67060 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal throughout all or a significant portion of eRulemaking Portal: http:// its range, we are required to promptly Fish and Wildlife Service www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, publish a proposal in the Federal enter FWS–R2–ES–2018–0104, which is Register and make a determination on 50 CFR Part 17 the docket number for this rulemaking. our proposal within 1 year. Under [Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2018–0104; Then, click on the Search button. On the section 4(d) of the Act, the Secretary of 4500030113] resulting page, in the Search panel on the Interior has the discretion to issue the left side of the screen, under the such regulations as he deems necessary RIN 1018–BD35 Document Type heading, click on the and advisable to provide for the conservation of threatened species. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Proposed Rule box to locate this Critical habitat shall be designated, to and Plants; Endangered Species document. You may submit a comment the maximum extent prudent and Status for Beardless Chinchweed With by clicking on ‘‘Comment Now!’’ (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail determinable, for any species Designation of Critical Habitat, and or hand-delivery to: Public Comments determined to be an endangered or Threatened Species Status for Processing, Attn: FWS–R2–ES–2018– threatened species under the Act. Bartram’s Stonecrop With Section 4(d) 0104; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Listing a species as an endangered or Rule MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls threatened species, adopting provisions AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Church, VA 22041–3803. under section 4(d) of the Act for a Interior. We request that you send comments threatened species, and designations and revisions of critical habitat can only ACTION: Proposed rule. only by the methods described above. We will post all comments on http:// be completed by issuing a rule. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and www.regulations.gov. This generally What this document does. We Wildlife Service (Service), propose to means that we will post any personal propose to list beardless chinchweed as list Pectis imberbis (beardless information you provide us (see Public an endangered species and Bartram’s chinchweed), a plant species from Comments, below, for more stonecrop as a threatened species. This southern Arizona and northern Mexico, information). proposed rule assesses all available as an endangered species and to Document availability: The draft information regarding status of and designate critical habitat for Beardless economic analysis is available at http:// stressors to beardless chinchweed and chinchweed under the Endangered www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/ Bartram’s stonecrop. We also propose a Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended. Docs_Species.htm, at http:// rule issued under section 4(d) of the Act In total, we propose to designate www.regulations.gov at Docket No. to provide for the conservation of approximately 10,604 acres (4,291 FWS–R2–ES–2018–0104, and at the Bartram’s stonecrop. In addition, we hectares) in southern Arizona as critical Arizona Ecological Services Field Office propose to designate critical habitat for habitat for this plant. We also announce (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). beardless chinchweed. We are not the availability of a draft economic The coordinates or plot points or both proposing critical habitat for Bartram’s analysis of the proposed designation of from which the map is generated are stonecrop as we have determined that critical habitat for beardless included in the administrative record the designation of critical habitat for chinchweed. for this critical habitat designation and this species is not prudent. In addition, we propose to list are available at https://www.fws.gov/ The basis for our action. Under the Graptopetalum bartramii (Bartram’s southwest/es/arizona/Docs_ Act, we can determine that a species is stonecrop), a plant species from Species.htm, at http:// an endangered or threatened species southern Arizona and northern Mexico, www.regulations.gov at Docket No. based on any of five factors: (A) The as a threatened species under the Act FWS–R2–ES–2018–0104, and at the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its and to issue a rule under section 4(d) of Arizona Ecological Services Field Office habitat or range; (B) overutilization for the Act to provide for the conservation (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). commercial, recreational, scientific, or of Bartram’s stonecrop. We are not Any additional tools or supporting educational purposes; (C) disease or proposing to designate critical habitat information that we may develop for predation; (D) the inadequacy of for Bartram’s stonecrop because we find this critical habitat designation will also existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) that a designation is not prudent. If we be available at the Fish and Wildlife other natural or manmade factors make this rule final as proposed, it Service website and Field Office set out affecting its continued existence. above, and may also be included in the would extend the Act’s protections to For beardless chinchweed, we have both of these species and to beardless preamble and/or at http:// determined that the key factors chinchweed’s critical habitat. www.regulations.gov. supporting the proposed endangered DATES: We will accept comments FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff finding are: Loss of habitat due to received or postmarked on or before Humphrey, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish invasion by nonnative species (Factor February 4, 2020. Comments submitted and Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological A); altered fire regime exacerbated by electronically using the Federal Services Field Office, 9828 North 31st nonnative invasion (Factors A and E); eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, Avenue, #C3, Phoenix, AZ 85051–2517; altered precipitation, drought, and below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. telephone 602–242–0210. Persons who temperature (Factors A and E); road and Eastern Time on the closing date. We use a telecommunications device for the trail maintenance, mining, livestock, must receive requests for a public deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay wildlife, and post-wildfire runoff hearing, in writing, at the address Service at 800–877–8339. (Factors A and E); grazing from wildlife shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: and livestock (Factor C); and small CONTACT by January 21, 2020. population size exacerbating all other ADDRESSES: Executive Summary stressors (Factor E). The existing Written comments: You may submit Why we need to publish a rule. Under regulatory mechanisms are not adequate comments by one of the following the Act, if a species is determined to be to address these factors such that the methods: an endangered or threatened species species does not meet the definition of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Dec 05, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP3.SGM 06DEP3 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules 67061

an endangered or threatened species designation are based on scientifically which may include habitat modification (Factor D). sound data, assumptions, and analyses. or destruction, overutilization, disease, For Bartram’s stonecrop, we have The peer reviewers have expertise with predation, the inadequacy of existing determined the key factors supporting beardless chinchweed’s or Bartram’s regulatory mechanisms, or other natural the proposed threatened finding are: stonecrop’s biology, habitat, physical or or manmade factors. Reduction in water availability (Factors biological factors, or stressors. Species (3) Biological, commercial trade, or A and E); erosion, sedimentation, and status assessment reports for beardless other relevant data concerning any burial (Factors A and E); trampling chinchweed and Bartram’s stonecrop stressors (or lack thereof) to these (Factor E); altered fire regime (Factors A were developed (Service 2018a and species and existing regulations that and E); loss of shade (Factors A and E); 2018b, entire), which represent a may be addressing those stressors. altered flooding regime (Factors A and compilation of the best scientific and (4) Additional information concerning E); drought (Factors A and E); predation commercial data available concerning the historical and current status, range, of individuals and shade trees (Factors the status of the species, including the distribution, and population size of A, C, and E); illegal collection (Factor past, present, and future stressors to the these species, including the locations of B); and small population size (Factor E). species. We requested peer review of any additional populations of these The existing regulatory mechanisms are each species status assessment report species. not adequate to address these factors from three independent specialists, with (5) Information related to climate such that the species does not meet the expertise with the species, to ensure change within the range these species definition of an endangered or that we based our determinations on and how it may affect these species’ threatened species (Factor D). scientifically sound data, assumptions, habitats. Under the Act, any species that is and analyses. The peer reviewers’ (6) Information on regulations that are determined to be an endangered or a comments have been considered and necessary and advisable to provide for threatened species shall, to the incorporated where appropriate in the the conservation of these species and maximum extent prudent and species status assessment reports that the Service can consider in determinable, have habitat designated (Service 2018a and 2018b, entire), developing a 4(d) rule for the species. In that is considered to be critical habitat. which are available at https:// particular, information concerning the Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/ extent to which we should include any Secretary shall designate and make _ Docs Species.htm, and at http:// of the section 9 prohibitions in the 4(d) revisions to critical habitat on the basis www.regulations.gov at Docket No. rule or whether any other forms of take of the best available scientific data after FWS–R2–ES–2018–0104. The peer should be excepted from the taking into consideration the economic review comments will be available prohibitions in the 4(d) rule. impact, the impact on national security, along with other public comments in (7) The reasons why areas should or and any other relevant impact of the docket for this proposed rule on specifying any particular area as critical should not be designated as critical http://www.regulations.gov (Docket No. habitat as provided by section 4 of the habitat. The Secretary may exclude an FWS–R2–ES–2018–0104). area from critical habitat if he Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) including determines that the benefits of such Information Requested information to inform the following factors such that a designation of critical exclusion outweigh the benefits of Public Comments specifying such area as part of the habitat may be determined to be not We intend that any final action critical habitat, unless he determines, prudent: resulting from this proposed rule will be based on the best scientific data (a) The species is threatened by taking based on the best scientific and available, that the failure to designate or other human activity and commercial data available and be as such area as critical habitat will result identification of critical habitat can be accurate and as effective as possible. in the extinction of the species. Under expected to increase the degree of such Therefore, we request comments or section 4(d) of the Act, the Secretary of threat to the species; information from other concerned the Interior has the discretion to issue (b) The present or threatened governmental agencies, Native such regulations as he deems necessary destruction, modification, or American tribes, the scientific and advisable to provide for the curtailment of a species’ habitat or range community, industry, or any other conservation of threatened species. is not a threat to the species, or threats interested parties concerning this We prepared an economic analysis of to the species’ habitat stem solely from proposed rule. We particularly seek the proposed designation of critical causes that cannot be addressed through comments concerning: habitat. In order to consider economic management actions resulting from (1) Beardless chinchweed and consultations under section 7(a)(2) of impacts, we prepared an analysis of the Bartram’s stonecrop biology, range, and economic impacts of the proposed the Act; population trends, including: (c) Areas within the jurisdiction of the critical habitat designation. We hereby (a) Biological or ecological United States provide no more than announce the availability of the draft requirements of these species, including negligible conservation value, if any, for economic analysis and seek public habitat requirements for germination, a species occurring primarily outside review and comment. growth, and reproduction; Peer review. In accordance with our (b) Genetics and taxonomy; the jurisdiction of the United States; joint policy on peer review published in (c) Historical and current range, (d) No areas meet the definition of the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 including distribution in Mexico; critical habitat. FR 34270), we have sought the expert (d) Historical and current population (8) The following specific information opinions of three appropriate and levels, and current and projected trends; on: independent specialists regarding the and (a) The amount and distribution of scientific information in the species (e) Past and ongoing conservation habitat; status assessment upon which this measures for these species, their (b) What areas, that are currently proposed rule is based. The purpose of habitats, or both. occupied and that contain the physical peer review is to ensure that our listing (2) Factors that may affect the and biological features essential to the determinations and critical habitat continued existence of these species, conservation of these species, should be

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Dec 05, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 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 allow us to verify any scientific or 15, 1980, notice of review (45 FR and why; commercial information you include. 82480). Category 1 is a term no longer (c) Special management Please note that submissions merely in use, having been replaced by the term considerations or protection that may be stating support for or opposition to the ‘‘candidate species.’’ A candidate needed for the essential features in action under consideration without species is a species for which the potential critical habitat areas, including providing supporting information, Service has on file sufficient managing for the potential effects of although noted, will not be considered information on biological vulnerability climate change; and in making a determination, as section and threat(s) to support issuance of a (d) What areas not occupied at the 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that proposed rule to list, but issuance of the time of listing are essential for the determinations as to whether any proposed rule is precluded by higher conservation of the species. We species is an endangered or a threatened priority actions to amend the Lists of particularly seek comments regarding: species must be made ‘‘solely on the Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (i) Whether occupied areas are basis of the best scientific and and Plants. In 1983, beardless inadequate for the conservation of the commercial data available.’’ chinchweed was reclassified as a species; and, You may submit your comments and Category 2 species (48 FR 53640; (ii) Specific information that supports materials concerning this proposed rule November 28, 1983). A Category 2 the determination that unoccupied areas by one of the methods listed in species referred to a species for which will, with reasonable certainty, ADDRESSES. We request that you send the Service had some indication that contribute to the conservation of the comments only by the methods listing as endangered or threatened species and, contain at least one described in ADDRESSES. might be warranted, but there were physical or biological feature essential If you submit information via http:// insufficient data available to justify a to the conservation of the species. www.regulations.gov, your entire proposal to list. The species remained (9) Land use designations and current submission—including any personal so designated in subsequent annual or planned activities in the subject areas identifying information—will be posted candidate notices of review (50 FR and their possible impacts on proposed on the website. If your submission is 39526, September 27, 1985; 55 FR 6184, critical habitat. made via a hardcopy that includes February 21, 1990; 58 FR 51144; (10) Any probable economic, national personal identifying information, you September 30, 1993). In 1996, the security, or other relevant impacts of may request at the top of your document Service eliminated Category 2 species; designating any area that may be that we withhold this information from consequently, this species dropped off included in the final designation, and public review. However, we cannot the candidate list. The Service received the benefits of including or excluding guarantee that we will be able to do so. a petition in July 2010 to list beardless areas that may be impacted. We will post all hardcopy submissions chinchweed and designate critical (11) Information on the extent to on http://www.regulations.gov. habitat under the Act (Center for which the description of probable Comments and materials we receive, Biological Diversity 2010, entire). The economic impacts in the draft economic as well as supporting documentation we Service published a 90-day finding on analysis is a reasonable estimate of the used in preparing this proposed rule, August 8, 2012 (77 FR 47352), likely economic impacts. will be available for public inspection (12) Whether any specific areas we are concluding that the petition presented on http://www.regulations.gov, or by proposing for critical habitat substantial scientific or commercial appointment, during normal business designation should be considered for information indicating that listing of the hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the species may be warranted. Service, Arizona Ecological Services Act, and whether the benefits of Bartram’s Stonecrop Field Office (see FOR FURTHER potentially excluding any specific area INFORMATION CONTACT). outweigh the benefits of including that Bartram’s stonecrop was a candidate area under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Public Hearing for listing from 1980 to 1996. It was first a Category 1 candidate species, as (13) The likelihood of adverse social Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for reactions to the designation of critical identified in our December 15, 1980, a public hearing on this proposal, if notice of review (45 FR 82480), and then habitat, as discussed in the associated requested. Requests must be received documents of the draft economic in 1983, it was reclassified as a Category within 45 days after the date of 2 species (48 FR 53640; November 28, analysis, and how the consequences of publication of this proposed rule in the such reactions, if likely to occur, would 1983). The species remained so Federal Register (see DATES, above). designated in subsequent annual relate to the conservation and regulatory Such requests must be sent to the benefits of the proposed critical habitat candidate notices of review (50 FR address shown in FOR FURTHER designation. 39526, September 27, 1985; 55 FR 6184, INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule (14) Whether we could improve or February 21, 1990; 58 FR 51144; a public hearing on this proposal, if modify our approach to designating September 30, 1993). In 1996, the requested, and announce the date, time, critical habitat in any way to provide for Service eliminated Category 2 species; and place of the hearing, as well as how greater public participation and consequently, this species dropped off to obtain reasonable accommodations, understanding, or to better the candidate list. The Service received in the Federal Register and local accommodate public concerns and a petition in July 2010 to list Bartram’s newspapers at least 15 days before the comments. stonecrop and designate critical habitat (15) Additional guidance and hearing. under the Act (Center for Biological methods that the Service could provide Previous Federal Actions Diversity 2010, entire). The Service or use, respectively, to streamline the published a 90-day finding on August 8, implementation of the proposed 4(d) Beardless Chinchweed 2012 (77 FR 47352), concluding that the rule for Bartram’s stonecrop. Beardless chinchweed was a petition presented substantial scientific Please include sufficient information candidate for listing from 1980 to 1996. or commercial information indicating with your submission (such as scientific It was first a Category 1 candidate that listing of the species may be journal articles or other publications) to species, as identified in our December warranted.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Dec 05, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP3.SGM 06DEP3 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules 67063

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Dec 05, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP3.SGM 06DEP3 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3 67064 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules

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

TABLE 1—CURRENT STATUS OF BEARDLESS CHINCHWEED POPULATIONS

Mountain range/country Population name Population status Subpopulation name * Subpopulation status

Atascosa-Pajarito Moun- Pena Blanca Lake ...... Extirpated ...... N/A ...... Extirpated. tains, USA. Ruby Road ...... Extant ...... N/A ...... Extant. Summit Motorway ...... Extirpated ...... N/A ...... Extirpated. Canelo Hills, USA ...... Audubon Research Ranch Extant ...... Post Canyon ...... Extirpated...... Tributary of O’Donnell Extant. 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 Memo- Extant ...... State of Texas Mine ...... Extant. rial...... 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, Box Canyon Road ...... Extirpated ...... N/A ...... Extirpated. USA. McCleary Canyon—Gun- Extant ...... N/A ...... Extant. sight Pass. McCleary Canyon—Wasp Extant ...... N/A ...... Extant. Canyon. Chihuahua, Mexico ...... Batopililas ...... Unknown; presume extant N/A ...... Unknown; presume extant. Guasaremos ...... Unknown; presume extant N/A ...... Unknown; presume extant. Sonora, Mexico ...... Canon de la Petaquilla ..... Unknown; presume extant N/A ...... Unknown; presume extant. Canyon Estrella ...... Unknown; presume extant N/A ...... Unknown; presume extant. Horconcitos ...... Unknown; presume extant N/A ...... Unknown; presume extant. Los Conejos ...... Unknown; presume extant N/A ...... Unknown; presume extant. * In this column of the table, N/A means ‘‘not applicable.’’

