[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 153 (Wednesday, August 8, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47352-47356]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-19334]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2012-0047; 4500030113]


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on 
a Petition to List Graptopetalum bartramii (Bartram Stonecrop) and 
Pectis imberbis (Beardless Chinch Weed) as Endangered or Threatened and 
Designate Critical Habitat

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of petition finding and initiation of status review.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 
90-day finding on a petition to list Graptopetalum bartramii (Bartram 
stonecrop) and Pectis imberbis (beardless chinch weed) as endangered or 
threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), 
and to designate critical habitat. Based on our review, we find that 
the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information 
indicating that listing Bartram stonecrop and beardless chinch weed may 
be warranted. Therefore, with the publication of this notice, we will 
initiate a review of the status of these species to determine if 
listing Bartram stonecrop or beardless chinch weed, or both, is 
warranted. To ensure that our status review is comprehensive, we 
request scientific and commercial data and other information regarding 
these species. Based on the status review, we will issue a 12-month 
finding on the petition, which will address whether the petitioned 
action is warranted, as provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act.

DATES: To allow us adequate time to conduct this review, we request 
that we receive information on or before October 9, 2012. The deadline 
for submitting an electronic comment using the Federal eRulemaking 
Portal (see ADDRESSES section, below) is 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on 
this date. After October 9, 2012, you must submit information directly 
to the Division of Policy and Directives Management (see ADDRESSES 
section below). Please note that we might not be able to address or 
incorporate information that we receive after the above requested date.

ADDRESSES: You may submit information by one of the following methods:
    (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov and Search for Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2012-0047, 
which is the docket number for this action. If your submission will fit 
in the provided comment box, please use this feature of http://www.regulations.gov, as it is most compatible with our information 
collection procedures. If you attach your submission as a separate 
document, our preferred file format is Microsoft Word. If you attach 
multiple documents (such as form letters), our preferred format is a 
spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel.
    (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public 
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R2-ES-2012-0047; Division of Policy and 
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax 
Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
    We will post all information we receive on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any 
personal information you provide us (see the Request for Information 
section below for more details).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Spangle, Field Supervisor, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological Services Office, 2321 
West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103, Phoenix, AZ 85021; by telephone (602-
242-0210); or by facsimile (602-242-2513). If you use a 
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal 
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Information

    When we make a finding that a petition presents substantial 
information indicating that listing a species may be warranted, we are 
required to promptly review the status of the species (status review). 
For the status review to be complete and based on the best available 
scientific and commercial information, we request information on 
Bartram stonecrop and beardless chinch weed from governmental agencies, 
Native American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, and any 
other interested parties. We seek information on:
    (1) The species' biology, range, and population trends, including:
    (a) Habitat requirements for reproduction, germination, and 
survival;
    (b) Genetics and taxonomy;
    (c) Historical and current range including distribution patterns;
    (d) Historical and current population levels, and current and 
projected trends; and
    (e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, its 
habitat, or both.
    (2) The factors that are the basis for making a listing, delisting, 
or downlisting determination for a species under section 4(a) of the 
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
seq.), which are:
    (a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range;
    (b) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes;
    (c) Disease or predation;
    (d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
    (e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence.
    If, after the status review, we determine that listing Bartram 
stonecrop or beardless chinch weed, or both, is warranted, we will 
propose critical habitat (see definition in section 3(5)(A) of the 
Act), under section 4 of the Act, to the maximum extent prudent and 
determinable at the time we propose to list the species. Therefore, we 
request data and information on:
    (1) What may constitute ``physical or biological features essential 
to the conservation'' of each species within the geographical range 
currently occupied by the species;
    (2) Where these features are currently found;
    (3) Whether any of these features may require special management 
considerations or protection;

[[Page 47353]]

    (4) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the 
species that are ``essential for the conservation of the species;'' and
    (5) What, if any, critical habitat you think we should propose for 
designation if the species is proposed for listing, and why such 
habitat meets the requirements of section 4 of the Act.
    Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as 
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to 
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
    Submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the action 
under consideration without providing supporting information, although 
noted, will not be considered in making a determination. Section 
4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any 
species is an endangered or threatened species must be made ``solely on 
the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.''
    You may submit your information concerning this status review by 
one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. If you submit 
information via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire submission--
including any personal identifying information--will be posted on the 
Web site. If you submit a hardcopy that includes personal identifying 
information, you may request at the top of your document that we 
withhold this personal identifying information from public review. 
However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will 
post all hardcopy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov.
    Information and supporting documentation that we received and used 
in preparing this finding are available for you to review at http://www.regulations.gov, or you may make an appointment during normal 
business hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona 
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Background

