
(adjacent to and within 10 m (33 ft) of individual beardless
chinchweed) and with little competition from other plants; and
(c) Communities with plants for pollinator foraging and nesting
within 1 km (0.62 mi) of beardless chinchweed populations.
(2) 1,158 to 1,737 m (3,799 to 5,699 ft) elevation.
(3) Eroding limestone or granite bedrock substrate.
(4) Steep, south-facing, sunny to partially shaded hillslopes.
(5) The presence of pollinators (i.e., flies, bees, and
butterflies).
Space for individual and population growth is needed for beardless
chinchweed, including sites for germination, pollination, reproduction,
pollen and seed dispersal, and seed banks in the form of open, native-
dominated desert grasslands, oak savannas, and oak woodlands at 1,158
to 1,737 m (3,799 to 5,699 ft) in elevation (SEINet, entire). In
addition, plants need space on steep, south-facing, sunny to partially
shaded hillslopes, with eroding bedrock and open areas with little
competition from other plants. Native-dominated habitats have diverse
assemblages of vegetation, each with different-shaped and -sized canopy
and root system, which creates heterogeneity of form, height, and
patchiness and provides openness. Beardless chinchweed is presumed to
be a poor competitor due to its preference for this open habitat and
inability to find the species under dense vegetation conditions.
Pollination is necessary for effective fertilization, out-crossing, and
seed production in beardless chinchweed. Beardless chinchweed, like
other yellow-flowered composites, is most likely pollinated by bees,
flies, and butterflies. Many bees and butterflies can travel a distance
of 1 km (0.62 mi); consequently, adequate space for pollinators is
needed around beardless chinchweed populations to support pollinators
and, therefore, cross-pollination within and among populations and
subpopulations. In addition, open space is needed in the form of
seedbanks for population growth. Further, beardless chinchweed
populations need space with soil moisture and nutrients for individual
and population growth.
Beardless chinchweed needs multiple populations distributed across
its range that are large enough to withstand stochastic events, and
connectivity to reestablish extirpated populations. Species that are
widely-distributed are considered less susceptible to extinction and
more likely to be viable than species confined to small ranges (Carroll
et al. 2010, entire). Historically, there were 21 populations across
seven mountain ranges. Nine populations (and one subpopulation) have
been extirpated in the United States, and all populations are
extirpated from the Patagonia Mountains in the United States. This
leaves six populations across four mountains ranges covering an
occupied area of about 2 ha (5 ac) in the United States and six small
populations in Mexico. Further, two mountain ranges only have one
population each with fewer than 50 individuals. In addition, the other
two mountain ranges have only two populations each, both with fewer
than 50 individuals each. The current distribution of this species does
not represent its historical geographical distribution. Additional
populations are needed to increase the redundancy of the species to
secure the species from catastrophic events like wildfire and nonnative
grass encroachment. Increased representation in the form of ecological
environments are needed to secure the species against environmental
changes like increase temperatures, increase drought, and increased
evapotranspiration. Specifically, populations at higher altitudes are
likely needed to secure the species viability.
All populations need protection from wildfires of high severity and
of greater frequency than was known historically and from nonnative
grass encroachment. Further, all populations need protection from
stressors related to one or more of the following activities:
Recreation, road and trail maintenance, grazing, trampling, and mining.
As discussed above, these stressors are currently, or will in the near
future, impact all populations. Protection is needed from these
stressors to ensure the conservation of the species.
The minimum viable population size for this species is unknown.
General conservation biology indicates that at least 500 individual are
needed for a minimum viable population. Currently, 11 of the 12
populations have fewer than 50 individuals. In Arizona, there are
currently 387 individual beardless chinchweed spread across less than 2
ha (5 ac) within six extant populations spread across the four mountain
ranges. Space, in the form of habitat described above, is needed for an
increase in the number of populations and the number of individuals per
population.
Specific details about the physical or biological features
essential to this species are described above in the background section
and in the SSA report (Service 2018a).
Special Management Considerations or Protection for Beardless
Chinchweed
When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
of listing contain features which are essential to the conservation of
the species and which may require special management considerations or
protection. The features essential to the conservation of this species
may require special management considerations or protection to reduce
the following stressors: Altered fire regime, nonnative grass
encroachment, grazing, erosion, and burial (see Table 11 below).
Special management considerations or protection are required within
critical habitat areas to address these stressors. Management
activities that could
[[Page 67090]]
ameliorate these stressors include (but are not limited to): Prescribed
fire, fire breaks, reduction of nonnative grasses, promotion or
introduction of native forbs and grasses, clean equipment, exclosure
fences, and protection from erosion and burial. These management
activities will protect the physical or biological features for the
species by reducing or avoiding the encroachment or expansion of
nonnative grass species, promoting native vegetation, and preventing
the succession of vegetation such that open space and sun exposure are
reduced or eliminated.
Table 11--Features That May Require Special Management
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Special management or
Features that may require special Stressors to features protection to address Features protected by
management stressor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Native-dominated plant communities Altered fire regime; Fire breaks around Avoidance of encroachment
nonnative grasses; populations; prescribed of nonnatives from
grazing; road and fires; reduction of wildfires and drought;
trail maintenance. nonnative grasses; clean promotion of native
equipment to limit the species through natural
spread of nonnatives; fire regime; avoidance
promotion or introduction of introducing nonnative
of native forbs and species.
grasses.
Plants for pollinators............ Altered fire regime; Fire breaks around Avoidance of encroachment
nonnative grasses. populations; prescribed of nonnatives from
fires; reduction of wildfires and drought;
nonnative grasses; promotion of native
promotion or introduction species through natural
of native forbs and fire regime; avoidance
grasses. of introducing nonnative
species.
Open, sunny sites................. Altered fire regime; Prescribed fires; Elimination or reduction
nonnative grasses. reduction of nonnative of the loss of open
grasses; promotion or space and sun exposure.
introduction of native
forbs and grasses.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat for Beardless Chinchweed
As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best
scientific data available to designate critical habitat. Sources of
data for this species include multiple databases maintained by the
Arizona Natural Heritage Program, existing endangered species reports,
and interviews with species experts. We have also reviewed available
information that pertains to the habitat requirements of this species.
In accordance with the Act and our implementing regulations at 50
CFR 424.12(b), we review available information pertaining to the
habitat requirements of the species and identify specific areas within
the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing
and any specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species to be considered for designation as critical habitat. We are
proposing to designate critical habitat in areas within the
geographical area currently occupied by the species (i.e., at the time
of proposed listing). We also are proposing to designate specific areas
outside the geographical area currently occupied by the species that
were historically occupied, but are presently unoccupied, because we
have determined that a designation limited to occupied areas would be
inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species.
The current distribution of beardless chinchweed is reduced from
its historical distribution to a level where it is in danger of
extinction. We anticipate that recovery will require continued
protection of existing populations and habitat, as well as
reestablishment of populations at a subset of previously occupied
habitats throughout the species' historical range in the United States.
Reestablishment of additional populations will help to ensure that
catastrophic events, such as wildfire, cannot simultaneously affect all
known populations. We have determined that it is reasonably certain
that the unoccupied areas will contribute to the conservation of the
species and contain one or more of the physical or biological features
that are essential to the conservation of the species.
Areas Occupied at the Time of Listing
The proposed critical habitat designation does not include all
populations known to have been occupied by the species historically;
instead, it includes all currently occupied areas within the historical
range that have retained the necessary physical or biological features
that will allow for the maintenance and expansion of these existing
populations. The following populations meet the definition of areas
occupied by the species at the time of listing: McCleary Canyon,
Audubon Research Ranch, Scotia Canyon, Coronado National Memorial, and
Ruby Road.
Areas Outside of the Geographic Range at the Time of Listing
Pena Blanca Lake, Summit Motorway, Copper Mountain, Lampshire Well,
Harshaw Creek, Flux Canyon, Washington Camp, Box Canyon, and Joe's
Canyon are within the historical range of beardless chinchweed, but are
not within the geographic range currently occupied by the species. We
consider these sites to be extirpated. For areas not occupied by the
species at the time of listing, we must demonstrate that these areas
are essential to the conservation of the species in order to include
them in our critical habitat designation. To determine if these areas
are essential for the conservation of beardless chinchweed, we
considered the life history, status, and conservation needs of the
species such as: (1) The importance of the site to the overall status
of the species to prevent extinction and contribute to future recovery
of beardless chinchweed; (2) whether the area could be restored to
support beardless chinchweed; (3) whether the site provides
connectivity between occupied sites for genetic exchange; and (4)
whether a population of the species could be reestablished in the area.