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Dec 05, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP3.SGM 06DEP3 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules 67065

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

TABLE 2—POPULATION RESILIENCY CATEGORY DEFINITIONS FOR BEARDLESS CHINCHWEED

Condition Native-dominated Dormant season (October through March) category Subpopulations Abundance habitat precipitation

High (3) ...... Three or more sub- Number of adults in No nonnative plants ...... More than 12 inches of winter rain on average populations per popu- each population is during the past 5 years as recorded at the lation. >300 individuals. nearest weather station. Moderate (2) Two subpopulations per Number of individuals in Native plants dominate Between 6.1 and 12 inches of winter rain on av- population. each population is erage during the past 5 years as recorded at 100 to 300 individuals. the nearest weather station. Low (1) ...... One subpopulation per Number of individuals in Mix of nonnative and 6 or fewer inches of winter rain on average dur- population. each population is native plants, where ing the past 5 years as recorded at the near- <100 individuals. there is not a clear est weather station. dominance of either. ; ...... No subpopulations; pop- No individuals are found Nonnative plants domi- 6 or fewer inches of winter rain on average dur- ulation is extirpated. during surveys. nate the habitat. ing the past 5 years as recorded at the near- est weather station.

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Dec 05, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP3.SGM 06DEP3 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3 67066 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Dec 05, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP3.SGM 06DEP3 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules 67067

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

TABLE 3—CURRENT STATUS OF BARTRAM’S STONECROP POPULATIONS

Population Subpopulation Mountain ranges 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 Canyon ...... Extirpated. 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 East ...... Extant ...... Cochise Spring ...... Extant. Park Canyon ...... Extant. Stronghold Canyon West ...... Extant ...... Rockfellow Dome Trail ...... Extant. Stronghold Canyon West ...... Extant. Stronghold Canyon—hanging Extant. canyon drainage. Empire Mountains ...... Empire Mountains ...... Extirpated ...... Empire Mountains ...... Extirpated. Mule Mountains ...... Juniper Flat ...... Extant ...... Juniper Flat and vicinity ...... Extant. Pajarito/Atascosa Mountains ...... Alamo Canyon ...... Extant ...... Alamo Canyon ...... Extant. Holden Canyon ...... Extant ...... Holden Canyon ...... Extant. Sycamore Canyon ...... Extant ...... Montana Peak Vicinity ...... Extant. Montana Canyon ...... Extant. Mule Ridge ...... Extant.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Dec 05, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP3.SGM 06DEP3 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3 67068 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 3—CURRENT STATUS OF BARTRAM’S STONECROP POPULATIONS—Continued

Population Subpopulation Mountain ranges Population status Subpopulation status

Penasco Canyon; below dam ...... Extant. Summit Motorway ...... Extant. Sycamore Canyon ...... Extant. Warsaw Canyon ...... Extant ...... Warsaw/Old Glory Canyons ...... Extant. Patagonia Mountains ...... Alum Gulch ...... Extant ...... Alum Gulch ...... Extant. Flux Canyon ...... Extant. Rincon Mountains...... Chimenea-Madrona Canyons...... Extant ...... Chimenea Canyon + Manning Extant. 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 Canyon ...... Extant. Walker Canyon Basin ...... Extant. 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 Avispas, Sonora ...... Presumed Ex- Sierra Las Avispas, (Nogales Presumed Ex- tant. County). tant. Sierra La Escuadra, Chihuahua ... Sierra La Escuadra, Chihuahua .. Extant ...... Near Colonia Pacheco (in the Extant. Municipio Nuevo Casas Grandes). Sierra La Estancia, Chihuahua .... Sierra La Estancia, Chihuahua .... Presumed Ex- Cuarenta Casas (northwest of Presumed Ex- tant. Las Varas, Municipio Madera). tant. Sierra Los Mojones ...... Mesa Tres Rios ...... Extant ...... Mesa Tres Rios ...... Extant.

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Dec 05, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP3.SGM 06DEP3 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules 67069

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

Population factors Habitat factors Condition category Winter (October through Subpopulations Abundance Recruitment Riparian elements March) precipitation Shade

High (3) ...... Three or more subpopula- Number of adults in each Populations contain more Water is within 10 m from More than 12 inches of Overstory cover of tions of plants/popu- population is >300 indi- seedlings (<1.5 cm [0.6 individuals or riparian winter rain on average Juniperus, Quercus, lation. viduals. in]) than dying individ- vegetation present indi- during the past 5 years Pinus or other is >80%. uals. cating subsurface water as recorded at the near- nearby. est weather station. Moderate (2) ...... Two subpopulations of Number of individuals in Populations contain an Water at or near the sur- Between 6.1 and 12 Overstory cover of plants/population. each population is 150 equal number of seed- face (riparian vegetation inches of winter rain on Juniperus, Quercus, to 300 individuals. lings (<1.5 cm [0.6 in]) present indicating sub- average during the past Pinus or other is be- to dying individuals. surface water) is within 5 years as recorded at tween 50 and 80%. 10–20 m from individ- the nearest weather sta- uals. tion. Low (1) ...... One subpopulation of Number of individuals in Populations contain fewer Water at or near the sur- 6 or fewer inches of winter Overstory cover of plants/population. each population is <150 seedlings (<1.5 cm [0.6 face (riparian vegetation rain on average during Juniperus, Quercus, individuals. in]) than dying individ- present indicating sub- the past 5 years as re- Pinus or other is be- uals. surface water) is within corded at the nearest tween 20 and 50%. 20–30 m from individ- weather station. uals. ; ...... No subpopulations ...... No individuals are found Population is made up pri- Streambed near plants is 6 or fewer inches of winter Overstory cover has been during surveys in appro- marily of dead and dry and invaded by non- rain on average during removed. priate microhabitat. dying individuals that do riparian plant species in- the past 5 years as re- not produce seed or no dicating shift of vegeta- corded at the nearest individuals found. tion community and weather station. complete loss of suit- able habitat.

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Dec 05, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP3.SGM 06DEP3 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3 67070 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules

the species’ range to minimize impacts those actions and conditions that will Docket FWS–R2–ES–2018–0104 on from catastrophic events. ameliorate the threats—on an http://www.regulations.gov and at individual, population, and species https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/ Summary of Biological Status and level. We evaluate each threat and its arizona/Docs_Species.htm. Stressors expected effects on the species, then Beardless Chinchweed Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) analyze the cumulative effect of all of and its implementing regulations (50 the threats on the species as a whole. Several stressors influence whether CFR part 424) set forth the procedures We also consider the cumulative effect beardless chinchweed populations will for determining whether a species is an of the threats in light of those actions grow to maximize habitat occupancy, ‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened and conditions that will have positive which increases the resiliency of a species.’’ The Act defines an effects on the species—such as any population to stochastic events. We endangered species as a species that is existing regulatory mechanisms or evaluated the past, current, and future ‘‘in danger of extinction throughout all conservation efforts. The Secretary stressors (i.e., negative changes in the or a significant portion of its range,’’ and determines whether the species meets resources needed by beardless a threatened species as a species that is the definition of an ‘‘endangered chinchweed) that are affecting what ‘‘likely to become an endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened species’’ only beardless chinchweed needs for species within the foreseeable future after conducting this cumulative viability. These stressors are described throughout all or a significant portion of analysis and describing the expected in detail in chapter 4 of the SSA report its range.’’ The Act requires that we effect on the species now and in the (Service 2018a). Stressors that have the determine whether any species is an foreseeable future. potential to affect beardless chinchweed ‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened The Act does not define the term population resiliency include: species’’ because of any of the following ‘‘foreseeable future,’’ which appears in • Loss of habitat due to invasion by factors: the statutory definition of ‘‘threatened nonnative species; (A) The present or threatened species.’’ Our implementing regulations • Altered fire regime exacerbated by destruction, modification, or at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a invasion by nonnative species; curtailment of its habitat or range; framework for evaluating the foreseeable • Altered precipitation, drought, and (B) Overutilization for commercial, future on a case-by-case basis. The term temperature; recreational, scientific, or educational foreseeable future extends only so far • Erosion, sedimentation, and burial purposes; into the future as the Services can from road and trail maintenance, (C) Disease or predation; reasonably determine that both the mining, livestock, wildlife, and post- (D) The inadequacy of existing future threats and the species’ responses wildfire runoff; regulatory mechanisms; or to those threats are likely. In other • Grazing from wildlife and livestock; (E) Other natural or manmade factors words, the foreseeable future is the and affecting its continued existence. period of time in which we can make • Small population size exacerbating These factors represent broad reliable predictions. ‘‘Reliable’’ does not all other stressors. categories of natural or human-caused mean ‘‘certain’’; it means sufficient to The stressors that pose the largest risk actions or conditions that could have an provide a reasonable degree of to future viability of the species are: (1) effect on a species’ continued existence. confidence in the prediction. Thus, a Loss of habitat caused by the invasion In evaluating these actions and prediction is reliable if it is reasonable of nonnative grasses that compete for conditions, we look for those that may to depend on it when making decisions. space, water, light, and nutrients and have a negative effect on individuals of It is not always possible or necessary that alter wildfire regimes; and (2) small the species, as well as other actions or to define foreseeable future as a population size (fewer than 50 conditions that may ameliorate any particular number of years. Analysis of individuals), which potentially causes negative effects or may have positive the foreseeable future uses the best other stressors to seriously damage or effects. scientific and commercial data available extirpate populations. The size of fewer We use the term ‘‘threat’’ to refer in and should consider the timeframes than 50 individuals as a small general to actions or conditions that are applicable to the relevant threats and to population was determined by assessing known to or are reasonably likely to the species’ likely responses to those the range of known population sizes. negatively affect individuals of a threats in view of its life-history Much of the historical range of beardless species. The term ‘‘threat’’ includes characteristics. Data that are typically chinchweed in both the United States actions or conditions that have a direct relevant to assessing the species’ and Mexico has been altered by an impact on individuals (direct impacts), biological response include species- invasion of nonnative grasses and as well as those that affect individuals specific factors such as lifespan, herbaceous plants. Although there are through alteration of their habitat or reproductive rates or productivity, many nonnative plant species growing required resources (stressors). The term certain behaviors, and other in historical beardless chinchweed ‘‘threat’’ may encompass—either demographic factors. habitats in both the United States and together or separately—the source of the We completed a comprehensive Mexico, two species in particular are action or condition or the action or assessment of the biological status of most problematic to beardless condition itself. beardless chinchweed and Bartram’s chinchweed at this time: Lehman’s However, the mere identification of stonecrop, and prepared an SSA report lovegrass (Eragrostis lehmanniana) and any threat(s) does not necessarily mean for each species (Service 2018a and rose natal (Melinis repens). Both of these that the species meets the statutory 2018b, entire), which provides a species are strong competitors on definition of an ‘‘endangered species’’ or thorough account of the species’ overall southern exposures where beardless a ‘‘threatened species.’’ In determining viability. We define viability here as the chinchweed occurs. whether a species meets either ability of the species to persist over the definition, we must evaluate all long term and, conversely, to avoid Habitat Loss Caused by Nonnative identified threats by considering the extinction. In the following discussion, Grasses expected response by the species, and we summarize the conclusions of the Lehman’s lovegrass, a nonnative grass the effects of the threats—in light of SSA reports, which can be accessed at from South Africa, has numerous

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Dec 05, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP3.SGM 06DEP3 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules 67071