Of the unoccupied areas, Lampshire Well, Harshaw Creek, and
Washington Camp on U.S. Forest Service lands contain a mixture of
native and nonnative grasses that could be restored to native
conditions, thus making them suitable for reestablishment of the
species, and they are important to the overall status of the species.
The reestablishment of the Washington Camp population would reintroduce
the species into the Patagonia Mountains, where currently it is
extirpated. The reestablishment of beardless chinchweed into the
Patagonia Mountains would restore the historical range of the species
in terms of occupied mountain ranges. This area would provide key
representation and redundancy needed for conservation of
[[Page 67091]]
the species. Further, the addition of two reestablished populations in
the Canelo Hills would increase the redundancy of the species in this
area and reduce the chance that a catastrophic event would eliminate
all populations in this area. Currently, there is only one population
with 37 individuals in the Canelo Hills.
Of the remaining historical populations in the United States, Pena
Blanca Lake, Summit Motorway, Copper Mountain, Box Canyon, Joe's
Canyon, and Flux Canyon are heavily infested with nonnative grasses to
an extent where restoration of native vegetation is not likely
feasible. Reestablishment of the species to these historical sites is
not likely to be successful and, therefore, not likely to contribute to
the recovery of the species. Therefore, these remaining historical
sites are not included in the proposed designation of critical habitat.
In summary, for areas within the geographic area occupied by the
species at the time of listing (i.e., currently occupied), we
delineated critical habitat unit boundaries by evaluating the habitat
suitability of areas within the geographic area occupied at the time of
listing, and retaining those units that contain some or all of the
physical or biological features to support life-history functions
essential for conservation of the species.
For areas outside the geographic area occupied by the species at
the time of listing, we delineated critical habitat unit boundaries by
evaluating areas not known to have been occupied at listing (i.e., that
are not currently occupied) but that are within the historical range of
the species to determine if they are essential to the survival and
recovery of the species. Essential areas are those that: (1) Serve to
extend an occupied unit; and (2) expand the geographic distribution
within areas not occupied at the time of listing across the historical
range of the species.
We conclude that the areas we are proposing for critical habitat
provide for the conservation of beardless chinchweed because they
include habitat for all extant populations and include habitat for
connectivity and dispersal opportunities within units. Such
opportunities for dispersal assist in maintaining the population
structure and distribution of the species. In addition, the unoccupied
units each contain one or more of the physical or biological features
and are likely to provide for the conservation of the species. Each of
the unoccupied areas are on lands managed by the Coronado National
Forest. The Forest Plan for the Coronado contains several important
guidelines that would contribute to the conservation of beardless
chinchweed including control of nonnative vegetation, promotion of
native grasses, and protections for species listed under the Endangered
Species Act (USDA Forest Service 2018). Designation of critical habitat
would facilitate the application of this guidance where it would do the
most good for the beardless chinchweed.
As a final step, we evaluated occupied units and refined the area
by evaluating the presence or absence of appropriate physical or
biological features. We selected the boundary of a unit to include 1 km
(0.62 mi) of foraging and reproductive habitat for pollinators that are
necessary for beardless chinchweed. We then mapped critical habitat
units using ArcMap version 10 (Environmental Systems Research
Institute, Inc.), a geographic information systems (GIS) program.
The areas we are proposing for designation as critical habitat
provide sufficient habitat for recruitment, pollinators, seed bank, and
seed dispersal. In general, the physical or biological features of
critical habitat are contained within 1 km (0.62 mi) of beardless
chinchweed plants within the population.
When determining proposed critical habitat boundaries, we made
every effort to avoid including developed areas such as lands covered
by buildings, pavement, and other structures because such lands lack
the physical or biological features necessary for beardless chinchweed.
The scale of the maps we prepared under the parameters for publication
within the Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect the exclusion of
such developed lands. Any such lands inadvertently left inside critical
habitat boundaries shown on the maps of this proposed rule have been
excluded by text in the proposed rule and are not proposed for
designation as critical habitat. Therefore, if the critical habitat is
made final as proposed, a Federal action involving these lands would
not trigger section 7 consultation with respect to critical habitat and
the requirement of no adverse modification unless the specific action
would affect the physical or biological features in the adjacent
critical habitat.
We are proposing for designation as critical habitat lands that we
have determined are occupied at the time of listing (i.e., currently
occupied) and contain one or more of the physical or biological
features that are essential to support life-history processes of the
species. We have determined that occupied areas are inadequate to
ensure the conservation of the species. Therefore, we have also
identified, and are proposing for designation of critical habitat,
unoccupied areas that are essential for the conservation of the
species.
Units are proposed for designation based on one or more of the
physical or biological features being present to support beardless
chinchweed life-history processes. Some units contain all of the
identified physical or biological features and support multiple life-
history processes. Some units contain only some of the physical or
biological features necessary to support beardless chinchweed'
particular use of that habitat.
The critical habitat designation is defined by the map, as modified
by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the end of this
document under Proposed Regulation Promulgation. We include more
detailed information on the boundaries of the critical habitat
designation in the preamble of this document. We will make the
coordinates or plot points or both on which the map is based available
to the public on https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-
2018-0104, on our internet site at https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Docs_Species.htm, and at the field office responsible for the
designation (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above).
Proposed Critical Habitat Designation for Beardless Chinchweed
We are proposing to designate approximately 10,604 ac (4,291 ha) in
eight units as critical habitat for beardless chinchweed. The critical
habitat areas we describe below constitute our current best assessment
of areas that meet the definition of critical habitat for beardless
chinchweed. The eight units we propose as critical habitat are listed
in Table 12.
Table 12--Proposed Critical Habitat Units and Occupancy of Beardless Chinchweed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Occupied at the time of Size of unit in acres
Critical habitat unit listing Ownership (hectares)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1--McCleary Canyon................... Yes.................... Forest Service......... 1,686 ac (682 ha).
[[Page 67092]]
2--Audubon Research Ranch............ Yes.................... Bureau of Land 1,170 ac (474 ha) BLM;
Management (BLM), 817 ac (331 ha) Forest
Forest Service, Service; 300 ac (121
Private (Audubon ha) private.
Research Ranch).
3--Scotia Canyon..................... Yes.................... Forest Service......... 855 ac (346 ha).
4--Coronado National Memorial........ Yes.................... National Park Service.. 2,109 ac (853 ha).
5--Lampshire Well.................... No..................... Forest Service......... 939 ac (380 ha).
6--Harshaw Creek..................... No..................... Forest Service......... 1,013 ac (410 ha).
7--Washington Camp................... No..................... Forest Service......... 939 ac (380 ha).
8--Ruby Road......................... Yes.................... Forest Service......... 776 ac (314 ha).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................ ....................... ....................... 10,604 ac (4,291 ha).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.
We present brief descriptions of all units, and reasons why they
meet the definition of critical habitat for beardless chinchweed,
below.
Unit 1: McCleary Canyon
The McCleary Canyon unit occurs in the northeastern portion of the
Santa Rita Mountains in Pima County, Arizona, and is managed by the
U.S. Forest Service. This unit is 1,686 ac (682 ha) in size and is
currently occupied. The unit contains two extant populations: Gunsight
Pass and Wasp Canyon. Each population within the McCleary Canyon unit
supports 32 individual beardless chinchweed plants. The proposed
Rosemont Copper Mine occurs in this unit, and there is ongoing and
historical mining activity throughout the Santa Rita Mountains. This
unit also receives significant recreational pressure and livestock
grazing. The Gunsight Pass population is one of the few populations
within the range of beardless chinchweed where native grass species
dominate the site. The Wasp Canyon population has a mixture of native
and nonnative grass species. The McCleary Canyon unit provides at least
one of the following essential physical and biological features needed
for this species: Appropriate native plant communities (despite the
presence of some nonnative species), elevation, substrates, and slope
aspect. The physical and biological features in this unit may require
special management considerations including reduction in nonnative
grass presence, promotion of native forbs and grasses, removal of
livestock between April and October, and the creation of exclosures.
This unit includes habitat for species already listed under the Act,
including the jaguar (Panthera onca); ocelot (Leopardus (=Felis)
pardalis); Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida); yellow-
billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus); and Chiricahua leopard frog
(Lithobates chiricahuensis). This proposed unit would overlap with
designated critical habitat for jaguar.
Unit 2: Audubon Research Ranch
The Audubon Research Ranch unit occurs in the northern portion of
the Canelo Hills in Santa Cruz County, Arizona, and is managed by the
Audubon Society and some plants occur on the Coronado National Forest.
This unit is 2,287 ac (926 ha) in size and is currently occupied. The
O'Donnell Canyon population is currently extant but there was one
additional population, Post Canyon that occurred here historically. The
Audubon Research Ranch unit supports 37 individual beardless chinchweed
plants and is dominated by native grass species. The Audubon Research
Ranch unit provides the physical and biological features in this unit
may require special management considerations, including reduction in
nonnative grass presence, promotion of native forbs and grasses. This
unit includes habitat for species already listed under the Act: Jaguar,
ocelot, Mexican spotted owl, yellow-billed cuckoo, Chiricahua leopard
frog, Gila chub (Gila intermedia), northern Mexican gartersnake
(Thamnophis eques megalops), and Huachuca water-umbel (Lilaeopsis
schaffneriana var. recurva). In addition, this unit includes designated
critical habitat for Chiricahua leopard frog, Gila chub, and Huachuca
water-umbel, and proposed critical habitat for northern Mexican
gartersnake.
Unit 3: Scotia Canyon
The Scotia Canyon unit occurs on the western slopes of the Huachuca
Mountains in Cochise County, Arizona, and is managed by the U.S. Forest
Service. This unit is 855 ac (346 ha) in size and is currently occupied
by beardless chinchweed. There is one extant population that is
estimated to contain 100 individual beardless chinchweed plants. This
unit has been impacted by historical mining, grazing, and wildfire.
High recreational use also occurs in this unit. The Scotia Canyon unit
is one of the few sites within the range of beardless chinchweed where
native grass species dominate the site. The Scotia Canyon unit provides
at least one of the following essential physical and biological
features needed for this species: Appropriate native plant communities,
elevation, substrates, and slope aspect. The physical and biological
features in this unit may require special management considerations,
including reduction in nonnative grass presence, promotion of native
forbs and grasses, reduction in road maintenance activity, removal of
livestock between April and October, and the creation of exclosures.
This unit includes habitat for species already listed under the Act:
Jaguar, ocelot, Mexican spotted owl, yellow-billed cuckoo, Chiricahua
leopard frog, northern Mexican gartersnake, and Huachuca water-umbel.
In addition, this unit includes designated critical habitat for jaguar
and Huachuca water-umbel, and proposed critical habitat for northern
Mexican gartersnake.
Unit 4: Coronado National Memorial
The Coronado National Memorial unit occurs in the southern portion
of the Huachuca Mountains in Cochise County, Arizona, and is managed by
the National Park Service. This unit is 2,109 ac (853 ha) in size and
is occupied. The unit contains two extant subpopulations: The visitor's
center and the State of Texas mine. The area around the visitor's
center supports approximately 180 individual beardless chinchweed
plants. Another 61 plants have been documented in the vicinity of the
State of Texas mine. Additionally, the historical subpopulation, Joe's
Canyon Trail, occurs within this unit and is not currently occupied.
This unit supports a high level of recreational use,
[[Page 67093]]
historical mining use, and ongoing impacts from wildfire. Portions of
the Coronado National Memorial unit are dominated by native grass
species, while other areas are a mixture of native and nonnative
grasses. The Coronado National Memorial unit provides at least one of
the following essential physical and biological features needed for
this species: Appropriate native plant communities (although there is a
nonnative presence), elevation, substrates, and slope aspect. The
physical and biological features in this unit may require special
management considerations, including reduction in nonnative grass
presence and promotion of native forbs and grasses. This unit includes
habitat for species already listed under the Act: Jaguar, ocelot,
Mexican spotted owl, yellow-billed cuckoo, Chiricahua leopard frog,
northern Mexican gartersnake, and Huachuca water-umbel. In addition,
this unit includes designated critical habitat for jaguar and Mexican
spotted owl.
Unit 5: Lampshire Well
The Lampshire Well unit occurs in the Canelo Hills in Santa Cruz
County, Arizona, and is managed by the U.S. Forest Service. This unit
is 939 ac (380 ha) in size and is currently unoccupied. Historically,
beardless chinchweed populations occurred on this unit. This unit is
characterized by communities of mixed native and nonnative grasses, and
is subject to border activities (foot traffic and increased fire
ignition) and wildfire. This unit includes habitat for species already
listed under the Act: Jaguar, ocelot, Mexican spotted owl, yellow-
billed cuckoo, Chiricahua leopard frog, northern Mexican gartersnake,
Huachuca water-umbel, and Canelo Hills ladies'-tresses (Spiranthes
delitescens). In addition, this unit includes designated critical
habitat for jaguar and proposed critical habitat northern Mexican
gartersnake.
Although it is considered unoccupied, this unit contains all of the
physical or biological features essential for the conservation of the
species. This unit consists of a mix of native and nonnative grasses,
with scattered Quercus and Juniperus, at an elevation of 1,646 m (5,400
ft), on granitic substrate with steep slopes facing the southwest.
There are areas in this unit with more native grasses than nonnative
grasses. This unit is in Federal ownership managed by the U.S. Forest
Service. The U.S. Forest Service is committed to managing for the
recovery of listed species, reducing nonnative invasive species, and
managing fuel loads to reduce potential for high intensity wildfire
(USDA Forest Service 2018). The Lampshire Well unit is essential to the
conservation of the species because it provides for habitat and
population restoration opportunities, as well as provides habitat
connectivity for beardless chinchweed and its pollinators. Recovery of
this species will require new and expanded populations, and this unit
provides for this needed recovery habitat that will contribute to the
species' resiliency (larger and more populations), redundancy (more
populations across the range), and representation (opportunities for
increased genetic and environmental variation). We have determined that
this unoccupied unit contains one or more of the physical or biological
features that are essential to the conservation of the species and that
it is reasonably certain that it will contribute to the conservation of
the species.
Unit 6: Harshaw Creek
The Harshaw Creek unit occurs in the Canelo Hills in Santa Cruz
County, Arizona, and is managed by the U.S. Forest Service. This unit
is 1,013 ac (410 ha) in size and is currently unoccupied. Historically,
beardless chinchweed populations occurred on this unit. This unit is
characterized by communities of mixed native and nonnative grasses, and
is subject to border activities and wildfire. This unit includes
habitat for species already listed under the Act: Jaguar, ocelot,
Mexican spotted owl, yellow-billed cuckoo, Chiricahua leopard frog,
northern Mexican gartersnake, Huachuca water-umbel, and Canelo Hills
ladies'-tresses. In addition, this unit includes designated critical
habitat for jaguar and proposed critical habitat for northern Mexican
gartersnake.
Although it is considered unoccupied, portions of this unit contain
all of the physical or biological features essential for the
conservation of the species. This unit consists of a mix of native and
nonnative grasses, with scattered Quercus and Juniperus, at an
elevation of 1,494 m (4,900 ft), on granitic, rocky substrate with
steep slopes facing the southwest. There are areas in this unit with
more native grasses than nonnative grasses. This unit is in Federal
ownership managed by the U.S. Forest Service. The U.S. Forest Service
is committed to managing for the recovery of listed species, reducing
nonnative invasive species, and managing fuel loads to reduce potential
for high intensity wildfire (USDA Forest Service 2018). The Harshaw
Creek unit is essential to the conservation of the species because it
provides for habitat and population restoration opportunities, as well
as provides habitat connectivity for beardless chinchweed and its
pollinators. Recovery of this species will require new and expanded
populations, and this unit provides for this needed recovery habitat
that will contribute to the species' resiliency (larger and more
populations), redundancy (more populations across the range), and
representation (opportunities for increased genetic and environmental
variation). We have determined that this unoccupied unit contains one
or more of the physical or biological features that are essential to
the conservation of the species and that it is reasonably certain that
it will contribute to the conservation of the species.