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Dec 05, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 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, mountain snowpack in the Southwest is response, which acts to restrict change in the timing and type of predicted to continue to decline over transpiration, and an increase in plant precipitation, and prolonged drought the 21st century under the high growth and leaf area, which acts to impact soil and ambient moisture emission scenario (A2), mostly because increase evapotranspiration (IPCC 2013, availability for beardless chinchweed of projected increased temperature p. 986). An increase in germination, growth, and flowering. In (Garfin et al. 2013, p. 6). Reduced rain evapotranspiration results in water loss addition, due to increased nonnative and snow, earlier snowmelt, and drying from the plant and increases stress on competition during times of reduced tendencies cause a reduction in late- the plant. This increase in stress precipitation and drought, impacts from spring and summer runoff. Together impacts photosynthesis, respiration, these stressors to beardless chinchweed these effects, along with increases in transpiration, water use efficiency, leaf would be exacerbated (Anable 1990, p. evaporation, result in lower soil conductance, growth rate, vigor, and gas 49; Robinett 1992, p. 101; Fernandez moisture by early summer (Gafrin 2013, exchange. These impacts result in and Reynolds 2000, pp. 94–95; Geiger p. 117). reduced growth, flowering, and seed and McPherson 2005, p. 896; Climatic events such as snowpack, production and, therefore, in reduced Schussman et al. 2006, p. 589; Archer earlier snowmelt, and increased drought overall recruitment and population and Predick 2008, p. 26; Mathias et al. are regional and will impact all numbers. 2013, entire). populations of beardless chinchweed. Although rare species in the Under a continuation of A2-high Precipitation timing and amount southwestern United States evolved impacts the germination, growth, and emissions scenario, reduced winter and with drought, recent changes in flowering of beardless chinchweed, temperature, and rainfall patterns spring precipitation is consistently resulting in the loss of individuals and present stressful conditions of increased projected for the southern part of the recruitment, and overall reducing the magnitude greater than what the species Southwest by 2100, as part of the population size. faced historically and raise the question general global precipitation reduction in In the Southwest, temperatures of whether the species, can persist. subtropical areas (Garfin et al. 2014, p. increased 2.7 degrees Celcius (°C) (1.6 Some species may shift their 465). Analyses of the southwestern degrees Fahrenheit (°F)) plus or minus distributions in response to warming of United States indicate future drying, 0.9 °C (0.5 °F), between 1901 and 2010, the climate (McLaughlin et al. 2002, p. primarily due to a decrease in winter and more heat waves occurred over the 6070). However, it is highly unlikely precipitation under both the RCP 4.5 Southwest during 2001–2010 compared that beardless chinchweed would be and 8.5 scenarios (IPCC 2013, p. 1080). to average occurrences in the 20th able to naturally shift its range to keep The annual projected changes in century. In the future, under RCP 4.5, up with current and high projected rates precipitation for 2025 to 2049 under the the annual maximum temperature is of climate change, due to its overall RCP 4.5 and 8.5 scenarios range from an projected to increase by 5 °C (2.7 °F) for population decline and inability to increase of 1.3 cm/month (0.5 in/month) 2025–2049 and 7.3 °C (4 °F) for 2050– maintain current populations. Since to a decrease of 1.5 cm/month (0.5 in/ 2074, and 5 °C (2.7 °F) for 2025–2049 plants are not mobile, expanding the month), with a an annual average of no and 10.4 °C (5.7 °F) for 2050–2074 distribution of this species is dependent change compared to 1981 to 2010 under RCP 8.5, all relative to 1981–2010 on seed dispersal. Further, extant (USGS 2019, entire). However, winter (USGS 2019, entire). When temperatures populations are small, which limit the and spring precipitation under both rise, as has been occurring in recent amount of seed production for dispersal. emission scenarios is projected to decades and as is projected to continue ¥ ¥ ¥ It is highly unlikely that under elevated decrease from 0.3 to 1 cm ( 0.1 to into the future, evapotranspiration rates ¥ environmental stress associated with 0.4 inches) (MACA 2019) or a also increase and soil moisture climate change, the species would be decrease up to 10 percent for 2016–2035 decreases. Along with projected able to both maintain populations and relative to 1986–2005 under RCP 4.5 warming and increased also colonize new areas with more (IPCC 2013, p. 985). The decrease in evapotranspiration, it is highly likely suitable climate conditions. Thus winter and spring precipitation would that droughts will become more severe localized extirpations over portions of likely be greater under the RCP 8.5 (Garfin 2013, pp. 137–138). A decrease the beardless chinchweed range could scenario. There is some evidence from of up to 4 percent soil moisture is result (lower elevations), and, in other comparing observations with projected under RCP 4.5 scenario for portions of its distribution, the occupied simulations of the recent past that 2016–2035, relative to 1986–2005. The range (higher elevation) may expand, climate models might be decrease in soil moisture would likely depending upon habitat availability. underestimating the magnitude of be greater under the RCP 8.5 scenario. changes in precipitation in many Further, the evaporation deficient Erosion, Sedimentation, and Burial regions (IPCC 2013, p. 986). The increases under RCP 4.5 and increases General road maintenance and climate-model-projected simulations more in RCP 8.5 in 2025 to 2049, widening could disturb populations indicate that a high degree of variability relative to 1981 to 2010. Based on the along road cuts and create erosion of annual precipitation will continue high emissions scenario, the current (Phillips et al. 1982, p. 8). Of the six during the coming century, for both low 100-year drought will become extant U.S. populations, the Ruby Road and high emission scenarios (Garfin commonplace in the second half of this and Scotia Canyon populations, and the 2013, p. 110). This suggests that the century and future droughts will be State of Texas Mine subpopulation of Southwest will remain susceptible to much more severe than those previously Coronado National Memorial occur unusually wet spells and, on the other recorded (Garfin 2013, p. 138). This along roadcuts; similarly, the Visitor hand, will remain prone to occasional projection of intensified drought Center subpopulation of the Coronado drought episodes (Garfin 2013, p. 110). conditions on the Colorado River is not National Memorial population contains However, decrease in soil moisture due to changes in precipitation, but some plants that occur along a across much of the Southwest is rather due directly to warming and its maintained trail. These plants could be projected under both scenarios by mid- effect on reducing soil moisture (Garfin damaged or removed by road or trail century, due to increased evaporation 2013, p. 138). Physiological effects of maintenance. Impacts from such (IPCC 2013, p. 1259). Late winter-spring CO2 may involve both the stomatal stressors could be profound for

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Dec 05, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP3.SGM 06DEP3 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules 67073

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Dec 05, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP3.SGM 06DEP3 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3 67074 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 5—BEARDLESS CHINCHWEED CURRENT POPULATION CONDITION

Number of Current Mountain range/country Population individuals 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 Memorial ...... 241 Low. 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 Pass ...... 32 Moderate. McCleary Canyon—Wasp Canyon ...... 32 Low. 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 de los Cendros; south- ∼10 Low. east of Tesopaco. Los Conejos, Rio Mayo ...... ∼10 Low.

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Dec 05, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP3.SGM 06DEP3 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules 67075

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

Altered fire Individual Risks Mining activity regime * Climate effects Conservation

Risk described ...... • Burial ...... • Lightning ...... • Reduction in avail- • Grazing ...... Conservation actions implemented. • Removal ...... • Nonnative plants ... able water **. • Trampling ...... • Dust ...... • Cross border viola- • Seedling desicca- • Trail and road tors. tion. maintenance. • Recreation ...... • Flowering halt ...... • Erosion ...... Scenario 1 Continu- Rosemont mine im- Number of wildfires Available water and Applied to popu- No new individuals, subpopulations or pop- ation continuing into plemented with in- annually increases drought continue at lations <50 individ- ulations found. No augmentation of exist- the future. direct and direct at the same rate as the same level as uals. ing populations, little seed preservation, impacts. the last 10 years. in the past 10 nonnatives not controlled, some wood- years, emissions land areas thinned. 4.5. Scenario 2 Conserva- Rosemont mine im- Number of wildfires Available water re- Applied to popu- Sites revisited and additional plants are lo- tion. plemented with in- does not increase mains stable, emis- lations <50 individ- cated, sites are augmented, or new sites direct and direct from current rate. sions 4.5. uals. are established, some nonnatives are impacts; with miti- controlled, and additional woodland gation. areas are thinned. Scenario 3 Moderate Rosemont mine im- Number of wildfires Available water is re- Applied to popu- No new individuals, subpopulations or pop- increase in negative plemented with di- increases. duced per 4.5 lations <50 individ- ulations found. No augmentation of exist- effects. rect impacts and emissions scenario. uals. ing populations, little seed preservation, additional mines nonnatives not controlled, some wood- implemented with land areas thinned. indirect impacts. Scenario 4 Major in- Rosemont mine im- Number of wildfires Available water is re- Applied to popu- No new individuals, subpopulations or pop- crease in negative plemented and ad- increases. duced per 8.5 lations <50 individ- ulations found. No augmentation of exist- effects. ditional mines im- emissions scenario. uals. ing populations, little seed preservation, plemented with di- nonnatives not controlled, some wood- rect impacts. land areas thinned.

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

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 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3 67076 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 7—BEARDLESS CHINCHWEED POPULATION CONDITIONS UNDER THE CURRENT CONDITION AND ALL FUTURE SCENARIOS—Continued

Continuation Conservation Moderate effects Major effects Mountain range Population name Current condition scenario scenario scenario scenario

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

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Dec 05, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP3.SGM 06DEP3 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules 67077

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Dec 05, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 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 and more heat waves occurred over the 6070). It is highly unlikely that projected for the southern part of the Southwest during 2001–2010 compared Bartram’s stonecrop would be able to Southwest by 2100, as part of the to average occurrences in the 20th naturally shift its range to keep up with general global precipitation reduction in century. In the future, under RCP 4.5, current and high projected rates of subtropical areas (Garfin et al. 2014, p. the annual maximum temperature is climate change due to its general state 465). Analyses of the southwestern projected to increase by 5°C (2.7°F) for of population decline, lack of suitable United States indicate future drying, 2025–2049 and 7.3 °C (4°F) for 2050– intervening habitat, and abundant primarily due to a decrease in winter 2074, and 5 °C (2.7°F) for 2025–2049 nonnative competitors. Thus, localized precipitation under both the RCP 4.5 and 10.4 °C (5.7°F) for 2050–2074 under extinctions over portions of Bartram’s and 8.5 scenarios (IPCC 2013, p. 1080). RCP 8.5, all relative to 1981–2010 stonecrop’s range could result. The annual projected changes in (USGS 2019, entire). When temperatures Small Populations precipitation for 2025 to 2049 under rise, as has been occurring in recent RCP 4.5 and 8.5 scenarios ranges from decades and as is projected to continue Stressors are exacerbated in an increase of 1.3 cm/mo (0.5 to a into the future, evapotranspiration rates populations with only a small number decrease of 0.5 in/mo), with an annual also increase and soil moisture (e.g., fewer than 50) of individuals. average of no change compared to 1981 decreases. Along with projected Small populations are less able to to 2010 (USGS 2019, entire). However, warming and increased recover from losses caused by random winter and spring precipitation under evapotranspiration, it is highly likely environmental changes (Shaffer and both emission scenarios is projected to that droughts will become more severe Stein 2000, pp. 308–310), such as decrease from ¥0.3 to ¥1 cm (¥0.1 to (Garfin 2013, pp. 137–138). A decrease fluctuations in reproduction ¥0.4 in) (MACA 2019) or a decrease up of up to 4 percent soil moisture is (demographic stochasticity), variations to 10 percent for 2016–2035 relative to projected under RCP 4.5 for 2016–2035, in rainfall (environmental stochasticity), 1986–2005 under RCP 4.5 (IPCC 2013, relative to 1986–2005. The decrease in or changes in the frequency or severity p. 985). The decrease in winter and soil moisture would likely be greater of wildfires. Approximately half of the spring precipitation would likely be under RCP 8.5. Further, the evaporation extant Bartram’s stonecrop populations greater under the RCP 8.5 scenario. deficient increases under RCP 4.5 and contain 50 or fewer individuals. Loss There is some evidence from comparing increases more in RCP 8.5 in 2025 to due to erosion, trampling, collection, observations with simulations of the 2049, relative to 1981 to 2010. Based on predation, fire, severe frost, or other recent past that climate models might be the high emissions scenario, the current stressors have the potential to seriously damage or completely remove these underestimating the magnitude of 100-year drought will become small populations. changes in precipitation in many commonplace in the second half of this In summary, the stressors that pose regions (IPCC 2013, p. 986). The century and future droughts will be climate-model-projected simulations the largest risk to future species viability much more severe than those previously are primarily related to habitat changes: indicate that a high degree of variability recorded (Garfin 2013, p. 138). This of annual precipitation will continue Groundwater extraction from mining, projection of intensified drought long-term drought, and alteration in during the coming century, for both low conditions on the Colorado River is not and high emission scenarios (Garfin wildfire regime. These stressors may due to changes in precipitation, but reduce nearby water levels, shade, and 2013, p. 110). This suggests that the rather due directly to warming and its Southwest will remain susceptible to humidity within Bartram’s stonecrop effect on reducing soil moisture (Garfin habitat and may directly impact unusually wet spells and, on the other 2013, p. 138). Physiological effects of hand, will remain prone to occasional individuals. Other important stressors CO2 may involve both the stomatal include erosion or trampling from drought episodes (Garfin 2013, p. 110). response, which acts to restrict However, decrease in soil moisture livestock, wildlife, or human activities; transpiration, and an increase in plant illegal collection; predation of Bartram’s across much of the Southwest is growth and leaf area, which acts to projected under both scenarios by mid- stonecrop or their shade trees by increase evapotranspiration (IPCC 2013 wildlife and insects; abnormal freezing century, due to increased evaporation p. 986). An increase in (IPCC 2013 p. 1259). Late winter-spring or flooding events; or other stressors evapotranspiration results in water loss mountain snowpack in the Southwest is that have the potential to seriously from the plant and increases stress on predicted to continue to decline over damage or completely remove small the plant. This increase in stress the 21st century under the high populations. Synergistic interactions impacts photosynthesis, respiration, emission scenario (A2), mostly because among wildfire, drought, altered transpiration, water use efficiency, leaf of projected increased temperature precipitation, and increased conductance, growth rate, vigor, and gas (Garfin et al. 2013, p. 6). Reduced rain temperatures cumulatively and exchange. These impacts result in and snow, earlier snowmelt, and drying cyclically impact Bartram’s stonecrop, reduced growth, flowering, and seed tendencies cause a reduction in late- and all stressors are exacerbated in production, and, therefore, reduces spring and summer runoff. Together small populations. these effects, along with increases in overall recruitment and population numbers. Current Condition of Bartram’s evaporation, result in lower soil Stonecrop moisture by early summer (Gafrin 2013, Although rare species in the p. 117). southwestern United States evolved Historically, we know of 33 Precipitation timing and amount with drought, recent changes in populations spread across 13 mountain impacts the germination, growth, and temperature and rainfall patterns ranges. Four populations have been flowering of Bartram’s stonecrop, present stressful conditions of increased extirpated in the United States in recent resulting in the loss of individuals and magnitude above what the species faced years, and a fifth population has likely recruitment, and overall reducing the historically and raise the question of contracted in size. In addition, the population size. whether the species in this rule can southeastern Arizona landscape has In the Southwest, temperatures persist. Some species will shift their experienced many changes since the increased 2.7°C (1.6 °F) plus or minus distributions in response to warming of 1890s, resulting from intensive cattle 0.9 °C (0.5 °F), between 1901 and 2010, the climate (McLaughlin et al. 2002, p. grazing, water development, and fire

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Dec 05, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP3.SGM 06DEP3 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules 67079

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Dec 05, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP3.SGM 06DEP3 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3 67080 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules

Bartram’s Stonecrop Representation decades, indicating that these on maintaining multiple resilient No genetic studies have been populations may have the genetic and populations over time. The resiliency of conducted within or between the 33 environmental diversity to adapt to Bartram’s stonecrop populations historical populations of Bartram’s changing conditions. depends on moisture in their microenvironment maintained by shade stonecrop in southern Arizona and Bartram’s Stonecrop Redundancy Mexico. However, we assessed from overstory vegetation, spring and representation for Bartram’s stonecrop The Bartram’s stonecrop populations winter precipitation, proximity to water, in the form of its geographic distribution in the United States and Mexico are and vegetation litter. We expect the 29 across the range. Some genetic exchange naturally fragmented between mountain extant Bartram’s stonecrop populations likely occurs within populations ranges. Currently, 29 extant Bartram’s to experience changes to all of these containing many subpopulations or stonecrop populations are spread across aspects of their habitat, although it may many plants per subpopulation. Sky 12 different mountain ranges in be in different ways under the different island populations on different southern Arizona and northern Mexico. conditions. In addition, direct impacts mountain ranges are widely separated Although these numbers may imply to Bartram’s stonecrop through being (ranging from roughly 14 to 42 km (8.7 redundancy across its range, note that dislodged, buried, or collected will to 26 mi) apart), making cross- 24 of the 29 extant populations contain continue to impact the species. pollination across sky islands highly fewer than 150 total individual plants. Given our uncertainty regarding the unlikely. Mountain ranges that have Further, 14 of the 29 populations have scope of the stressors manifesting and only one or two populations, have only 50 individuals or less, and 4 the species’ response, we forecasted one subpopulation per population, or populations have been extirpated over future conditions of Bartram’s stonecrop have low numbers of individuals per recent (approximately 10) years. Five under four plausible future scenarios population with several miles between mountain ranges (Baboquivari, (see chapter 6 of the SSA report; Service mountain ranges may not be as Chiricahua, Mule, Whetstone, and 2018b). We developed these scenarios to genetically diverse because pollination Patagonia Mountains) have only one or span a range of potential stressors that or transport of seeds between two populations each or have only have are ongoing or will occur in the future populations may be very limited. one subpopulation per population, and that we believe will influence the future However, there may be genetic diversity low numbers of individuals per status of the species. We chose 10 years between populations within and population. These sky island mountain to evaluate the current condition, as between the sky island mountain ranges ranges are several miles away from the well as future projections out to 40 years in response to elevational and other other sky island mountain ranges, so because this is within the range of environmental differences between natural gene exchange or re- predictions of available hydrological locations. Due to the loss of four establishment following extirpation is and climate change model forecasts and populations, it is possible that there has unlikely. In addition, the Mule is within the time period of the been a loss of genetic diversity. Mountains contain large number of Rosemont Mine effects. This time frame However, because the species occurs Bartram’s stonecrop individuals, but represents eight generations of the across 29 populations in 12 mountain there is only one population and it is Bartram’s stonecrop, which allows us to ranges, it is likely some genetic diversity approximately 38 km (23.6 mi) away assess reproductive effects on the exists among mountain ranges. from the nearest population, making species and allows the species In addition, because the plant occurs natural re-establishment of populations opportunities to rebound after poor on multiple substrate types and at a unlikely. In addition, this population is water years. The ten-year time step also range of elevations (1,067 to 2,042 m known to be contracting in size due to represents a reasonable timeframe to (3,500 to 6,700 ft)), there is likely some drying of habitat (The Nature judge the species’ current vulnerability local adaptation and genetic Conservancy 1987, p. 2). to threats as they are manifested now, differentiation among populations. This without projecting changes to threats Future Condition of the Bartram’s range in elevation provides a variety of that longer timeframes would provide. Stonecrop climatic conditions for the species to Thus, the future scenarios forecast the inhabit. Lastly, in at least three locations We now consider the species’ future viability of Bartram’s stonecrop over the (Flux Canyon, Sycamore Canyon condition of population resiliency and next 40 years. See table 9 below for a (Pajarito-Atascosa Mountains), and the species’ representation and summary of the four scenarios. For more Gardner Canyon populations), Bartram’s redundancy are likely to be. The future detail, see Chapter 6 of the SSA report stonecrop have been reported over many viability of Bartram’s stonecrop depends (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, Exca- Lightning Recreation Reduction in available Dislodging from flood- Livestock Recreation Conservation actions implemented. vation, Burial, Shade Cross border viola- water * and/or shade. ing events, Seedling Trampling Predation reduction. tors Nonnative plants. desiccation, Flow- Collection. ering halt, Shade re- moval. Scenario 1. Continu- Ongoing or planned Number of wildfires an- Available water and Number and severity of Applied to populations No new individuals, subpopulations or ation continuing into mining activities as of nually increases at drought continue at flooding events con- <50 individuals. populations found. No augmenta- the future. 2012 (∼20). the same rate as the the same level as in tinues at the past 10 tion of existing populations, no last 10 years. the past 10 years. years. Emissions seed preservation, nonnatives con- Emissions 8.5. <4.5. trolled, and forest thinned. Scenario 2. Conserva- Number of mining ac- Number of wildfires Available water re- Flooding events do not Applied to populations Sites revisited and additional plants tion. tivities does not in- does not increase mains stable. Emis- increase. Emissions <50 individuals. are located, sites are augmented, crease from current from current rate. sions 4.5. <4.5. or new sites are established, non- condition. natives controlled, and forest thinned.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Dec 05, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP3.SGM 06DEP3 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules 67081

TABLE 9—FUTURE SCENARIOS FOR BARTRAM’S STONECROP—Continued

Risks Mining activity Altered fire regime Climate Climate Individual effects Conservation

Scenario 3. Moderate 1–3 new mining activi- Number of wildfires in- Available water is re- Increases in flash Applied to populations No new individuals, subpopulations, increase in negative ties (above the 2012 creases in uplands. duced per 8.5 emis- flooding per 4.5 <50 individuals. or populations found, and no aug- effects. number) are imple- sions scenario. emissions scenario. mentation of existing populations, mented and/or exist- nonnatives controlled, and forest ing mines expand. thinned. Scenario 4. Major in- >3 new mining activi- Number of wildfires in- Available water is re- Increases in flash Applied to populations No new individuals, subpopulations or crease in negative ties are implemented creases in uplands. duced per 8.5 emis- flooding per 8.5 <50 individuals. populations found, and no aug- effects. and/or existing mines sions scenario. emissions scenario. mentation of existing populations, expand. 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 The most likely scenario is the we expect Bartram’s stonecrop’s mining, wildfire, and climate. In ‘‘moderate effects’’ scenario, with viability to be characterized by lower addition, effects on individual plants impacts to the species occurring around levels of resiliency, representation, and from multiple stressors are assessed, the 40-year time step. Under the redundancy than it has currently, which including livestock, recreation, ‘‘moderate effects’’ scenario, water flow is already reduced as described above. trampling, predation, and collection. reduction due to drought and Under the ‘‘moderate effects’’ scenario, The ‘‘continuation’’ scenario evaluates groundwater extraction continues to no populations would be in high the condition of Bartram’s stonecrop if reduce the humid microhabitat for this condition, 4 populations (12 percent) there is no increase in risks to the species. Cross-border violator traffic would remain in moderate condition, 16 populations relative to what exists continues, and risk of catastrophic populations (52 percent) would be in today, while the other scenarios wildfire is high due to dry conditions; low condition, and 13 populations (36 evaluate the response of the species to invasion of nonnatives in the uplands; percent) would be extirpated, further changes in those risks. The and increased risk of fire starts from reducing population redundancy and ‘‘conservation’’ scenario takes into illegal activity, recreation, and natural connectivity (see table 6.6 in the SSA account realistically possible additional causes. Mining impacts individuals in report; Service 2018b). Under the protective measures which may or may the Patagonia and Santa Rita Mountains. ‘‘moderate effects’’ scenario, because of not happen. The ‘‘moderate effects’’ Collection, trampling, freezing, the intensity of stressors discussed scenario is an increase in the risks to predation, and human impacts also above, 22 populations would be reduced populations with changes in climate as continue at current or increased levels. from their current condition (see Table projected in a lower (8.5) emissions The full analyses of all scenarios are 10, and see figure 6.3 and table 6.6 in scenario along with increases in other available in the SSA report (Service the SSA report (Service 2018b)). We stressors. The ‘‘major effects’’ scenario is 2018b, chapter 6); however, we are only further believed that in the ‘‘moderate a further increase in risks to presenting the full results of the effects’’ scenario, one of the three small populations, with changes in climate ‘‘moderate effects’’ scenario here populations in Mexico becomes projected at a higher (8.5) emissions because it gives the most realistic extirpated due to the amount of scenario, and with additional increases projection of the future condition of the nonnatives contributing to fire, in other stressors. These are described species. reduction in precipitation, increase in in more detail in chapter 6 of the SSA Under the ‘‘moderate effects’’ drought, and low resiliency of a small report (Service 2018b). scenario, within the 40-year timeframe, population.

TABLE 10—BARTRAM’S STONECROP POPULATION CONDITIONS UNDER THE ‘‘MODERATE EFFECTS’’ SCENARIO

Condition under the Sky Island Population ‘‘moderate effects’’ 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.

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 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3 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

Condition under the Sky Island Population ‘‘moderate effects’’ scenario

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 The proliferation of invasive impacted by dust (Factor E). One of nonnative grasses throughout most of these populations is already of low Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), the beardless chinchweed’s range has resiliency and the other is of moderate and its implementing regulations at 50 greatly affected this species through resiliency. Of the 12 populations, 11 (92 CFR part 424, set forth the procedures increased competition and altered fire percent) are small populations (fewer for adding species to the Federal Lists regimes. Many of these historical than 50 individuals). Synergistic of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife locations no longer support beardless interactions among wildfire, nonnative and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the chinchweed due to this alteration of grasses, decreased precipitation, and Act, we may list a species based on (A) habitat (National Park Service 2014, pp. increased temperatures cumulatively The present or threatened destruction, 3–4; Service 2014b, pp. 1–2; Service and cyclically impact beardless modification, or curtailment of its 2014c, entire; Service 2014d, pp. 1–2). chinchweed, and all stressors are habitat or range; (B) overutilization for exacerbated in small populations commercial, recreational, scientific, or All beardless chinchweed populations likely contain nonnative grasses, (Factor E). No conservation efforts have educational purposes; (C) disease or been implemented for this species. predation; (D) the inadequacy of resulting in habitat loss (Factor A). We consider beardless chinchweed to existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) Further, altered fire regime (Factors A have poor representation in the form of other natural or manmade factors and E), which is currently or in the near potential genetic diversity (Factor E). affecting its continued existence. future impacting all populations, drives the spread of nonnatives (Factor A), All but one population has fewer than We have carefully assessed the best exacerbating the encroachment of 50 individuals. Small populations are scientific and commercial information nonnative grasses. Consequently, all susceptible to the loss of genetic available regarding the past, present, remaining populations of beardless diversity, genetic drift, and inbreeding. and future stressors to beardless chinchweed are impacted by nonnative There are currently six populations chinchweed and Bartram’s stonecrop. grasses now or will be in the near spread across four mountain ranges in The Act defines an endangered future. Altered precipitation (Factors A the United States and six populations in species as any species that is ‘‘in danger and E), increased temperatures (Factors northern Mexico that are presumed of extinction throughout all or a A and E), and decreased annual extant. Five of the six extant U.S. significant portion of its range’’ and a precipitation (Factors A and E) are populations do not have multiple threatened species as any species ‘‘that current and ongoing regional conditions subpopulations (all but the Coronado is likely to become endangered that are impacting all populations of National Memorial population, which throughout all or a significant portion of beardless chinchweed. These has two subpopulations). Mountain its range within the foreseeable future.’’ environmental conditions exacerbate an ranges that have only one or two Therefore, on the basis of the best altered fire regime, which, in turn, populations, have only have one available scientific and commercial drives the spread of nonnatives. In subpopulation per population, or have information, we propose listing addition, nonnative grasses have low numbers of individuals per beardless chinchweed as endangered in competitive advantage over native population with several miles (16 to 61 accordance with sections 3(6) and grasses during periods of drought. Road km (9.9 to 37.9 mi)) between mountain 4(a)(1) of the Act and Bartram’s and trail maintenance (Factors A and E) ranges, may not be genetically diverse stonecrop as threatened in accordance is altering habitat and likely resulting in because pollination or transport of seeds with sections 3(20) and 4(a)(1) of the the direct killing of individuals in three between populations may be very Act. populations (Ruby Road, Scotia Canyon, limited. This could mean that between- population genetic diversity may be Beardless Chinchweed and Coronado National Memorial). In addition, all individuals in these three greater than within-population diversity Historically there were 21 populations are being impacted by dust (Smith and Wayne 1996, p. 333; populations. Nine populations have (Factor E) from the road. These three Lindenmayer and Peakall 2000, p. 200). been extirpated, leaving 12 extant populations are already of low Further, nine populations are populations (six in the United States resiliency. Two additional populations extirpated, and it is possible that there and six in Mexico). The six populations (McCleary Canyon—Gunsight Pass and has been a loss of genetic diversity. in the United States consist of 387 McCleary Canyon—Wasp Canyon) will Beardless chinchweed populations in individuals spread across less than 2 ha be impacted by roads (Factor A) related the United States range in elevation (5 ac). The six populations have been to mining operations in the near future from 1,158 m (3,799 ft) to 1,737 m reported from northern Mexico, but this (Westland 2010, p. iv). All individuals (5,699 ft) in elevation. Of the 15 information is from 1940 or earlier. of these two populations will also be historical U.S. populations, 8

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Dec 05, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP3.SGM 06DEP3 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules 67083

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Dec 05, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 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 31 to 55 years, respectively, in the Available Conservation Measures extant populations contain fewer than future. The IPCC has high confidence Conservation measures provided to 150 total individual plants. Further, 14 for climate projections of increased species listed as endangered or of the 29 populations have 50 temperature during this interval. In threatened species under the Act individuals or less, and 4 populations addition, we examined literature include recognition, recovery actions, have been extirpated. Five mountain pertaining to wildfire frequency and requirements for Federal protection, and ranges (Baboquivari, Chiricahua, Mule, severity, including Westerling et al. prohibitions against certain practices. Whetstone, and Patagonia Mountains) 2006, FireScape 2016, and Fire Recognition through listing results in have only one or two populations each, Management Information System 2016. public awareness, and conservation by have only one subpopulation per An increase in temperature results in Federal, State, Tribal, and local population, or have low numbers of increased evapotranspiration rates and agencies; private organizations; and individuals per population. These sky soil drying, resulting in the effects of individuals. The Act encourages island mountain ranges are several future droughts becoming more severe cooperation with the States and other miles away from the other sky island (Garfin 2013, pp. 137–138) and wildfires countries and calls for recovery actions mountain ranges, so natural gene becoming more frequent and of to be carried out for listed species. The exchange or re-establishment following increased intensity. Given that climate protection required by Federal agencies extirpation is unlikely. In addition, the change projections are for mid-century and the prohibitions against certain Mule Mountains contain large number and that wildfire is influenced by a activities are discussed, in part, below. of Bartram’s stonecrop individuals, but drying climate, we used 40 years as the The primary purpose of the Act is the there is only one population, and it is foreseeable future for this species. We conservation of endangered and approximately 38 km (23.6 mi) away find that Bartram’s stonecrop is likely to threatened species and the ecosystems from the nearest population, making become an endangered species within upon which they depend. The ultimate natural re-establishment of populations the foreseeable future (approximately 40 goal of such conservation efforts is the unlikely. In addition, this population years) throughout all of its range based recovery of these listed species, so that has contracted in size due to drying of on the severity and immediacy of they no longer need the protective habitat (The Nature Conservancy 1987, stressors. measures of the Act. Section 4(f) of the p. 2; Rawoot 2017, pers. comm.). Under the Act and our implementing Act calls for the Service to develop and The overall range of the species has regulations, a species may warrant implement recovery plans for the not been significantly reduced, although listing if it is endangered or threatened conservation of endangered and four populations are extirpated due to throughout all or a significant portion of threatened species. The recovery habitat drying. Currently, 29 extant its range. Because we have determined planning process involves the populations are spread across 12 that the Bartram’s stonecrop is likely to identification of actions that are mountain ranges, providing protection become an endangered species within necessary to halt or reverse the species’ from catastrophic events in the near the foreseeable future throughout its decline by addressing the stressors to its future (approximately 10 years). While range, we find it unnecessary to proceed survival and recovery. The goal of this there are multiple stressors to the to an evaluation of potentially process is to restore listed species to a remaining populations, these stressors significant portions of the range. Where point where they are secure, self- are not immediately impacting all the best available information allows the sustaining, and functioning components populations such that Bartram’s Service to determine a status for the of their ecosystems. stonecrop is in danger of extinction. The Recovery planning includes the species rangewide, that determination stressors that pose the largest risk to development of a recovery outline should be given conclusive weight future species viability are primarily shortly after a species is listed and because a rangewide determination of related to habitat changes: Groundwater preparation of a draft and final recovery status more accurately reflects the extraction from mining, long-term plan. The recovery outline guides the species’ degree of imperilment and drought, and alteration in wildfire immediate implementation of urgent better promotes the purposes of the regime. These are stressors that we have recovery actions and describes the statute. Under this reading, we should high confidence in occurring and process to be used to develop a recovery impacting Bartram’s stonecrop within first consider whether listing is plan. Revisions of the plan may be done the next 40 years. We chose a appropriate based on a rangewide to address continuing or new stressors foreseeable future of 40 years analysis and proceed to conduct a to the species, as new substantive (approximately 2060) because this is ‘‘significant portion of its range’’ information becomes available. The within the range of predictions of analysis if, and only if, a species does recovery plan also identifies recovery available hydrological and climate not qualify for listing as either criteria for review of when a species change model forecasts, is within the endangered or threatened according to may be ready for downlisting time period of the Rosemont Mine the ‘‘all’’ language. We note that the (reclassification from endangered to effects, and represents eight generations court in Desert Survivors v. Department threatened) or delisting (removal from of the Bartram’s stonecrop, which of the Interior, No. 16–cv–01165–JCS, listed status), and methods for allows us to assess reproductive effects 2018 WL 4053447 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, monitoring recovery progress. Recovery on the species and allows the species 2018), did not address this issue, and plans also establish a framework for opportunities to rebound after poor our conclusion is therefore consistent agencies to coordinate their recovery water years. The primary sources we with the opinion in that case. efforts and provide estimates of the cost examined in determining foreseeable Therefore, on the basis of the best of implementing recovery tasks. future include the IPCC (2013 and 2014 available scientific and commercial Recovery teams (composed of species entire) and Garfin et al. 2013 entire. The information, we propose to list experts, Federal and State agencies, IPCC emission scenarios projections are Bartram’s stonecrop as a threatened nongovernmental organizations, and for 2025 to 2049 and 2050—2074, or species across its entire range in stakeholders) are often established to approximately mid-century, under RCP accordance with sections 3(20) and develop recovery plans. When 4.5 and 8.5 scenarios. This is 6 to 30 and 4(a)(1) of the Act. completed, the recovery outline, draft