Unit 7: Washington Camp
The Washington Camp unit occurs in the northeastern portion of the
Patagonia Mountains in Santa Cruz County, Arizona, and is managed by
the U.S. Forest Service. This unit is 939 ac (380 ha) in size and is
currently unoccupied. This unit is the location of a number of proposed
mining activities and is also subject to border activities, recreation,
and wildfire. This unit is characterized by a mixture of native and
nonnative grass species. This unit includes habitat for species already
listed under the Act: Jaguar, ocelot, Mexican spotted owl, yellow-
billed cuckoo, Chiricahua leopard frog, and northern Mexican
gartersnake. In addition, this unit includes designated critical
habitat for jaguar and Mexican spotted owl, and proposed critical
habitat for northern Mexican gartersnake.
Although it is considered unoccupied, portions of this unit contain
all of the physical or biological features essential for the
conservation of the species. This unit consists of a mix of native and
nonnative grasses, with scattered Quercus and Juniperus, at an
elevation of 1,646 m (5,400 ft), on granitic substrate with steep
slopes facing the southwest. There are areas in this unit with more
native grasses than nonnative grasses. This unit is in Federal
ownership managed by the U.S. Forest Service. The U.S. Forest Service
is committed to managing for the recovery of listed species, reducing
nonnative invasive species, and managing fuel loads to reduce potential
for high intensity wildfire (USDA Forest Service 2018). The Washington
Camp unit is essential to the conservation of the species because it
provides for habitat and population restoration opportunities, as well
as provides habitat connectivity for beardless chinchweed and its
pollinators.
[[Page 67094]]
Recovery of this species will require new and expanded populations, and
this unit provides for this needed recovery habitat that will
contribute to the species' resiliency (larger and more populations),
redundancy (more populations across the range), and representation
(opportunities for increased genetic and environmental variation). We
have determined that this unoccupied unit contains one or more of the
physical or biological features that are essential to the conservation
of the species and that it is reasonably certain that it will
contribute to the conservation of the species.
Unit 8: Ruby Road
The Ruby Road unit occurs in the Atascosa-Pajarito Mountains in
Santa Cruz County, Arizona, and is managed by the U.S. Forest Service.
This unit is 776 ac (314 ha) in size and is currently occupied. There
is one extant population, Ruby Road, within this unit that supports
approximately 10 individual beardless chinchweed plants. Despite the
fact that nonnative grasses dominate this unit, beardless chinchweed is
able to overcome this competition by occurring in areas along a
roadside that is regularly maintained, which removes much of the
nonnative grass cover. This unit is subject to past mining activities,
border activities, recreation, grazing, and wildfire. The Ruby Road
unit currently provides at least one of the following essential
physical and biological features needed for this species: Appropriate
native plant communities (although there is a nonnative presence),
elevation, substrates, and slope aspect. The physical and biological
features in this unit may require special management considerations,
including reduction in nonnative grass presence, promotion of native
forbs and grasses, reduction in road maintenance activity, removal of
livestock between April and October, and creation of exclosures. This
unit includes habitat for species already listed under the Act: Jaguar,
ocelot, Mexican spotted owl, yellow-billed cuckoo, Chiricahua leopard
frog, and northern Mexican gartersnake. In addition, this unit includes
designated critical habitat for critical habitat for jaguar, Mexican
spotted owl, and Chiricahua leopard frog.
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
Section 7 Consultation
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to ensure that any action they fund, authorize, or carry out
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered
species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of designated critical habitat of such species. In
addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to
confer with the Service on any agency action which is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed
under the Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of
proposed critical habitat.
We published a final regulation with a revised definition of
destruction or adverse modification on August 27, 2019 (84 FR 44976).
Destruction or adverse modification means a direct or indirect
alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat as
a whole for the conservation of a listed species.
If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical
habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) must enter into
consultation with us. Examples of actions that are subject to the
section 7 consultation process are actions on State, tribal, local, or
private lands that require a Federal permit (such as a permit from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the Service under section 10
of the Act) or that involve some other Federal action (such as funding
from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation
Administration, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency). Federal
actions not affecting listed species or critical habitat, and actions
on State, tribal, local, or private lands that are not federally
funded, authorized, or carried out by a Federal agency, do not require
section 7 consultation.
Compliance with the requirements of section 7(a)(2) is documented
through our issuance of:
(1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but
are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat;
or
(2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect, and
are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and/or
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we provide reasonable and
prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable, that
would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat. We define ``reasonable and prudent
alternatives'' (at 50 CFR 402.02) as alternative actions identified
during consultation that:
(1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended
purpose of the action,
(2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal
agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
(3) Are economically and technologically feasible, and
(4) Would, in the Service Director's opinion, avoid the likelihood
of jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species and/or
avoid the likelihood of destroying or adversely modifying critical
habitat.
Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project
modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs
associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are
similarly variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate
formal consultation on previously reviewed actions. These requirements
apply when the Federal agency has retained discretionary involvement or
control over the action (or the agency's discretionary involvement or
control is authorized by law) and, subsequent to the previous
consultation, we have listed a new species or designated critical
habitat that may be affected by the Federal action, or the action has
been modified in a manner that affects the species or critical habitat
in a way not considered in the previous consultation. In such
situations, Federal agencies sometimes may need to request reinitiation
of consultation with us, but the regulations also specify some
exceptions to the requirement to reinitiate consultation on specific
land management plans after subsequently listing a new species or
designating new critical habitat. See the regulations for a description
of those exceptions.
Application of the ``Adverse Modification'' Standard
The key factor related to the destruction or adverse modification
determination is whether implementation of the proposed Federal action
directly or indirectly alters the designated critical habitat in a way
that appreciably diminishes the value of the critical habitat as a
whole for the conservation of the listed species. As discussed above,
the role of critical habitat is to support physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of a listed species and provide
for the conservation of the species.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and
describe, in any
[[Page 67095]]
proposed or final regulation that designates critical habitat,
activities involving a Federal action that may violate 7(a)(2) of the
Act by destroying or adversely modifying such designation.
Activities that the Services may, during a consultation under
section 7(a)(2) of the Act, find are likely to destroy or adversely
modify critical habitat include, but are not limited to:
(1) Actions that would remove native bunchgrass communities. Such
activities could include, but are not limited to, livestock grazing;
fire management; trails construction and maintenance; infrastructure
and road construction and maintenance; recreation management; minerals
extraction and restoration; visitor use and management; and
construction and maintenance of border roads, fences, barriers, and
towers. These activities could eliminate or reduce open habitat
necessary for growth, seed production, seedbank, and pollinators of
beardless chinchweed.
(2) Actions that would result in the introduction, spread, or
augmentation of nonnative grass species. Such activities could include,
but are not limited to, livestock grazing; fire management; trails
construction and maintenance; infrastructure and road construction and
maintenance; recreation management; minerals extraction and
restoration; visitor use and management; and construction and
maintenance of border roads, fences, barriers, and towers. These
activities could increase the amount of nonnative grasses or introduce
nonnative grasses, which eliminate or reduce open habitat necessary for
growth, seed production, seedbank, and pollinators of beardless
chinchweed.
(3) Actions that would promote high-severity wildfires. Such
activities could include, but are not limited to, recreation and
encouraging the encroachment of nonnative grasses. These activities
could eliminate or reduce open habitat necessary for growth, seed
production, seedbank, and pollinators of beardless chinchweed.
Exemptions
Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act
Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i))
provides that: ``The Secretary shall not designate as critical habitat
any lands or other geographical areas owned or controlled by the
Department of Defense, or designated for its use, that are subject to
an integrated natural resources management plan [INRMP] prepared under
section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary
determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit to the species
for which critical habitat is proposed for designation.'' There are no
Department of Defense lands within the proposed critical habitat
designation.
Consideration of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall
designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the
best available scientific data after taking into consideration the
economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant
impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The
Secretary may exclude an area from critical habitat if he determines
that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying
such area as part of the critical habitat, unless he determines, based
on the best scientific data available, that the failure to designate
such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the
species. In making that determination, the statute on its face, as well
as the legislative history, are clear that the Secretary has broad
discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and how much weight to give
to any factor. At this time, we are not proposing any exclusions from
critical habitat.
Consideration of Economic Impacts
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations require
that we consider the economic impact that may result from a designation
of critical habitat. To assess the probable economic impacts of a
designation, we must first evaluate specific land uses or activities
and projects that may occur in the area of the critical habitat. We
then must evaluate the impacts that a specific critical habitat
designation may have on restricting or modifying specific land uses or
activities for the benefit of the species and its habitat within the
areas proposed. We then identify which conservation efforts may be the
result of the species being listed under the Act versus those
attributed solely to the designation of critical habitat for this
particular species. The probable economic impact of a proposed critical
habitat designation is analyzed by comparing scenarios both ``with
critical habitat'' and ``without critical habitat.'' The ``without
critical habitat'' scenario represents the baseline for the analysis,
which includes the existing regulatory and socio-economic burden
imposed on landowners, managers, or other resource users potentially
affected by the designation of critical habitat (e.g., under the
Federal listing as well as other Federal, State, and local
regulations). The baseline, therefore, represents the costs of all
efforts attributable to the listing of the species under the Act (i.e.,
conservation of the species and its habitat incurred regardless of
whether critical habitat is designated). The ``with critical habitat''
scenario describes the incremental impacts associated specifically with
the designation of critical habitat for the species. The incremental
conservation efforts and associated impacts would not be expected
without the designation of critical habitat for the species. In other
words, the incremental costs are those attributable solely to the
designation of critical habitat, above and beyond the baseline costs.
These are the costs we use when evaluating the benefits of inclusion
and exclusion of particular areas from the final designation of
critical habitat should we choose to conduct a discretionary section
4(b)(2) exclusion analysis.
For this particular designation, we developed an incremental
effects memorandum (IEM) considering the probable incremental economic
impacts that may result from this proposed designation of critical
habitat. The information contained in our IEM was then used to develop
a screening analysis of the probable effects of the designation of
critical habitat for beardless chinchweed (IEc 2018, entire). We began
by conducting a screening analysis of the proposed designation of
critical habitat in order to focus our analysis on the key factors that
are likely to result in incremental economic impacts. The purpose of
the screening analysis is to filter out the geographic areas in which
the critical habitat designation is unlikely to result in probable
incremental economic impacts. In particular, the screening analysis
considers baseline costs (i.e., absent critical habitat designation)
and includes probable economic impacts where land and water use may be
subject to conservation plans, land management plans, best management
practices, or regulations that protect the habitat area as a result of
the Federal listing status of the species. The screening analysis
filters out particular areas of critical habitat that are already
subject to such protections and are, therefore, unlikely to incur
incremental economic impacts. Ultimately, the screening analysis allows
us to focus our analysis on evaluating the specific areas or sectors
that may incur probable incremental economic impacts as a result of the
designation. The screening analysis also assesses whether units are
unoccupied by the species and may
[[Page 67096]]
require additional management or conservation efforts as a result of
the critical habitat designation for the species that may incur
incremental economic impacts. This screening analysis, combined with
the information contained in our IEM, is what we consider our draft
economic analysis of the proposed critical habitat designation for
beardless chinchweed and is summarized in the narrative below.
Executive Orders (E.O.) 12866 and 13563 direct Federal agencies to
assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives in
quantitative (to the extent feasible) and qualitative terms. Consistent
with the E.O. regulatory analysis requirements, our effects analysis
under the Act may take into consideration impacts to both directly and
indirectly affected entities, where practicable and reasonable. If
sufficient data are available, we assess to the extent practicable the
probable impacts to both directly and indirectly affected entities.
As part of our screening analysis, we considered the types of
economic activities that are likely to occur within the areas likely
affected by the critical habitat designation. In our evaluation of the
probable incremental economic impacts that may result from the proposed
designation of critical habitat for beardless chinchweed, first we
identified, in the IEM dated August 28, 2018 (Service 2018, entire),
probable incremental economic impacts associated with the following
categories of activities: (1) Federal lands management (National Park
Service, U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management); (2) grazing
(U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management); (3) wild and
prescribed fire (National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of
Land Management); (4) groundwater pumping (U.S. Forest Service); (5)
mining (U.S. Forest Service); (6) fuels management (National Park
Service, U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management); (7)
transportation (road construction and maintenance; National Park
Service, U.S. Forest Service); and (8) trampling and dust creation from
recreation and border protection activities (U.S. Customs and Border
Protection, U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service). We considered
each industry or category individually. Additionally, we considered
whether their activities have any Federal involvement. Critical habitat
designation generally will not affect activities that do not have any
Federal involvement; under the Act, the designation of critical habitat
only affects activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by
Federal agencies. In areas where beardless chinchweed is present,
Federal agencies already are required to consult with the Service under
section 7 of the Act on activities they fund, permit, or implement that
may affect the species. If we finalize this proposed critical habitat
designation, consultations to avoid the destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat would be incorporated into the
existing consultation process.
In our IEM, we clarified the distinction between the effects that
would result from the species being listed and those attributable to
the critical habitat designation (i.e., difference between the jeopardy
and adverse modification standards) for beardless chinchweed critical
habitat. For species where the designation of critical habitat is
proposed concurrently with the listing, like beardless chinchweed, it
has been our experience that it is more difficult to discern which
conservation efforts are attributable to the species being listed and
those which would result solely from the designation of critical
habitat. However, the following specific circumstances in this case
help to inform our evaluation: (1) The essential physical or biological
features identified for critical habitat are the same features
essential for the life requisites of the species, and (2) any actions
that would result in sufficient harm or harassment to constitute
jeopardy to beardless chinchweed would also likely adversely affect the
essential physical or biological features of critical habitat. The IEM
outlines our rationale concerning this limited distinction between
baseline conservation efforts and incremental impacts of the
designation of critical habitat for this species. This evaluation of
the incremental effects has been used as the basis to evaluate the
probable incremental economic impacts of this proposed designation of
critical habitat.
The proposed critical habitat designation for beardless chinchweed
totals approximately 7,713 ac (3,121 ha, or 73 percent of the total
proposed critical habitat designation) of currently occupied habitat
and 2,891 ac (1,170 ha, or 27 percent of the total proposed critical
habitat designation) of unoccupied habitat (see Table 12, above). Every
unit of proposed critical habitat for beardless chinchweed overlaps
with the ranges of a number of currently listed species and designated
critical habitats. Therefore, the actual number of section 7
consultations is not expected to increase; however, the analysis within
these consultations would expand to consider effects to critical
habitat for the bearded chinchweed. Consequently, there would likely be
a small increase in the time needed to complete the consultation to
include the assessment of beardless chinchweed critical habitat units
(IEc 2018, entire). Section 7 consultations involving third parties
(State, Tribal, or private lands) are limited.
Based on the locations of the proposed critical habitat units and
the types of projects we typically evaluate for the Coronado National
Forest and the Coronado National Memorial, we estimate that there would
likely be 4 to 6 consultations annually that would include beardless
chinchweed. The entities that would incur incremental costs are Federal
agencies, because 97 percent of critical habitat is on Federal land.
In the 7,713 ac (3,121 ha) of occupied proposed critical habitat
(Units 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8), any actions that may affect the species or
its habitat would also affect proposed designated critical habitat.