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Dec 05, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP3.SGM 06DEP3 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules 67085

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Dec 05, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP3.SGM 06DEP3 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3 67086 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules

Based on the best available 853 F.2d 322 (5th Cir. 1988), the rule Provisions of the Proposed Protective information, the following activities need not address all the stressors to the Regulation may potentially result in a violation of species. As noted by Congress when the This proposed 4(d) rule would the Act; this list is not comprehensive: Act was initially enacted, ‘‘once an provide for the conservation of the (1) Unauthorized handling or animal is on the threatened list, the Bartram’s stonecrop by applying all of collecting of the species; Secretary has an almost infinite number the prohibitions applicable to an (2) Ground-disturbing activities of options available to him with regard endangered plant, except as otherwise within 30 m (98 ft) of individual to the permitted activities for those authorized or permitted: Import or Bartram’s stonecrop plants; species. He may, for example, permit export; certain acts related to removing, (3) Herbicide applications within 30 taking, but not importation of such damaging, and destroying; delivery, m (98 ft) of individual Bartram’s species,’’ or he may choose to forbid receipt, transport, or shipment in stonecrop plants; and both taking and importation but allow interstate or foreign commerce in the (4) Dislodging and trampling by the transportation of such species, as course of commercial activity; or sale or livestock. long as the prohibitions, and exceptions offering for sale in interstate or foreign Questions regarding whether specific commerce. Bartram’s stonecrop is an activities would constitute a violation of to those prohibitions, will ‘‘serve to attractive and small plant that can be the Act should be directed to the conserve, protect, or restore the species easily collected by gardeners and Arizona Ecological Services Field Office concerned in accordance with the succulent enthusiasts. We have (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). purposes of the Act’’ (H.R. Rep. No. 412, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. 1973). confirmed collection from the wild and II. Proposed Section 4(d) Rule for sale in interstate commerce. Because The Service has developed a species- Bartram’s Stonecrop Bartram’s stonecrop is difficult to specific 4(d) rule that is designed to propagate and maintain in captivity, it Background address Bartram’s stonecrop’s specific is more vulnerable to collection than Section 4(d) of the Act states that the stressors and conservation needs. other plants in this genus. Small ‘‘Secretary shall issue such regulations Although the statute does not require populations may not be able to recover as he deems necessary and advisable to the Service to make a ‘‘necessary and from collection, especially if the mature, provide for the conservation’’ of species advisable’’ finding with respect to the reproductive plants are removed. listed as threatened. In Webster v. Doe, adoption of specific prohibitions under As discussed under Summary of 486 U.S. 592 (1988), the U.S. Supreme section 9, we find that this regulation is Biological Status and Stressors, above, Court noted that similar ‘‘necessary or necessary and advisable to provide for multiple factors are affecting the status advisable’’ language ‘‘fairly exudes the conservation of Bartram’s stonecrop. of Bartram’s stonecrop. A range of deference’’ to the agency. Conservation As discussed under Summary of activities have the potential to impact is defined in section 3 of the Act as the Biological Status and Stressors, above, Bartram’s stonecrop, including: use of all methods and procedures the Service has concluded that (1) Unauthorized handling or which are necessary to bring any Bartram’s stonecrop is at risk of collecting of the species; endangered species or threatened extinction within the foreseeable future (2) Ground-disturbing activities where species to the point at which the primarily due to groundwater extraction the species occurs; measures provided pursuant to the Act and prolonged drought that may reduce (3) Activities that would affect are no longer necessary. Additionally, nearby water levels and humidity pollinators where the species occurs section 4(d) of the Act states that the within Bartram’s stonecrop’s and in the surrounding area; Secretary ‘‘may by regulation prohibit microenvironment, and altered fire (4) Activities that would promote with respect to any threatened species regimes leading to erosion of Bartram’s high-severity wildfires where the any act prohibited’’ under section stonecrop that could dislodge plants, species occurs; 9(a)(2) of the Act. Thus, regulations sedimentation that could cover (5) Activities that would reduce promulgated under section 4(d) of the individuals, and loss of overstory shade shade, reduce proximity to water, and Act provide the Secretary with wide trees. In addition, collection, trampling, lower the water table such that the latitude of discretion to select predation, flooding, and dislodging and cooler, humid microenvironment is appropriate provisions tailored to the burial from recreationists, cross-border affected; and specific conservation needs of the (6) Herbicide applications where the violators, and domestic and wild threatened species. The statute grants species occurs. animals contribute to the risk of particularly broad discretion to the Regulating these activities will help extinction within the foreseeable future Service when adopting the prohibitions conserve the species’ remaining due to the majority of populations being under section 9. populations; slow their rate of decline; The courts have recognized the extent small and isolated. The provisions of and decrease synergistic, negative of the Secretary’s discretion under this this proposed 4(d) rule would promote effects from other stressors. standard to develop rules that are conservation of Bartram’s stonecrop by We may issue permits to carry out appropriate for the conservation of a encouraging management of the otherwise prohibited activities, species. For example, the Secretary may landscape in ways that meet land including those described above, decide not to include a taking management needs while meeting the involving threatened plants under prohibition for threatened wildlife, or to conservation needs of Bartram’s certain circumstances. Regulations include a limited taking prohibition. See stonecrop. The provisions of this rule governing permits are codified at 50 Alsea Valley Alliance v. Lautenbacher, are one of many tools that the Service CFR 17.72. With regard to threatened 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 60203 (D. Or. would use to promote the conservation plants, a permit may be issued for the 2007); Washington Environmental of Bartram’s stonecrop. This proposed following purposes: For scientific Council v. National Marine Fisheries 4(d) rule would apply only if and when purposes, to enhance propagation or Service, and 2002 U.S. Dist. Lexis 5432 the Service makes final the listing of survival (control of nonnatives and fuel (W.D. Wash. 2002). In addition, as Bartram’s stonecrop as a threatened load), for economic hardship, for affirmed in State of Louisiana v. Verity, species. botanical or horticultural exhibition, for

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Dec 05, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP3.SGM 06DEP3 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules 67087

educational purposes, or other activities species, at the time it is listed in 7(a)(2) of the Act would apply, but even consistent with the purposes of the Act. accordance with the Act, on which are in the event of a destruction or adverse There are also certain statutory found those physical or biological modification finding, the obligation of exemptions from the prohibitions, features the Federal action agency and the which are found in sections 9 and 10 of (a) Essential to the conservation of the landowner is not to restore or recover the Act. species, and the species, but to implement The Service recognizes the special (b) Which may require special reasonable and prudent alternatives to and unique relationship with our State management considerations or avoid destruction or adverse natural resource agency partners in protection; and modification of critical habitat. contributing to conservation of listed (2) Specific areas outside the Under the first prong of the Act’s species. State agencies often possess geographical area occupied by the definition of critical habitat, areas scientific data and valuable expertise on species at the time it is listed, upon a within the geographical area occupied the status and distribution of determination that such areas are by the species at the time it was listed endangered, threatened, and candidate essential for the conservation of the are included in a critical habitat species of wildlife and plants. State species. designation if they contain physical or Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 agencies, because of their authorities biological features (1) which are define the geographical area occupied and their close working relationships essential to the conservation of the with local governments and by the species as an area that may generally be delineated around species’ species and (2) which may require landowners, are in a unique position to special management considerations or assist the Services in implementing all occurrences, as determined by the Secretary of the Interior (i.e., range). protection. For these areas, critical aspects of the Act. In this regard, section habitat designations identify, to the 6 of the Act provides that the Services Such areas may include those areas used throughout all or part of the extent known using the best scientific shall cooperate to the maximum extent species’ life cycle, even if not used on and commercial data available, those practicable with the States in carrying a regular basis (e.g., migratory corridors, physical or biological features that are out programs authorized by the Act. seasonal habitats, and habitats used essential to the conservation of the Therefore, under this proposed 4(d) periodically, but not solely by vagrant species (such as space, food, cover, and rule, any qualified employee or agent of individuals). protected habitat). In identifying those a State conservation agency which is a Conservation, as defined under physical or biological features that occur party to a cooperative agreement with section 3 of the Act, means to use and in specific areas, we focus on the the Service in accordance with section the use of all methods and procedures specific features that are essential to 6(c) of the Act, who is designated by his that are necessary to bring an support the life-history needs of the or her agency for such purposes, would endangered or threatened species to the species, including but not limited to, be able to conduct activities designed to point at which the measures provided water characteristics, soil type, conserve Bartram’s stonecrop that may pursuant to the Act are no longer geological features, prey, vegetation, result in otherwise prohibited activities necessary. Such methods and symbiotic species, or other features. A without additional authorization. procedures include, but are not limited feature may be a single habitat Nothing in this proposed 4(d) rule to, all activities associated with characteristic, or a more complex would change in any way the recovery scientific resources management such as combination of habitat characteristics. planning provisions of section 4(f) of the research, census, law enforcement, Features may include habitat Act, the consultation requirements habitat acquisition and maintenance, characteristics that support ephemeral under section 7 of the Act, or the ability propagation, live trapping, and or dynamic habitat conditions. Features of the Service to enter into partnerships transplantation, and, in the may also be expressed in terms relating for the management and protection of extraordinary case where population to principles of conservation biology, Bartram’s stonecrop. However, pressures within a given ecosystem such as patch size, distribution interagency cooperation may be further cannot be otherwise relieved, may distances, and connectivity. streamlined through planned include regulated taking. Under the second prong of the Act’s programmatic consultations for the Critical habitat receives protection definition of critical habitat, we can species between Federal agencies and under section 7 of the Act through the designate critical habitat in areas the Service. We ask the public, requirement that Federal agencies outside the geographical area occupied particularly State agencies and other ensure, in consultation with the Service, by the species at the time it is listed, interested stakeholders that may be that any action they authorize, fund, or upon a determination that such areas affected by the proposed 4(d) rule, to carry out is not likely to result in the are essential for the conservation of the provide comments and suggestions destruction or adverse modification of species. When designating critical regarding additional guidance and critical habitat. The designation of habitat, the Secretary will first evaluate methods that the Service could provide critical habitat does not affect land areas occupied by the species. The or use, respectively, to streamline the ownership or establish a refuge, Secretary will only consider unoccupied implementation of this proposed 4(d) wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other areas to be essential where a critical rule (see Information Requested, above). conservation area. Such designation habitat designation limited to III. Proposed Critical Habitat does not allow the government or public geographical areas occupied by the Designation for Beardless Chinchweed to access private lands. Such species would be inadequate to ensure and Prudency Determination for designation does not require the conservation of the species. In Bartram’s Stonecrop implementation of restoration, recovery, addition, for an unoccupied area to be or enhancement measures by non- considered essential, the Secretary must Background Federal landowners. Where a landowner determine that there is a reasonable Critical habitat is defined in section 3 requests Federal agency funding or certainty both that the area will of the Act as: authorization for an action that may contribute to the conservation of the (1) The specific areas within the affect a listed species or critical habitat, species and that the area contains one geographical area occupied by the the consultation requirements of section or more of those physical or biological

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Dec 05, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 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 funded or permitted projects affecting Factor B for this species, and the species. listed species outside their designated identification and mapping of critical Section 4 of the Act requires that we critical habitat areas may still result in habitat is expected to increase such designate critical habitat on the basis of jeopardy findings in some cases. These threat because when we designate the best scientific data available. protections and conservation tools will critical habitat, we publish detailed Further, our Policy on Information continue to contribute to recovery of maps and descriptions of species’ Standards Under the Act (published in this species. Similarly, critical habitat occurrences in the Federal Register, the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 designations made on the basis of the which in this case, could make this FR 34271)), the Information Quality Act best available information at the time of species more vulnerable to the threats (section 515 of the Treasury and General designation will not control the identified under Factor B. Because we Government Appropriations Act for direction and substance of future have determined that the designation of Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106–554; H.R. recovery plans, habitat conservation critical habitat will likely increase the 5658)), and our associated Information plans (HCPs), or other species degree of threat to the species, we find Quality Guidelines, provide criteria, conservation planning efforts, if new that designation of critical habitat is not establish procedures, and provide information available at the time of prudent for Bartram’s stonecrop. guidance to ensure that our decisions these planning efforts calls for a Critical Habitat Determinability for are based on the best scientific data different outcome. available. They require our biologists, to Beardless Chinchweed the extent consistent with the Act and Prudency Determination Having determined that designation is with the use of the best scientific data Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as prudent for beardless chinchweed, available, to use primary and original amended, and implementing regulations under section 4(a)(3) of the Act, we sources of information as the basis for (50 CFR 424.12), require that, to the must find whether critical habitat for recommendations to designate critical maximum extent prudent and the species is determinable. Our habitat. determinable, the Secretary shall regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(2) state When we are determining which areas designate critical habitat at the time the that critical habitat is not determinable should be designated as critical habitat, species is determined to be an when one or both of the following our primary source of information is endangered or threatened species. Our situations exist: generally the information from the SSA regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state (i) Data sufficient to perform required report and information developed that the Secretary may, but is not analyses are lacking, or during the listing process for the required to, determine that a (ii) The biological needs of the species species. Additional information sources designation would not be prudent in the are not sufficiently well known to may include any generalized following circumstances: identify any area that meets the conservation strategy, criteria, or outline (i) The species is threatened by taking definition of ‘‘critical habitat.’’ that may have been developed for the or other human activity and When critical habitat is not species; the recovery plan for the identification of critical habitat can be determinable, the Act allows the Service species; articles in peer-reviewed expected to increase the degree of such an additional year to publish a critical journals; conservation plans developed threat to the species; habitat designation (16 U.S.C. by States and counties; scientific status (ii) The present or threatened 1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)). surveys and studies; biological destruction, modification, or We reviewed the available assessments; other unpublished curtailment of a species’ habitat or range information pertaining to the biological materials; or experts’ opinions or is not a threat to the species, or threats needs of the species and habitat personal knowledge. to the species’ habitat stem solely from characteristics where this species is Habitat is dynamic, and species may causes that cannot be addressed through located. This and other information move from one area to another over management actions resulting from represent the best scientific data time. We recognize that critical habitat consultations under section 7(a)(2) of available and led us to conclude that the designated at a particular point in time the Act; designation of critical habitat is may not include all of the habitat areas (iii) Areas within the jurisdiction of determinable for beardless chinchweed. that we may later determine are the United States provide no more than necessary for the recovery of the Physical or Biological Features for negligible conservation value, if any, for Beardless Chinchweed species. For these reasons, a critical a species occurring primarily outside habitat designation does not signal that the jurisdiction of the United States; In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) habitat outside the designated area is (iv) No areas meet the definition of of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR unimportant or may not be needed for critical habitat; or 424.12(b), in determining which areas recovery of the species. Areas that are (v) The Secretary otherwise within the geographical area occupied important to the conservation of the determines that designation of critical by the species at the time of listing to species, both inside and outside the habitat would not be prudent based on designate as critical habitat, we consider critical habitat designation, will the best scientific data available. the physical or biological features that continue to be subject to: (1) are essential to the conservation of the Conservation actions implemented Beardless Chinchweed species and which may require special under section 7(a)(1) of the Act; (2) We did not identify any of the factors management considerations or regulatory protections afforded by the above to apply to the beardless protection. For example, physical requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act chinchweed. Therefore, we find features might include gravel of a for Federal agencies to ensure their designation of critical habitat is prudent particular size required for spawning, actions are not likely to jeopardize the for the species. alkali soil for seed germination, continued existence of any endangered protective cover for migration, or or threatened species; and (3) the Act’s Bartram’s Stonecrop susceptibility to flooding or fire that prohibitions on taking any individual of As described above, there is currently maintains necessary early-successional the species, including taking caused by an imminent threat of take attributed to habitat characteristics. Biological actions that affect habitat. Federally collection or vandalism identified under features might include prey species,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Dec 05, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP3.SGM 06DEP3 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules 67089