Consequently, it is unlikely that any additional conservation efforts
would be recommended to address the adverse modification standard over
and above those recommended as necessary to avoid jeopardizing the
continued existence of beardless chinchweed. Therefore, only
administrative costs are expected in these occupied units. While this
additional analysis will require time and resources by the Federal
action agency, the Service, and third parties, it is believed that, in
most circumstances, these costs would predominantly be administrative
in nature and would not be significant (IEc 2018, entire). In these
unoccupied areas, any conservation efforts or associated probable
impacts would be considered incremental effects attributed to the
critical habitat designation. In units occupied by the chinchweed, we
assume the additional administrative cost to address chinchweed
critical habitat in the consultation is minor, costing approximately
$5,100 per consultation (2017 dollars). For the proposed critical
habitat units that are currently occupied by beardless chinchweed
(Units 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8), we have not identified any ongoing or future
projects or actions that would warrant additional recommendations or
modifications to avoid adversely modifying critical habitat above those
that we would recommend for avoiding jeopardy. Therefore, project
modifications resulting from section 7 consultations in occupied units
are unlikely to be affected by the designation of critical habitat.
In unoccupied units, (units 5, 6, and 7) we assume the incremental
administrative effort will be greater on
[[Page 67097]]
a per consultation basis. Thus, we assume an incremental per
consultation administrative cost of $15,000 in unoccupied units (2017
dollars).
In unoccupied units, incremental project modifications are
possible. No known projects are currently scheduled to occur within the
areas proposed for designation; however, U.S. Forest Service staff
suggests there is always a possibility of future projects related to
grazing, transportation, mining, and recreation activities in this
region. We discuss potential costs resulting from these activities
below.
There are grazing allotments that overlap with unoccupied critical
habitat. However, only one allotment overlaps with unoccupied critical
habitat by more than 5 percent of the allotment's land area and two
allotments with less than 5 percent of unoccupied critical habitat. In
unoccupied units, the Service suggests alterations in amount or timing
of grazing activities are not required because the species is not
present. However, U.S. Forest Service may undertake range improvements
to reduce the loss of native plant communities (e.g., bunchgrass) in
the unoccupied critical habitat overlapping with grazing allotment
units. It estimates that range improvement projects in a given year may
cost the agency from $1,000 to $250,000.
During the improvement project, electric fencing (included in the
U.S. Forest Service cost estimate) would be installed temporarily to
exclude cattle. During this period, there could be a loss of forage,
depending on the extent of overlap with existing grazing allotments,
resulting in a temporary reduction in the number of animal unit months
(AUMs; a measure of the amount of forage consumed by one cow and calf
during one month) associated with the relevant allotment. The value of
grazing permits associated with allotments on Federal land can be used
to estimate the potential loss to ranchers during exclusion period. We
estimated a range of potential costs related to grazing, based on two
scenarios. In the low-end scenario, we assumed that AUM reductions
would only occur in allotments where proposed critical habitat accounts
for greater than 5 percent of the total allotment area. Otherwise,
ranchers are likely to be able to implement changes in practices that
avoid the need to reduce the amount of cattle grazed on the allotment,
and thus they avoid costs associated with lost AUMs. In the high-end
scenario, we assume that ranchers are unable to change practices, and
the loss in AUMs is proportional to the amount of overlap between
proposed critical habitat and the relevant allotment.
To identify the allotments overlapping proposed unoccupied units
and the number of AUMs permitted in each allotment, data was obtained
from U.S. Forest Service. That data was then used to calculate
potential AUM reduction for each allotment unit overlapping with
unoccupied critical habitat. Only one allotment (San Rafael) overlaps
with unoccupied critical habitat by more than 5 percent of the
allotment's land area. In this allotment, a temporary reduction of 402
AUMs is possible. For the remaining allotments, we assume no impact on
permitted AUMs in the low-end scenario. In the high-end scenario, a
temporary reduction of 747 AUMs is possible if all of the unoccupied
units are fenced to exclude cattle during range improvement efforts.
The cost of reducing AUMs from occupied critical habitat during
range improvement activities is unlikely to exceed $41,000 in the low-
end scenario or $76,000 in the high-end scenario (2017 dollars).
Impacts associated with reduced AUMs could be greatest in Unit 7
($27,000), followed by Unit 6 ($25,000) and Unit 5 ($24,000). These
estimates represent perpetuity values, thus the single year loss would
be a fraction of this amount.
Other activities that could overlap with unoccupied critical
habitat include mining, and road and trail construction. To avoid
adverse effects to critical habitat, U.S. Forest Service might
recommend moving these projects, if feasible, to avoid the proposed
units. This could result in the need to construct additional linear
miles of road. If projects can easily be moved to other areas, U.S.
Forest Service estimates total, on-time costs to the agency, as well as
the project proponents, in the range of $0 to $500,000. Where avoidance
of critical habitat is prohibitively expensive, U.S. Forest Service
states that it would instead recommend monitoring and subsequent
treatment for the introduction or spread of invasive plants due to
project activities. The costs to U.S. Forest Service and project
proponents of these activities might range from $1,000 to $500,000. For
projects that result in a significant amount of vegetation that would
not regrow in a timely manner (e.g., 2 years), U.S. Forest Service
might require more all-inclusive restoration, reclamation, and
revegetation of the disturbed project footprints. In these cases, costs
to U.S. Forest Service and project proponents might range from $10,000
to $1,000,000.
The Service estimates a total of four to six consultations are
likely to occur in a given year in areas proposed for designation. As a
conservative estimate (i.e., more likely to overestimate than
underestimate costs), we assume that six consultations will occur and
all of the consultations will be formal. The total administrative cost
of these consultations is estimated to be $48,000 (IEc 2018, p. 16),
including costs to the Service, the Federal action agency, and third
parties. Incremental project modifications resulting solely from the
designation of critical habitat are unlikely in occupied critical
habitat. In unoccupied units, which are all managed by the U.S. Forest
Service, projects associated with grazing, mining, road or trail
construction and maintenance, and range improvements are possible. The
costs per project, including costs to the U.S. Forest Service and
State, local, or private project proponents, might range from $0
(simply moving a project to avoid critical habitat where the overlap
between the project and critical habitat is minor) to $1,000,000
(projects that result in a significant amount of surface disturbance,
such as a new mining proposal in an unoccupied unit); however, it is
very difficult to accurately predict these potential costs as often
they are significantly reduced through the section 7 consultation
process. Assuming that no more than six consultations, and therefore
projects, are likely in a given year, the section 7 impacts of the
proposed regulation are unlikely to exceed $10 million in a given year
(IEc 2018, p. 16). However, as stated above, no known projects are
currently scheduled to occur within the unoccupied areas proposed for
designation, thus these estimated impacts are meant to capture a
conservative high-end estimate of potential impacts. Therefore, our
economic screening analysis indicates the incremental costs associated
with critical habitat are unlikely to exceed $100 million in any single
year, and, therefore, would not be significant.
As we stated earlier, we are soliciting data and comments from the
public on the draft economic analysis, as well as all aspects of the
proposed rule. We may revise the proposed rule or supporting documents
to incorporate or address information we receive during the public
comment period. In particular, we may exclude an area from critical
habitat if we determine that the benefits of excluding the area
outweigh the benefits of including the area, provided the exclusion
will not result in the extinction of this species.
[[Page 67098]]
Exclusions
Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider the economic impacts
of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. In order to
consider economic impacts, we prepared an analysis of the probable
economic impacts of the proposed critical habitat designation and
related factors. The following land use sectors potentially occur in
one or more of the proposed critical habitat units for beardless
chinchweed: Border protection, conservation/restoration, fire
management, forest management, grazing, mining, recreation, and
transportation (road and trail construction and maintenance). The
majority of proposed critical habitat units are on federally owned or
managed lands.
During the development of a final designation, we will consider any
additional economic impact information we receive through the public
comment period, and as such areas may be excluded from the final
critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act and our
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19.
Exclusions Based on National Security Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider whether there are
lands where a national security impact might exist. In preparing this
proposal, we have determined that the lands within the proposed
designation of critical habitat for beardless chinchweed are not owned
or managed by the Department of Defense or Department of Homeland
Security. In addition, we did not find any potential national security
impacts resulting from this proposed designation; therefore, we
anticipate no impact on national security. However, during the
development of a final designation, we will consider any additional
information on any potential national security impacts we receive
through the public comment period, and as such areas may be excluded
from the final critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of
the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19.
Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant
impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts on national
security. We consider a number of factors, including whether there are
permitted conservation plans covering the species in the area such as
HCPs, safe harbor agreements, or candidate conservation agreements with
assurances, or whether there are non-permitted conservation agreements
and partnerships that would be encouraged by designation of, or
exclusion from, critical habitat. In addition, we look at the existence
of tribal conservation plans and partnerships and consider the
government-to-government relationship of the United States with tribal
entities. We also consider any social impacts that might occur because
of the designation. In preparing this proposal, we have determined that
there are currently no HCPs or other management plans for beardless
chinchweed, and the proposed designation does not include any tribal
lands or trust resources. We anticipate no impact on tribal lands,
partnerships, or HCPs from this proposed critical habitat designation.
During the development of a final designation, we will consider any
additional information on any impacts to tribal resources,
partnerships, or conservation plans that we receive through the public
comment period, and as such areas may be excluded from the final
critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act and our
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19.
IV. Required Determinations
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us
revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For
example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs
that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long,
the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental
impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not be
prepared in connection with listing a species as an endangered or
threatened species under the Act. We published a notice outlining our
reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25,
1983 (48 FR 49244).
It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare
environmental analyses pursuant to NEPA in connection with designating
critical habitat under the Act. We published a notice outlining our
reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25,
1983 (48 FR 49244). This position was upheld by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495
(9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)). Because neither
species occurs within the jurisdiction of the Tenth Circuit, we are not
preparing any additional NEPA analysis.
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights,
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act),
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with
tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge
that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make
information available to tribes.
We are not aware of any tribally owned lands that are currently
occupied by beardless chinchweed or Bartram's stonecrop or that are
unoccupied lands that are essential to the conservation of beardless
chinchweed. Therefore, we are not proposing to designate critical
habitat for beardless chinchweed on tribal lands. While there are no
tribally owned lands within the proposed designation of critical
habitat, certain lands proposed for designation may include areas that
are culturally
[[Page 67099]]
significant to the Tohono O'odam Tribe. We have sought government-to-
government consultation (government-to-government consultation, not
section 7 consultation) with the tribe during the development of the
SSA report and this proposed rule. This may result in the modification
of some actions to conserve and protect areas of cultural significance.
On October 23, 2017, we sent a letter to the Tohono O'odam Tribe
requesting information, explaining the SSA process, describing the
upcoming rulemaking, and inviting the Tribe to participate in the SSA
process. To date, we have not received a response from the Tohono
O'odam Tribe. Upon publication of the proposed rule, we will notify the
Tohono O'odam Tribe of its availability.
Executive Order 13771
We do not believe this proposed rule is an E.O. 13771 (``Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs'') (82 FR 9339, February 3,
2017) regulatory action because we believe this rule is not significant
under E.O. 12866; however, the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs has waived their review regarding their E.O. 12866 significance
determination of this proposed rule.
Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant rules. The Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs has waived their review regarding
their significance determination of this proposed rule.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while
calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote
predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most
innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends.
The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches
that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for
the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and
consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further
that regulations must be based on the best available science and that
the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open
exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent
with these requirements.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.),
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), whenever an agency is required to
publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must
prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility
analysis that describes the effects of the rule on small entities
(i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government
jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required
if the head of the agency certifies the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The SBREFA amended the RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a
certification statement of the factual basis for certifying that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
According to the Small Business Administration, small entities
include small organizations such as independent nonprofit
organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000
residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses
include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500
employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees,
retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual
sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5
million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than
$11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with
annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic
impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the
types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this
designation as well as types of project modifications that may result.
In general, the term ``significant economic impact'' is meant to apply
to a typical small business firm's business operations.
The Service's current understanding of the requirements under the
RFA, as amended, and following recent court decisions, is that Federal
agencies are only required to evaluate the potential incremental
impacts of rulemaking on those entities directly regulated by the
rulemaking itself, and, therefore, are not required to evaluate the
potential impacts to indirectly regulated entities. The regulatory
mechanism through which critical habitat protections are realized is
section 7 of the Act, which requires Federal agencies, in consultation
with the Service, to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or
carried out by the agency is not likely to destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat. Therefore, under section 7, only Federal action
agencies are directly subject to the specific regulatory requirement
(avoiding destruction and adverse modification) that would be imposed
by critical habitat designation. Consequently, it is our position that
only Federal action agencies would be directly regulated by this
designation. There is no requirement under the RFA to evaluate the
potential impacts to entities not directly regulated. Moreover, Federal
agencies are not small entities. Therefore, because no small entities
would be directly regulated by this rulemaking, the Service certifies
that, if adopted, the proposed critical habitat designation will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
In summary, we have considered whether the proposed designation
would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities. For the above reasons and based on currently
available information, we certify that, if adopted, the proposed
critical habitat designation will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small business entities. Therefore,
an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use--Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) requires
agencies to prepare statements of energy effects when undertaking
certain actions. In our draft economic analysis, we did not find that
the designation of this proposed critical habitat would significantly
affect energy supplies, distribution, or use due to the absence of any
energy supply or distribution lines in the proposed critical habitat
designation. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action,
and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
et seq.), we make the following findings:
(1) This rule would not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation,
[[Page 67100]]
statute, or regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon
State, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector, and
includes both ``Federal intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal
private sector mandates.'' These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-
(7). ``Federal intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that
``would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal
governments'' with two exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal
assistance.'' It also excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a
voluntary Federal program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-
existing Federal program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided
annually to State, local, and tribal governments under entitlement
authority,'' if the provision would ``increase the stringency of
conditions of assistance'' or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease,
the Federal Government's responsibility to provide funding,'' and the
State, local, or tribal governments ``lack authority'' to adjust
accordingly. At the time of enactment, these entitlement programs were:
Medicaid; Aid to Families with Dependent Children work programs; Child
Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services Block Grants; Vocational
Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and
Independent Living; Family Support Welfare Services; and Child Support
Enforcement. ``Federal private sector mandate'' includes a regulation
that ``would impose an enforceable duty upon the private sector, except
(i) a condition of Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from
participation in a voluntary Federal program.''
The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally
binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties.
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive
Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require
approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be
indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally
binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the
extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they
receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid
program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would
critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs
listed above onto State governments.
(2) We do not believe that this rule would significantly or
uniquely affect small governments because the lands proposed for
critical habitat designation are primarily Federal lands, with a small
amount of private land; small governments would be affected only to the
extent that any programs having Federal funds, permits, or other
authorized activities must ensure that their actions would not
adversely affect the designated critical habitat. The designation of
critical habitat imposes no obligations on State or local governments.
Therefore, a Small Government Agency Plan is not required.
Takings--Executive Order 12630
In accordance with E.O. 12630 (Government Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights), we have
analyzed the potential takings implications of designating critical
habitat for beardless chinchweed in a takings implications assessment.
The Act does not authorize the Service to regulate private actions on
private lands or confiscate private property as a result of critical
habitat designation. Designation of critical habitat does not affect
land ownership, or establish any closures of, or restrictions on use of
or access to, the designated areas. Furthermore, the designation of
critical habitat does not affect landowner actions that do not require
Federal funding or permits, nor does it preclude development of habitat
conservation programs or issuance of incidental take permits to permit
actions that do require Federal funding or permits to go forward.
However, Federal agencies are prohibited from carrying out, funding, or
authorizing actions that would destroy or adversely modify designated
critical habitat. A takings implications assessment has been completed
and concludes that this proposed designation of critical habitat for
beardless chinchweed would not pose significant takings implications
for lands within or affected by the designation.
Federalism--Executive Order 13132
In accordance with E.O. 13132 (Federalism), this proposed rule does
not have significant federalism effects. A federalism summary impact
statement is not required. In keeping with Department of the Interior
and Department of Commerce policy, we requested information from, and
coordinated development of this proposed critical habitat designation
with, appropriate State resource agencies in Arizona. From a federalism
perspective, the designation of critical habitat directly affects only
the responsibilities of Federal agencies. The Act imposes no other
duties with respect to critical habitat, either for States and local
governments, or for anyone else. As a result, the rule does not have
substantial direct effects either on the States, or on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of powers and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
The designation may have some benefit to these governments because the
areas that contain the features essential to the conservation of the
species are more clearly defined, and the physical or biological
features of the habitat necessary to the conservation of the species
are specifically identified. This information does not alter where and
what federally sponsored activities may occur. However, it may assist
these local governments in long-range planning (because these local
governments no longer have to wait for case-by-case section 7
consultations to occur).