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Dec 05, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP3.SGM 06DEP3 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3 67090 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules

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

TABLE 11—FEATURES THAT MAY REQUIRE SPECIAL MANAGEMENT

Features that may require special Stressors to features Special management or protection to address Features protected by management stressor

Native-dominated plant Altered fire regime; Fire breaks around populations; prescribed Avoidance of encroachment of nonnatives communities. nonnative grasses; fires; reduction of nonnative grasses; clean from wildfires and drought; promotion of grazing; road and equipment to limit the spread of non- native species through natural fire regime; trail maintenance. natives; promotion or introduction of native avoidance of introducing nonnative spe- forbs and grasses. cies. Plants for pollinators .... Altered fire regime; Fire breaks around populations; prescribed Avoidance of encroachment of nonnatives nonnative grasses. fires; reduction of nonnative grasses; pro- from wildfires and drought; promotion of motion or introduction of native forbs and native species through natural fire regime; grasses. avoidance of introducing nonnative spe- cies. Open, sunny sites ...... Altered fire regime; Prescribed fires; reduction of nonnative Elimination or reduction of the loss of open nonnative grasses. grasses; promotion or introduction of native space and sun exposure. forbs and grasses.

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Dec 05, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP3.SGM 06DEP3 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules 67091

the species. Further, the addition of two biological features and are likely to no adverse modification unless the reestablished populations in the Canelo provide for the conservation of the specific action would affect the physical Hills would increase the redundancy of species. Each of the unoccupied areas or biological features in the adjacent the species in this area and reduce the are on lands managed by the Coronado critical habitat. chance that a catastrophic event would National Forest. The Forest Plan for the We are proposing for designation as eliminate all populations in this area. Coronado contains several important critical habitat lands that we have Currently, there is only one population guidelines that would contribute to the determined are occupied at the time of with 37 individuals in the Canelo Hills. conservation of beardless chinchweed listing (i.e., currently occupied) and Of the remaining historical including control of nonnative contain one or more of the physical or populations in the United States, Pena vegetation, promotion of native grasses, biological features that are essential to Blanca Lake, Summit Motorway, Copper and protections for species listed under support life-history processes of the Mountain, Box Canyon, Joe’s Canyon, the Endangered Species Act (USDA species. We have determined that and Flux Canyon are heavily infested Forest Service 2018). Designation of occupied areas are inadequate to ensure with nonnative grasses to an extent critical habitat would facilitate the the conservation of the species. where restoration of native vegetation is application of this guidance where it Therefore, we have also identified, and not likely feasible. Reestablishment of would do the most good for the are proposing for designation of critical the species to these historical sites is not beardless chinchweed. habitat, unoccupied areas that are likely to be successful and, therefore, As a final step, we evaluated occupied essential for the conservation of the not likely to contribute to the recovery units and refined the area by evaluating species. of the species. Therefore, these the presence or absence of appropriate Units are proposed for designation remaining historical sites are not physical or biological features. We based on one or more of the physical or included in the proposed designation of selected the boundary of a unit to biological features being present to critical habitat. include 1 km (0.62 mi) of foraging and support beardless chinchweed life- In summary, for areas within the reproductive habitat for pollinators that history processes. Some units contain geographic area occupied by the species are necessary for beardless chinchweed. all of the identified physical or at the time of listing (i.e., currently We then mapped critical habitat units biological features and support multiple occupied), we delineated critical habitat using ArcMap version 10 life-history processes. Some units unit boundaries by evaluating the (Environmental Systems Research contain only some of the physical or habitat suitability of areas within the Institute, Inc.), a geographic information biological features necessary to support geographic area occupied at the time of systems (GIS) program. beardless chinchweed’ particular use of listing, and retaining those units that The areas we are proposing for that habitat. contain some or all of the physical or designation as critical habitat provide The critical habitat designation is biological features to support life- sufficient habitat for recruitment, defined by the map, as modified by any history functions essential for pollinators, seed bank, and seed accompanying regulatory text, presented conservation of the species. dispersal. In general, the physical or at the end of this document under For areas outside the geographic area biological features of critical habitat are Proposed Regulation Promulgation. We occupied by the species at the time of contained within 1 km (0.62 mi) of include more detailed information on listing, we delineated critical habitat beardless chinchweed plants within the the boundaries of the critical habitat unit boundaries by evaluating areas not population. designation in the preamble of this known to have been occupied at listing When determining proposed critical document. We will make the (i.e., that are not currently occupied) but habitat boundaries, we made every coordinates or plot points or both on that are within the historical range of effort to avoid including developed which the map is based available to the the species to determine if they are areas such as lands covered by public on http://www.regulations.gov at essential to the survival and recovery of buildings, pavement, and other Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2018–0104, on the species. Essential areas are those structures because such lands lack the our internet site at https://www.fws.gov/ that: (1) Serve to extend an occupied physical or biological features necessary southwest/es/arizona/Docs_ unit; and (2) expand the geographic for beardless chinchweed. The scale of Species.htm, and at the field office distribution within areas not occupied the maps we prepared under the responsible for the designation (see FOR at the time of listing across the historical parameters for publication within the FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above). range of the species. Code of Federal Regulations may not We conclude that the areas we are reflect the exclusion of such developed Proposed Critical Habitat Designation proposing for critical habitat provide for lands. Any such lands inadvertently left for Beardless Chinchweed the conservation of beardless inside critical habitat boundaries shown We are proposing to designate chinchweed because they include on the maps of this proposed rule have approximately 10,604 ac (4,291 ha) in habitat for all extant populations and been excluded by text in the proposed eight units as critical habitat for include habitat for connectivity and rule and are not proposed for beardless chinchweed. The critical dispersal opportunities within units. designation as critical habitat. habitat areas we describe below Such opportunities for dispersal assist Therefore, if the critical habitat is made constitute our current best assessment of in maintaining the population structure final as proposed, a Federal action areas that meet the definition of critical and distribution of the species. In involving these lands would not trigger habitat for beardless chinchweed. The addition, the unoccupied units each section 7 consultation with respect to eight units we propose as critical habitat contain one or more of the physical or critical habitat and the requirement of are listed in Table 12.

TABLE 12—PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS AND OCCUPANCY OF BEARDLESS CHINCHWEED

Occupied at the Size of unit in acres Critical habitat unit time of listing Ownership (hectares)

1—McCleary Canyon ...... Yes ...... Forest Service ...... 1,686 ac (682 ha).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Dec 05, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP3.SGM 06DEP3 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3 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

Occupied at the Size of unit in acres Critical habitat unit time of listing Ownership (hectares)

2—Audubon Research Ranch ...... Yes ...... Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1,170 ac (474 ha) BLM; 817 ac (331 Forest Service, Private (Audubon ha) Forest Service; 300 ac (121 ha) Research Ranch). private. 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 proposed unit would overlap with chinchweed plants. This unit has been units, and reasons why they meet the designated critical habitat for jaguar. impacted by historical mining, grazing, definition of critical habitat for and wildfire. High recreational use also Unit 2: Audubon Research Ranch beardless chinchweed, below. occurs in this unit. The Scotia Canyon The Audubon Research Ranch unit unit is one of the few sites within the Unit 1: McCleary Canyon occurs in the northern portion of the range of beardless chinchweed where The McCleary Canyon unit occurs in Canelo Hills in Santa Cruz County, native grass species dominate the site. the northeastern portion of the Santa Arizona, and is managed by the The Scotia Canyon unit provides at least Rita Mountains in Pima County, Audubon Society and some plants occur one of the following essential physical Arizona, and is managed by the U.S. on the Coronado National Forest. This and biological features needed for this Forest Service. This unit is 1,686 ac (682 unit is 2,287 ac (926 ha) in size and is species: Appropriate native plant ha) in size and is currently occupied. currently occupied. The O’Donnell communities, elevation, substrates, and The unit contains two extant Canyon population is currently extant slope aspect. The physical and populations: Gunsight Pass and Wasp but there was one additional biological features in this unit may Canyon. Each population within the population, Post Canyon that occurred require special management McCleary Canyon unit supports 32 here historically. The Audubon considerations, including reduction in individual beardless chinchweed plants. Research Ranch unit supports 37 nonnative grass presence, promotion of The proposed Rosemont Copper Mine individual beardless chinchweed plants native forbs and grasses, reduction in occurs in this unit, and there is ongoing and is dominated by native grass road maintenance activity, removal of and historical mining activity species. The Audubon Research Ranch livestock between April and October, throughout the Santa Rita Mountains. unit provides the physical and and the creation of exclosures. This unit This unit also receives significant biological features in this unit may includes habitat for species already recreational pressure and livestock require special management listed under the Act: Jaguar, ocelot, grazing. The Gunsight Pass population considerations, including reduction in Mexican spotted owl, yellow-billed is one of the few populations within the nonnative grass presence, promotion of cuckoo, Chiricahua leopard frog, range of beardless chinchweed where native forbs and grasses. This unit northern Mexican gartersnake, and native grass species dominate the site. includes habitat for species already Huachuca water-umbel. In addition, this The Wasp Canyon population has a listed under the Act: Jaguar, ocelot, unit includes designated critical habitat mixture of native and nonnative grass Mexican spotted owl, yellow-billed for jaguar and Huachuca water-umbel, species. The McCleary Canyon unit cuckoo, Chiricahua leopard frog, Gila and proposed critical habitat for provides at least one of the following chub (Gila intermedia), northern northern Mexican gartersnake. essential physical and biological Mexican gartersnake (Thamnophis Unit 4: Coronado National Memorial features needed for this species: eques megalops), and Huachuca water- Appropriate native plant communities umbel (Lilaeopsis schaffneriana var. The Coronado National Memorial unit (despite the presence of some nonnative recurva). In addition, this unit includes occurs in the southern portion of the species), elevation, substrates, and slope designated critical habitat for Huachuca Mountains in Cochise aspect. The physical and biological Chiricahua leopard frog, Gila chub, and County, Arizona, and is managed by the features in this unit may require special Huachuca water-umbel, and proposed National Park Service. This unit is 2,109 management considerations including critical habitat for northern Mexican ac (853 ha) in size and is occupied. The reduction in nonnative grass presence, gartersnake. unit contains two extant promotion of native forbs and grasses, subpopulations: The visitor’s center and removal of livestock between April and Unit 3: Scotia Canyon the State of Texas mine. The area October, and the creation of exclosures. The Scotia Canyon unit occurs on the around the visitor’s center supports This unit includes habitat for species western slopes of the Huachuca approximately 180 individual beardless already listed under the Act, including Mountains in Cochise County, Arizona, chinchweed plants. Another 61 plants the jaguar (Panthera onca); ocelot and is managed by the U.S. Forest have been documented in the vicinity of (Leopardus (=Felis) pardalis); Mexican Service. This unit is 855 ac (346 ha) in the State of Texas mine. Additionally, spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida); size and is currently occupied by the historical subpopulation, Joe’s yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus beardless chinchweed. There is one Canyon Trail, occurs within this unit americanus); and Chiricahua leopard extant population that is estimated to and is not currently occupied. This unit frog (Lithobates chiricahuensis). This contain 100 individual beardless supports a high level of recreational use,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Dec 05, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP3.SGM 06DEP3 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules 67093

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Dec 05, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP3.SGM 06DEP3 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3 67094 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules

Recovery of this species will require any endangered species or threatened 402.02) as alternative actions identified new and expanded populations, and species or result in the destruction or during consultation that: this unit provides for this needed adverse modification of designated (1) Can be implemented in a manner recovery habitat that will contribute to critical habitat of such species. In consistent with the intended purpose of the species’ resiliency (larger and more addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act the action, populations), redundancy (more requires Federal agencies to confer with (2) Can be implemented consistent populations across the range), and the Service on any agency action which with the scope of the Federal agency’s representation (opportunities for is likely to jeopardize the continued legal authority and jurisdiction, increased genetic and environmental existence of any species proposed to be (3) Are economically and variation). We have determined that this listed under the Act or result in the technologically feasible, and unoccupied unit contains one or more destruction or adverse modification of (4) Would, in the Service Director’s of the physical or biological features proposed critical habitat. opinion, avoid the likelihood of that are essential to the conservation of We published a final regulation with jeopardizing the continued existence of the species and that it is reasonably a revised definition of destruction or the listed species and/or avoid the certain that it will contribute to the adverse modification on August 27, likelihood of destroying or adversely conservation of the species. 2019 (84 FR 44976). Destruction or modifying critical habitat. adverse modification means a direct or Reasonable and prudent alternatives Unit 8: Ruby Road indirect alteration that appreciably can vary from slight project The Ruby Road unit occurs in the diminishes the value of critical habitat modifications to extensive redesign or Atascosa-Pajarito Mountains in Santa as a whole for the conservation of a relocation of the project. Costs Cruz County, Arizona, and is managed listed species. associated with implementing a by the U.S. Forest Service. This unit is If a Federal action may affect a listed reasonable and prudent alternative are 776 ac (314 ha) in size and is currently species or its critical habitat, the similarly variable. occupied. There is one extant responsible Federal agency (action Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require population, Ruby Road, within this unit agency) must enter into consultation Federal agencies to reinitiate formal that supports approximately 10 with us. Examples of actions that are consultation on previously reviewed individual beardless chinchweed plants. subject to the section 7 consultation actions. These requirements apply when Despite the fact that nonnative grasses process are actions on State, tribal, the Federal agency has retained dominate this unit, beardless local, or private lands that require a discretionary involvement or control chinchweed is able to overcome this Federal permit (such as a permit from over the action (or the agency’s competition by occurring in areas along the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under discretionary involvement or control is a roadside that is regularly maintained, section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 authorized by law) and, subsequent to which removes much of the nonnative U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the the previous consultation, we have grass cover. This unit is subject to past Service under section 10 of the Act) or listed a new species or designated mining activities, border activities, that involve some other Federal action critical habitat that may be affected by recreation, grazing, and wildfire. The (such as funding from the Federal the Federal action, or the action has Ruby Road unit currently provides at Highway Administration, Federal been modified in a manner that affects least one of the following essential Aviation Administration, or the Federal the species or critical habitat in a way physical and biological features needed Emergency Management Agency). not considered in the previous for this species: Appropriate native Federal actions not affecting listed consultation. In such situations, Federal plant communities (although there is a species or critical habitat, and actions agencies sometimes may need to request nonnative presence), elevation, on State, tribal, local, or private lands reinitiation of consultation with us, but substrates, and slope aspect. The that are not federally funded, the regulations also specify some physical and biological features in this authorized, or carried out by a Federal exceptions to the requirement to unit may require special management agency, do not require section 7 reinitiate consultation on specific land considerations, including reduction in consultation. management plans after subsequently nonnative grass presence, promotion of Compliance with the requirements of listing a new species or designating new native forbs and grasses, reduction in section 7(a)(2) is documented through critical habitat. See the regulations for a road maintenance activity, removal of our issuance of: description of those exceptions. (1) A concurrence letter for Federal livestock between April and October, actions that may affect, but are not Application of the ‘‘Adverse and creation of exclosures. This unit likely to adversely affect, listed species Modification’’ Standard includes habitat for species already or critical habitat; or The key factor related to the listed under the Act: Jaguar, ocelot, (2) A biological opinion for Federal destruction or adverse modification Mexican spotted owl, yellow-billed actions that may affect, and are likely to determination is whether cuckoo, Chiricahua leopard frog, and adversely affect, listed species or critical implementation of the proposed Federal northern Mexican gartersnake. In habitat. action directly or indirectly alters the addition, this unit includes designated When we issue a biological opinion designated critical habitat in a way that critical habitat for critical habitat for concluding that a project is likely to appreciably diminishes the value of the jaguar, Mexican spotted owl, and jeopardize the continued existence of a critical habitat as a whole for the Chiricahua leopard frog. listed species and/or destroy or conservation of the listed species. As Effects of Critical Habitat Designation adversely modify critical habitat, we discussed above, the role of critical provide reasonable and prudent habitat is to support physical or Section 7 Consultation alternatives to the project, if any are biological features essential to the Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires identifiable, that would avoid the conservation of a listed species and Federal agencies, including the Service, likelihood of jeopardy and/or provide for the conservation of the to ensure that any action they fund, destruction or adverse modification of species. authorize, or carry out is not likely to critical habitat. We define ‘‘reasonable Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us jeopardize the continued existence of and prudent alternatives’’ (at 50 CFR to briefly evaluate and describe, in any

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Dec 05, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP3.SGM 06DEP3 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules 67095

proposed or final regulation that U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary determines other Federal, State, and local designates critical habitat, activities in writing that such plan provides a regulations). The baseline, therefore, involving a Federal action that may benefit to the species for which critical represents the costs of all efforts violate 7(a)(2) of the Act by destroying habitat is proposed for designation.’’ attributable to the listing of the species or adversely modifying such There are no Department of Defense under the Act (i.e., conservation of the designation. lands within the proposed critical species and its habitat incurred Activities that the Services may, habitat designation. regardless of whether critical habitat is during a consultation under section Consideration of Impacts Under Section designated). The ‘‘with critical habitat’’ 7(a)(2) of the Act, find are likely to 4(b)(2) of the Act scenario describes the incremental destroy or adversely modify critical impacts associated specifically with the habitat include, but are not limited to: Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that designation of critical habitat for the (1) Actions that would remove native the Secretary shall designate and make species. The incremental conservation bunchgrass communities. Such revisions to critical habitat on the basis efforts and associated impacts would activities could include, but are not of the best available scientific data after not be expected without the designation limited to, livestock grazing; fire taking into consideration the economic of critical habitat for the species. In management; trails construction and impact, national security impact, and other words, the incremental costs are maintenance; infrastructure and road any other relevant impact of specifying those attributable solely to the construction and maintenance; any particular area as critical habitat. designation of critical habitat, above and recreation management; minerals The Secretary may exclude an area from beyond the baseline costs. These are the extraction and restoration; visitor use critical habitat if he determines that the costs we use when evaluating the and management; and construction and benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion and exclusion of maintenance of border roads, fences, benefits of specifying such area as part particular areas from the final barriers, and towers. These activities of the critical habitat, unless he designation of critical habitat should we could eliminate or reduce open habitat determines, based on the best scientific choose to conduct a discretionary necessary for growth, seed production, data available, that the failure to section 4(b)(2) exclusion analysis. seedbank, and pollinators of beardless designate such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the For this particular designation, we chinchweed. developed an incremental effects (2) Actions that would result in the species. In making that determination, the statute on its face, as well as the memorandum (IEM) considering the introduction, spread, or augmentation of probable incremental economic impacts nonnative grass species. Such activities legislative history, are clear that the Secretary has broad discretion regarding that may result from this proposed could include, but are not limited to, designation of critical habitat. The livestock grazing; fire management; which factor(s) to use and how much weight to give to any factor. At this information contained in our IEM was trails construction and maintenance; then used to develop a screening infrastructure and road construction and time, we are not proposing any exclusions from critical habitat. analysis of the probable effects of the maintenance; recreation management; designation of critical habitat for minerals extraction and restoration; Consideration of Economic Impacts beardless chinchweed (IEc 2018, entire). visitor use and management; and Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and its We began by conducting a screening construction and maintenance of border implementing regulations require that analysis of the proposed designation of roads, fences, barriers, and towers. we consider the economic impact that critical habitat in order to focus our These activities could increase the may result from a designation of critical analysis on the key factors that are amount of nonnative grasses or habitat. To assess the probable likely to result in incremental economic introduce nonnative grasses, which economic impacts of a designation, we impacts. The purpose of the screening eliminate or reduce open habitat must first evaluate specific land uses or analysis is to filter out the geographic necessary for growth, seed production, activities and projects that may occur in areas in which the critical habitat seedbank, and pollinators of beardless the area of the critical habitat. We then designation is unlikely to result in chinchweed. must evaluate the impacts that a specific probable incremental economic impacts. (3) Actions that would promote high- critical habitat designation may have on In particular, the screening analysis severity wildfires. Such activities could restricting or modifying specific land considers baseline costs (i.e., absent include, but are not limited to, uses or activities for the benefit of the critical habitat designation) and recreation and encouraging the species and its habitat within the areas includes probable economic impacts encroachment of nonnative grasses. proposed. We then identify which where land and water use may be These activities could eliminate or conservation efforts may be the result of subject to conservation plans, land reduce open habitat necessary for the species being listed under the Act management plans, best management growth, seed production, seedbank, and versus those attributed solely to the practices, or regulations that protect the pollinators of beardless chinchweed. designation of critical habitat for this habitat area as a result of the Federal Exemptions particular species. The probable listing status of the species. The economic impact of a proposed critical screening analysis filters out particular Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act habitat designation is analyzed by areas of critical habitat that are already Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 comparing scenarios both ‘‘with critical subject to such protections and are, U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) provides that: habitat’’ and ‘‘without critical habitat.’’ therefore, unlikely to incur incremental ‘‘The Secretary shall not designate as The ‘‘without critical habitat’’ scenario economic impacts. Ultimately, the critical habitat any lands or other represents the baseline for the analysis, screening analysis allows us to focus geographical areas owned or controlled which includes the existing regulatory our analysis on evaluating the specific by the Department of Defense, or and socio-economic burden imposed on areas or sectors that may incur probable designated for its use, that are subject to landowners, managers, or other resource incremental economic impacts as a an integrated natural resources users potentially affected by the result of the designation. The screening management plan [INRMP] prepared designation of critical habitat (e.g., analysis also assesses whether units are under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 under the Federal listing as well as unoccupied by the species and may

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Dec 05, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 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 agencies. In areas where beardless chinchweed. Consequently, there would conservation efforts as a result of the chinchweed is present, Federal agencies likely be a small increase in the time critical habitat designation for the already are required to consult with the needed to complete the consultation to species that may incur incremental Service under section 7 of the Act on include the assessment of beardless economic impacts. This screening activities they fund, permit, or chinchweed critical habitat units (IEc analysis, combined with the information implement that may affect the species. 2018, entire). Section 7 consultations contained in our IEM, is what we If we finalize this proposed critical involving third parties (State, Tribal, or consider our draft economic analysis of habitat designation, consultations to private lands) are limited. the proposed critical habitat designation avoid the destruction or adverse Based on the locations of the for beardless chinchweed and is modification of critical habitat would be proposed critical habitat units and the summarized in the narrative below. incorporated into the existing types of projects we typically evaluate Executive Orders (E.O.) 12866 and consultation process. for the Coronado National Forest and 13563 direct Federal agencies to assess In our IEM, we clarified the the Coronado National Memorial, we the costs and benefits of available distinction between the effects that estimate that there would likely be 4 to regulatory alternatives in quantitative would result from the species being 6 consultations annually that would (to the extent feasible) and qualitative listed and those attributable to the include beardless chinchweed. The terms. Consistent with the E.O. critical habitat designation (i.e., entities that would incur incremental regulatory analysis requirements, our difference between the jeopardy and costs are Federal agencies, because 97 effects analysis under the Act may take adverse modification standards) for percent of critical habitat is on Federal into consideration impacts to both beardless chinchweed critical habitat. land. directly and indirectly affected entities, For species where the designation of In the 7,713 ac (3,121 ha) of occupied where practicable and reasonable. If critical habitat is proposed concurrently proposed critical habitat (Units 1, 2, 3, sufficient data are available, we assess with the listing, like beardless 4, and 8), any actions that may affect the to the extent practicable the probable chinchweed, it has been our experience species or its habitat would also affect impacts to both directly and indirectly that it is more difficult to discern which proposed designated critical habitat. affected entities. conservation efforts are attributable to Consequently, it is unlikely that any As part of our screening analysis, we the species being listed and those which additional conservation efforts would be considered the types of economic would result solely from the designation recommended to address the adverse activities that are likely to occur within of critical habitat. However, the modification standard over and above the areas likely affected by the critical following specific circumstances in this those recommended as necessary to habitat designation. In our evaluation of case help to inform our evaluation: (1) avoid jeopardizing the continued the probable incremental economic The essential physical or biological existence of beardless chinchweed. impacts that may result from the features identified for critical habitat are Therefore, only administrative costs are proposed designation of critical habitat the same features essential for the life expected in these occupied units. While for beardless chinchweed, first we requisites of the species, and (2) any this additional analysis will require identified, in the IEM dated August 28, actions that would result in sufficient time and resources by the Federal action 2018 (Service 2018, entire), probable harm or harassment to constitute agency, the Service, and third parties, it incremental economic impacts jeopardy to beardless chinchweed is believed that, in most circumstances, associated with the following categories would also likely adversely affect the these costs would predominantly be of activities: (1) Federal lands essential physical or biological features administrative in nature and would not management (National Park Service, of critical habitat. The IEM outlines our be significant (IEc 2018, entire). In these U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land rationale concerning this limited unoccupied areas, any conservation Management); (2) grazing (U.S. Forest distinction between baseline efforts or associated probable impacts Service and Bureau of Land conservation efforts and incremental would be considered incremental effects Management); (3) wild and prescribed impacts of the designation of critical attributed to the critical habitat fire (National Park Service, U.S. Forest habitat for this species. This evaluation designation. In units occupied by the Service, Bureau of Land Management); of the incremental effects has been used chinchweed, we assume the additional (4) groundwater pumping (U.S. Forest as the basis to evaluate the probable administrative cost to address Service); (5) mining (U.S. Forest incremental economic impacts of this chinchweed critical habitat in the Service); (6) fuels management (National proposed designation of critical habitat. consultation is minor, costing Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, The proposed critical habitat approximately $5,100 per consultation Bureau of Land Management); (7) designation for beardless chinchweed (2017 dollars). For the proposed critical transportation (road construction and totals approximately 7,713 ac (3,121 ha, habitat units that are currently occupied maintenance; National Park Service, or 73 percent of the total proposed by beardless chinchweed (Units 1, 2, 3, U.S. Forest Service); and (8) trampling critical habitat designation) of currently 4, and 8), we have not identified any and dust creation from recreation and occupied habitat and 2,891 ac (1,170 ha, ongoing or future projects or actions that border protection activities (U.S. or 27 percent of the total proposed would warrant additional Customs and Border Protection, U.S. critical habitat designation) of recommendations or modifications to Forest Service, National Park Service). unoccupied habitat (see Table 12, avoid adversely modifying critical We considered each industry or above). Every unit of proposed critical habitat above those that we would category individually. Additionally, we habitat for beardless chinchweed recommend for avoiding jeopardy. considered whether their activities have overlaps with the ranges of a number of Therefore, project modifications any Federal involvement. Critical currently listed species and designated resulting from section 7 consultations in habitat designation generally will not critical habitats. Therefore, the actual occupied units are unlikely to be affect activities that do not have any number of section 7 consultations is not affected by the designation of critical Federal involvement; under the Act, the expected to increase; however, the habitat. designation of critical habitat only analysis within these consultations In unoccupied units, (units 5, 6, and affects activities conducted, funded, would expand to consider effects to 7) we assume the incremental permitted, or authorized by Federal critical habitat for the bearded administrative effort will be greater on

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Dec 05, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP3.SGM 06DEP3 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules 67097

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Dec 05, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP3.SGM 06DEP3 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3 67098 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules

Exclusions agreements, or candidate conservation defined under the authority of the agreements with assurances, or whether National Environmental Policy Act Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts there are non-permitted conservation (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we agreements and partnerships that would be prepared in connection with listing consider the economic impacts of be encouraged by designation of, or a species as an endangered or specifying any particular area as critical exclusion from, critical habitat. In threatened species under the Act. We habitat. In order to consider economic addition, we look at the existence of published a notice outlining our reasons impacts, we prepared an analysis of the tribal conservation plans and for this determination in the Federal probable economic impacts of the partnerships and consider the Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR proposed critical habitat designation government-to-government relationship 49244). and related factors. The following land of the United States with tribal entities. It is our position that, outside the use sectors potentially occur in one or We also consider any social impacts that jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals more of the proposed critical habitat might occur because of the designation. for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to units for beardless chinchweed: Border In preparing this proposal, we have prepare environmental analyses protection, conservation/restoration, fire determined that there are currently no pursuant to NEPA in connection with management, forest management, HCPs or other management plans for designating critical habitat under the grazing, mining, recreation, and beardless chinchweed, and the Act. We published a notice outlining transportation (road and trail proposed designation does not include our reasons for this determination in the construction and maintenance). The any tribal lands or trust resources. We Federal Register on October 25, 1983 majority of proposed critical habitat anticipate no impact on tribal lands, (48 FR 49244). This position was upheld units are on federally owned or partnerships, or HCPs from this by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the managed lands. proposed critical habitat designation. Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. During the development of a final During the development of a final Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), designation, we will consider any designation, we will consider any cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)). additional economic impact information additional information on any impacts Because neither species occurs within we receive through the public comment to tribal resources, partnerships, or the jurisdiction of the Tenth Circuit, we period, and as such areas may be conservation plans that we receive are not preparing any additional NEPA excluded from the final critical habitat through the public comment period, and analysis. designation under section 4(b)(2) of the as such areas may be excluded from the Government-to-Government Act and our implementing regulations at final critical habitat designation under Relationship With Tribes 50 CFR 424.19. section 4(b)(2) of the Act and our In accordance with the President’s Exclusions Based on National Security implementing regulations at 50 CFR memorandum of April 29, 1994 Impacts 424.19. (Government-to-Government Relations Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we IV. Required Determinations with Native American Tribal consider whether there are lands where Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive a national security impact might exist. Clarity of the Rule Order 13175 (Consultation and In preparing this proposal, we have We are required by Executive Orders Coordination With Indian Tribal determined that the lands within the 12866 and 12988 and by the Governments), and the Department of proposed designation of critical habitat Presidential Memorandum of June 1, the Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we for beardless chinchweed are not owned 1998, to write all rules in plain readily acknowledge our responsibility or managed by the Department of language. This means that each rule we to communicate meaningfully with Defense or Department of Homeland publish must: recognized Federal Tribes on a Security. In addition, we did not find (1) Be logically organized; government-to-government basis. In any potential national security impacts (2) Use the active voice to address accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 resulting from this proposed readers directly; of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal designation; therefore, we anticipate no (3) Use clear language rather than Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust impact on national security. However, jargon; Responsibilities, and the Endangered during the development of a final (4) Be divided into short sections and Species Act), we readily acknowledge designation, we will consider any sentences; and our responsibilities to work directly additional information on any potential (5) Use lists and tables wherever with tribes in developing programs for national security impacts we receive possible. healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that through the public comment period, and If you feel that we have not met these tribal lands are not subject to the same as such areas may be excluded from the requirements, send us comments by one controls as Federal public lands, to final critical habitat designation under of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To remain sensitive to Indian culture, and section 4(b)(2) of the Act and our better help us revise the rule, your to make information available to tribes. implementing regulations at 50 CFR comments should be as specific as We are not aware of any tribally 424.19. possible. For example, you should tell owned lands that are currently occupied us the numbers of the sections or by beardless chinchweed or Bartram’s Exclusions Based on Other Relevant paragraphs that are unclearly written, stonecrop or that are unoccupied lands Impacts which sections or sentences are too that are essential to the conservation of Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we long, the sections where you feel lists or beardless chinchweed. Therefore, we consider any other relevant impacts, in tables would be useful, etc. are not proposing to designate critical addition to economic impacts and habitat for beardless chinchweed on impacts on national security. We National Environmental Policy Act (42 tribal lands. While there are no tribally consider a number of factors, including U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) owned lands within the proposed whether there are permitted We have determined that designation of critical habitat, certain conservation plans covering the species environmental assessments and lands proposed for designation may in the area such as HCPs, safe harbor environmental impact statements, as include areas that are culturally

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Dec 05, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP3.SGM 06DEP3 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules 67099

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Dec 05, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 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 shift the costs of the large entitlement with, appropriate State resource an enforceable duty upon State, local, or programs listed above onto State agencies in Arizona. From a federalism tribal governments, or the private sector, governments. perspective, the designation of critical and includes both ‘‘Federal (2) We do not believe that this rule habitat directly affects only the intergovernmental mandates’’ and would significantly or uniquely affect responsibilities of Federal agencies. The ‘‘Federal private sector mandates.’’ small governments because the lands Act imposes no other duties with These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. proposed for critical habitat designation respect to critical habitat, either for 658(5)–(7). ‘‘Federal intergovernmental are primarily Federal lands, with a States and local governments, or for mandate’’ includes a regulation that small amount of private land; small anyone else. As a result, the rule does ‘‘would impose an enforceable duty governments would be affected only to not have substantial direct effects either upon State, local, or tribal governments’’ the extent that any programs having on the States, or on the relationship with two exceptions. It excludes ‘‘a Federal funds, permits, or other between the national government and condition of Federal assistance.’’ It also authorized activities must ensure that the States, or on the distribution of excludes ‘‘a duty arising from their actions would not adversely affect powers and responsibilities among the participation in a voluntary Federal the designated critical habitat. The various levels of government. The program,’’ unless the regulation ‘‘relates designation of critical habitat imposes designation may have some benefit to to a then-existing Federal program no obligations on State or local these governments because the areas under which $500,000,000 or more is governments. Therefore, a Small that contain the features essential to the provided annually to State, local, and Government Agency Plan is not conservation of the species are more tribal governments under entitlement required. clearly defined, and the physical or authority,’’ if the provision would Takings—Executive Order 12630 biological features of the habitat ‘‘increase the stringency of conditions of necessary to the conservation of the In accordance with E.O. 12630 assistance’’ or ‘‘place caps upon, or species are specifically identified. This (Government Actions and Interference otherwise decrease, the Federal information does not alter where and with Constitutionally Protected Private Government’s responsibility to provide what federally sponsored activities may Property Rights), we have analyzed the funding,’’ and the State, local, or tribal occur. However, it may assist these local potential takings implications of governments ‘‘lack authority’’ to adjust governments in long-range planning designating critical habitat for beardless accordingly. At the time of enactment, (because these local governments no chinchweed in a takings implications these entitlement programs were: longer have to wait for case-by-case assessment. The Act does not authorize Medicaid; Aid to Families with section 7 consultations to occur). the Service to regulate private actions Dependent Children work programs; on private lands or confiscate private Where State and local governments Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social property as a result of critical habitat require approval or authorization from a Services Block Grants; Vocational designation. Designation of critical Federal agency for actions that may Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, habitat does not affect land ownership, affect critical habitat, consultation Adoption Assistance, and Independent or establish any closures of, or under section 7(a)(2) of the Act would Living; Family Support Welfare restrictions on use of or access to, the be required. While non-Federal entities Services; and Child Support designated areas. Furthermore, the that receive Federal funding, assistance, Enforcement. ‘‘Federal private sector designation of critical habitat does not or permits, or that otherwise require mandate’’ includes a regulation that affect landowner actions that do not approval or authorization from a Federal ‘‘would impose an enforceable duty require Federal funding or permits, nor agency for an action, may be indirectly upon the private sector, except (i) a does it preclude development of habitat impacted by the designation of critical condition of Federal assistance or (ii) a conservation programs or issuance of habitat, the legally binding duty to duty arising from participation in a incidental take permits to permit actions avoid destruction or adverse voluntary Federal program.’’ that do require Federal funding or modification of critical habitat rests The designation of critical habitat permits to go forward. However, Federal squarely on the Federal agency. does not impose a legally binding duty agencies are prohibited from carrying Civil Justice Reform—Executive Order on non-Federal Government entities or out, funding, or authorizing actions that 12988 private parties. Under the Act, the only would destroy or adversely modify regulatory effect is that Federal agencies designated critical habitat. A takings In accordance with Executive Order must ensure that their actions do not implications assessment has been 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the Office destroy or adversely modify critical completed and concludes that this of the Solicitor has determined that the habitat under section 7. While non- proposed designation of critical habitat rule does not unduly burden the judicial Federal entities that receive Federal for beardless chinchweed would not system and that it meets the funding, assistance, or permits, or that pose significant takings implications for requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) otherwise require approval or lands within or affected by the of the Order. We have proposed authorization from a Federal agency for designation. designating critical habitat in an action, may be indirectly impacted accordance with the provisions of the by the designation of critical habitat, the Federalism—Executive Order 13132 Act. To assist the public in legally binding duty to avoid In accordance with E.O. 13132 understanding the habitat needs of the destruction or adverse modification of (Federalism), this proposed rule does species, this proposed rule identifies the critical habitat rests squarely on the not have significant federalism effects. elements of physical or biological Federal agency. Furthermore, to the A federalism summary impact statement features essential to the conservation of extent that non-Federal entities are is not required. In keeping with the species. The proposed areas of indirectly impacted because they Department of the Interior and critical habitat are presented on a map, receive Federal assistance or participate Department of Commerce policy, we and the proposed rule provides several in a voluntary Federal aid program, the requested information from, and options for the interested public to Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would coordinated development of this obtain more detailed location not apply, nor would critical habitat proposed critical habitat designation information, if desired.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Dec 05, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP3.SGM 06DEP3 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules 67101

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR PART 17—ENDANGERED AND U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS This rule does not contain any new Authors ■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 collections of information that require The primary authors of this proposed continues to read as follows: approval by Office of Management and rule are the staff members of the Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Arizona Ecological Services Field Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 Office. 1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise noted. et seq.). An agency may not conduct or List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 sponsor, and a person is not required to ■ 2. Amend § 17.12(h), the List of respond to, a collection of information Endangered and threatened species, Endangered and Threatened Plants, by unless it displays a currently valid OMB Exports, Imports, Reporting and adding entries for ‘‘Graptopetalum control number. recordkeeping requirements, bartramii’’ and ‘‘Pectis imberbis’’ in Transportation. alphabetical order under FLOWERING References Cited V. Proposed Regulation Promulgation PLANTS to read as set forth below: A complete list of references cited in Accordingly, we propose to amend § 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants. this rulemaking is available on the part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title internet at http://www.regulations.gov 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, * * * * * and upon request from the Arizona as set forth below: (h) * * *

Listing citations and applicable Scientific name Common name Where listed Status rules

Flowering Plants

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

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

*******

■ 3. Add § 17.73 to read as follows: and in the course of a commercial when acting in the course of official activity, any Graptopetalum bartramii. duties, remove and reduce to possession § 17.73 Special rules—flowering plants. (iv) Sale or offer for sale. (A) It is Graptopetalum bartramii from areas (a) Graptopetalum bartramii unlawful to sell or to offer for sale in under Federal jurisdiction without a (Bartram’s stonecrop). interstate or foreign commerce any permit if such action is necessary to: (1) Prohibitions. The following Graptopetalum bartramii. (1) Care for a damaged or diseased prohibitions apply to Graptopetalum (B) An advertisement for the sale of specimen; bartramii, except as provided under any Graptopetalum bartramii which (2) Dispose of a dead specimen; or paragraph (a)(2) of this section: carries a warning to the effect that no (3) Salvage a dead specimen which (i) Import or export. It is unlawful to sale may be consummated until a permit may be useful for scientific study. import or to export any Graptopetalum has been obtained from the Service, (B) Any removal and reduction to bartramii. Any shipment in transit shall not be considered an offer for sale possession pursuant to this paragraph through the United States is an within the meaning of this paragraph. must be reported in writing to the U.S. importation and an exportation, (v) It is unlawful to attempt to Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of whether or not it has entered the commit, solicit another to commit, or Law Enforcement, P.O. Box 28006, country for customs purposes. cause to be committed, any of the acts Washington, DC 20005, within 5 days. (ii) Remove and reduce to possession. described in paragraph (a)(1) of this The specimen may only be retained, It is unlawful to remove and reduce to section. disposed of, or salvaged in accordance possession the species from areas under (2) Exceptions from prohibitions. The with written directions from the Federal jurisdiction; maliciously following exceptions from prohibitions Service. damage or destroy the species on any apply to Graptopetalum bartramii: (iii) Any qualified employee or agent such area; or remove, cut, dig up, or (i) A person may apply for a permit of the Service or of a State conservation damage or destroy the species on any in accordance with 50 CFR 17.72 that agency which is a party to a cooperative other area in knowing violation of any authorizes an activity otherwise agreement with the Service in law or regulation of any State or in the prohibited by this paragraph for accordance with section 6(c) of the Act, course of any violation of a State Graptopetalum bartramii. who is designated by that agency for criminal trespass law. (ii)(A) Any employee or agent of the such purposes, may, when acting in the (iii) Interstate or foreign commerce. It Service, any other Federal land course of official duties, remove, cut, is unlawful to deliver, receive, carry, management agency, or a State dig up, damage, or destroy transport, or ship in interstate or foreign conservation agency, who is designated Graptopetalum bartramii on areas under commerce, by any means whatsoever, by that agency for such purposes, may, Federal jurisdiction.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Dec 05, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP3.SGM 06DEP3 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3 67102 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules

(b) [Reserved]. (iv) Steep, south-facing, sunny to (5) Unit 1: McCleary Canyon, Pima ■ 4. In § 17.96, amend paragraph (a) by partially shaded hillslopes. County, Arizona. Unit 1 consists of 682 adding an entry for ‘‘Pectis imberbis (v) The presence of pollinators (i.e., hectares (1,686 acres) of U.S. Forest (beardless chinchweed),’’ in flies, bees, and butterflies). Service lands. alphabetical order under Family (3) Critical habitat does not include (6) Unit 2: Audubon Research Ranch, Asteraceae, to read as follows: manmade structures (such as buildings, Santa Cruz County, Arizona. Unit 2 consists of 926 hectares (2,287 acres) of § 17.96 Critical habitat—plants. aqueducts, runways, roads, and other land, of which 331 hectares (817 acres) (a) Flowering plants. paved areas) and the land on which they are located existing within the legal are owned by the U.S. Forest Service, * * * * * boundaries on the effective date of this 474 hectares (1,686 acres) by the Bureau Family Asteraceae: Pectis imberbis rule. of Land Management, and 121 hectares (beardless chinchweed) (300 acres) by the Audubon Research (4) Critical habitat map units. Data Ranch. (1) Critical habitat units are depicted layers defining map units were created (7) Unit 3: Scotia Canyon, Cochise for Cochise, Pima, and Santa Cruz using ArcMap version 10 County, Arizona. Unit 3 consists of 346 Counties, Arizona, on the map below. (Environmental Systems Research hectares (855 acres) of U.S. Forest (2) Within these areas, the physical or Institute, Inc.), a Geographic Service lands. Information Systems program on a base biological features essential to the (8) Unit 4: Coronado National of USA Topo Maps. Critical habitat conservation of Pectis imberbis consist Memorial, Cochise County, Arizona. units were then mapped using NAD of the following components: Unit 4 consists of 853 hectares (2,109 1983, Universal Transverse Mercator (i) Native-dominated plant acres) of National Park Service lands. communities, consisting of: (UTM) Zone 12N coordinates. The map (9) Unit 5: Lampshire Well, Santa (A) Plains, great basin, and semi- in this entry, as modified by any Cruz County, Arizona. Unit 5 consists of desert grasslands, oak savanna, or accompanying regulatory text, 380 hectares (939 acres) of U.S. Forest Madrean evergreen woodland; establishes the boundaries of the critical Service lands. (B) Communities dominated by habitat designation. The coordinates or bunchgrasses with open spacing plot points or both on which the map (10) Unit 6: Harshaw Creek, Santa (adjacent to and within 10 meters (33 is based are available to the public at the Cruz County, Arizona. Unit 6 consists of feet) of individual Pectis imberbis Service’s internet site at https:// 410 hectares (1,013 acres) of U.S. Forest plants) and with little competition from www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/ Service lands. other plants; and Docs_Species.htm, at http:// (11) Unit 7: Washington Camp, Santa (C) Communities with plants for www.regulations.gov at Docket No. Cruz County, Arizona. Unit 7 consists of pollinator foraging and nesting within 1 FWS–R2–ES–2018–0104, and at the 380 hectares (939 acres) of U.S. Forest kilometer (0.62 miles) of Pectis imberbis field office responsible for this Service lands. populations. designation. You may obtain field office (12) Unit 8: Ruby Road, Santa Cruz (ii) 1,158 to 1,737 meters (3,799 to location information by contacting one County, Arizona. Unit 8 consists of 314 5,699 feet) elevation. of the Service regional offices, the hectares (776 acres) of U.S. Forest (iii) Eroding limestone or granite addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR Service lands. bedrock substrate. 2.2. (13) Map of Units 1 through 8 follows:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:19 Dec 05, 2019 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP3.SGM 06DEP3 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 / Proposed Rules 67103

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 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3 EP06DE19.000 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] 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 lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with PROPOSALS3