Where State and local governments require approval or authorization
from a Federal agency for actions that may affect critical habitat,
consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Act would be required. While
non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or
permits, or that otherwise require approval or authorization from a
Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly impacted by the
designation of critical habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely
on the Federal agency.
Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988
In accordance with Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform),
the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not
unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We have proposed designating
critical habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Act. To
assist the public in understanding the habitat needs of the species,
this proposed rule identifies the elements of physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of the species. The proposed
areas of critical habitat are presented on a map, and the proposed rule
provides several options for the interested public to obtain more
detailed location information, if desired.
[[Page 67101]]
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This rule does not contain any new collections of information that
require approval by Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). An agency may
not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available
on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the
Arizona Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of
the Arizona Ecological Services Field Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
V. Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245,
unless otherwise noted.
0
2. Amend Sec. 17.12(h), the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants,
by adding entries for ``Graptopetalum bartramii'' and ``Pectis
imberbis'' in alphabetical order under FLOWERING PLANTS to read as set
forth below:
Sec. 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Listing citations
Scientific name Common name Where listed Status and applicable
rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flowering Plants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Graptopetalum bartramii......... Bartram's Wherever found.... T................. [Federal Register
stonecrop. citation when
published as a
final rule]
* * * * * * *
Pectis imberbis................. Beardless Wherever found.... E................. [Federal Register
chinchweed. citation when
published as a
final rule]
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
3. Add Sec. 17.73 to read as follows:
Sec. 17.73 Special rules--flowering plants.
(a) Graptopetalum bartramii (Bartram's stonecrop).
(1) Prohibitions. The following prohibitions apply to Graptopetalum
bartramii, except as provided under paragraph (a)(2) of this section:
(i) Import or export. It is unlawful to import or to export any
Graptopetalum bartramii. Any shipment in transit through the United
States is an importation and an exportation, whether or not it has
entered the country for customs purposes.
(ii) Remove and reduce to possession. It is unlawful to remove and
reduce to possession the species from areas under Federal jurisdiction;
maliciously damage or destroy the species on any such area; or remove,
cut, dig up, or damage or destroy the species on any other area in
knowing violation of any law or regulation of any State or in the
course of any violation of a State criminal trespass law.
(iii) Interstate or foreign commerce. It is unlawful to deliver,
receive, carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce,
by any means whatsoever, and in the course of a commercial activity,
any Graptopetalum bartramii.
(iv) Sale or offer for sale. (A) It is unlawful to sell or to offer
for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any Graptopetalum bartramii.
(B) An advertisement for the sale of any Graptopetalum bartramii
which carries a warning to the effect that no sale may be consummated
until a permit has been obtained from the Service, shall not be
considered an offer for sale within the meaning of this paragraph.
(v) It is unlawful to attempt to commit, solicit another to commit,
or cause to be committed, any of the acts described in paragraph (a)(1)
of this section.
(2) Exceptions from prohibitions. The following exceptions from
prohibitions apply to Graptopetalum bartramii:
(i) A person may apply for a permit in accordance with 50 CFR 17.72
that authorizes an activity otherwise prohibited by this paragraph for
Graptopetalum bartramii.
(ii)(A) Any employee or agent of the Service, any other Federal
land management agency, or a State conservation agency, who is
designated by that agency for such purposes, may, when acting in the
course of official duties, remove and reduce to possession
Graptopetalum bartramii from areas under Federal jurisdiction without a
permit if such action is necessary to:
(1) Care for a damaged or diseased specimen;
(2) Dispose of a dead specimen; or
(3) Salvage a dead specimen which may be useful for scientific
study.
(B) Any removal and reduction to possession pursuant to this
paragraph must be reported in writing to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Division of Law Enforcement, P.O. Box 28006, Washington, DC
20005, within 5 days. The specimen may only be retained, disposed of,
or salvaged in accordance with written directions from the Service.
(iii) Any qualified employee or agent of the Service or of a State
conservation agency which is a party to a cooperative agreement with
the Service in accordance with section 6(c) of the Act, who is
designated by that agency for such purposes, may, when acting in the
course of official duties, remove, cut, dig up, damage, or destroy
Graptopetalum bartramii on areas under Federal jurisdiction.
[[Page 67102]]
(b) [Reserved].
0
4. In Sec. 17.96, amend paragraph (a) by adding an entry for ``Pectis
imberbis (beardless chinchweed),'' in alphabetical order under Family
Asteraceae, to read as follows:
Sec. 17.96 Critical habitat--plants.
(a) Flowering plants.
* * * * *
Family Asteraceae: Pectis imberbis (beardless chinchweed)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Cochise, Pima, and
Santa Cruz Counties, Arizona, on the map below.
(2) Within these areas, the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of Pectis imberbis consist of the
following components:
(i) Native-dominated plant communities, consisting of:
(A) Plains, great basin, and semi-desert grasslands, oak savanna,
or Madrean evergreen woodland;
(B) Communities dominated by bunchgrasses with open spacing
(adjacent to and within 10 meters (33 feet) of individual Pectis
imberbis plants) and with little competition from other plants; and
(C) Communities with plants for pollinator foraging and nesting
within 1 kilometer (0.62 miles) of Pectis imberbis populations.
(ii) 1,158 to 1,737 meters (3,799 to 5,699 feet) elevation.
(iii) Eroding limestone or granite bedrock substrate.
(iv) Steep, south-facing, sunny to partially shaded hillslopes.
(v) The presence of pollinators (i.e., flies, bees, and
butterflies).
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the
land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on
the effective date of this rule.
(4) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining map units were
created using ArcMap version 10 (Environmental Systems Research
Institute, Inc.), a Geographic Information Systems program on a base of
USA Topo Maps. Critical habitat units were then mapped using NAD 1983,
Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) Zone 12N coordinates. The map in
this entry, as modified by any accompanying regulatory text,
establishes the boundaries of the critical habitat designation. The
coordinates or plot points or both on which the map is based are
available to the public at the Service's internet site at https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Docs_Species.htm, at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2018-0104, and at the field
office responsible for this designation. You may obtain field office
location information by contacting one of the Service regional offices,
the addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR 2.2.
(5) Unit 1: McCleary Canyon, Pima County, Arizona. Unit 1 consists
of 682 hectares (1,686 acres) of U.S. Forest Service lands.
(6) Unit 2: Audubon Research Ranch, Santa Cruz County, Arizona.
Unit 2 consists of 926 hectares (2,287 acres) of land, of which 331
hectares (817 acres) are owned by the U.S. Forest Service, 474 hectares
(1,686 acres) by the Bureau of Land Management, and 121 hectares (300
acres) by the Audubon Research Ranch.
(7) Unit 3: Scotia Canyon, Cochise County, Arizona. Unit 3 consists
of 346 hectares (855 acres) of U.S. Forest Service lands.
(8) Unit 4: Coronado National Memorial, Cochise County, Arizona.
Unit 4 consists of 853 hectares (2,109 acres) of National Park Service
lands.
(9) Unit 5: Lampshire Well, Santa Cruz County, Arizona. Unit 5
consists of 380 hectares (939 acres) of U.S. Forest Service lands.
(10) Unit 6: Harshaw Creek, Santa Cruz County, Arizona. Unit 6
consists of 410 hectares (1,013 acres) of U.S. Forest Service lands.
(11) Unit 7: Washington Camp, Santa Cruz County, Arizona. Unit 7
consists of 380 hectares (939 acres) of U.S. Forest Service lands.
(12) Unit 8: Ruby Road, Santa Cruz County, Arizona. Unit 8 consists
of 314 hectares (776 acres) of U.S. Forest Service lands.
(13) Map of Units 1 through 8 follows:
[[Page 67103]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE19.000
[[Page 67104]]
* * * * *
Dated: November 26, 2019
Margaret E. Everson
Principal Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Exercising
the Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-26210 Filed 12-5-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