    For the purposes of this document, we will refer to Graptopetalum 
bartramii as Bartram stonecrop and Pectis imberbis as beardless chinch 
weed.
    Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires that we make a finding on 
whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents 
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the 
petitioned action may be warranted. We are to base this finding on 
information provided in the petition, supporting information submitted 
with the petition, and information otherwise available in our files. To 
the maximum extent practicable, we are to make this finding within 90 
days of our receipt of the petition and publish our notice of the 
finding promptly in the Federal Register.
    Our standard for substantial scientific or commercial information 
within the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90-day 
petition finding is ``that amount of information that would lead a 
reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition 
may be warranted'' (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we find that substantial 
scientific or commercial information was presented, we are required to 
promptly conduct a species status review, which we subsequently 
summarize in our 12-month finding.
    The ``substantial information'' standard for a 90-day finding 
differs from the Act's ``best scientific and commercial data'' standard 
that applies to a status review to determine whether a petitioned 
action is warranted. A 90-day finding does not constitute a status 
review under the Act. In a 12-month finding, we will announce our 
determination as to whether a petitioned action is warranted after we 
have completed a thorough status review of the species, which is 
conducted following a substantial 90-day finding. Because the Act's 
standards for 90-day findings and status reviews conducted for a 12-
month finding on a petition are different, as described above, a 
substantial 90-day finding does not mean that our status review and 
resulting determination will result in a warranted finding.

Petition History

    On July 7, 2010, we received a petition dated July 7, 2010, from 
the Center for Biological Diversity, requesting that Bartram stonecrop 
and beardless chinch weed be listed as endangered or threatened and 
critical habitat be designated under the Act. The petition clearly 
identified itself as such and included the requisite identification 
information for the petitioner, as required by 50 CFR 424.14(a). In a 
December 1, 2011, letter to the Center for Biological Diversity, we 
responded that we reviewed the information presented in the petition 
and determined that issuing an emergency regulation temporarily listing 
the species under section 4(b)(7) of the Act was not warranted. We also 
stated that per the Multi-District Litigation Settlement Agreements 
(WildEarth Guardians v. Salazar, No. 1:10-mc-00377-EGS (D. D.C.), we 
are required to complete an initial finding in Fiscal Year 2012 as to 
whether this petition contains substantial information indicating that 
the action may be warranted. This 90-day finding addresses the July 7, 
2010, petition.

Previous Federal Actions

    Initially, Bartram stonecrop and beardless chinch weed were 
included as Category 1 species in the 1980 Review of Plant Taxa for 
Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species (45 FR 82480, December 15, 
1980). Category 1 candidates were defined as species for which the 
Service had sufficient information on hand to support the biological 
appropriateness of them being listed as endangered or threatened 
species. Subsequently, Bartram stonecrop and beardless chinch weed were 
included as Category 2 candidate species in the 1983 Supplement to 
Review of Plant Taxa for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species 
(48 FR 53640, November 28, 1983). Category 2 species were taxa for 
which information in our possession indicated that proposing to list 
was possibly appropriate, but for which persuasive data on biological 
vulnerability and threats were not available to support a proposed 
listing rule. The designation of Category 2 species was discontinued in 
the 1996 Notice of Final Decision on Identification of Candidates for 
Listing as Endangered or Threatened (61 FR 64481, December 5, 1996); 
therefore, since that time, these species were not, and are not 
currently, considered candidates.
    For each of the species, we provide a description of the species 
and its life history and habitat, followed by an evaluation of the 
information for each species, and our finding whether or not 
substantial information is presented to indicate that the petitioned 
action may be warranted for each species.

Species Information for Bartram Stonecrop

Taxonomy and Description
    The petition did not provide detailed information on taxonomy or a 
description of Bartram stonecrop; therefore, we used information 
readily available in our files. Bartram stonecrop was described by J. 
N. Rose in 1926 from specimens collected by E. Bartram. In 1936, T. H. 
Kearney and R. H. Peebles changed the name of all Arizona species in 
the genera Graptopetalum and Dudleya to the genus Echeveria (Kearney 
and Peebles 1951, pp. 358-362; Phillips et al. 1982a, p. 1). Although 
the Flora of Arizona (Kearney and Peebles 1951, p. 360) maintains E. 
bartramii, Phillips et al. (1982a, p. 2) note that most botanists 
recently concerned with this family separate the

[[Page 47354]]

genera Graptopetalum and Dudleya. Because botanists in recent decades 
accept the characterization of Graptopetalum bartramii as a species, we 
concur.
    Bartram stonecrop is a small, succulent (fleshy), acaulescent 
(without a stem) perennial plant in the Crassulaceae or stonecrop 
family (Phillips et al. 1982a, p. 2). The plant has a basal rosette 
comprising 20 or more flat to concave, smooth, blue-green leaves 
(Phillips et al. 1982a, p. 2). Flower stalks up to 30.5 centimeters 
(cm) (12 inches (in)) in height and topped with panicles (equilaterally 
arranged flowering stems) are produced in late October to early 
November (Phillips et al. 1982a, pp. 2, 7). Each panicle produces one 
to three five-petaled, brown-to-red spotted flowers that are 2.54 cm 
(1.0 in) or more across (Phillips et al. 1982a, p. 3).
Habitat
    The petition notes that Bartram stonecrop is found in rock 
crevices, ledges, and gravelly slopes from 1,113 to 2,042 meters (m) 
(3,652 to 6,700 feet (ft)) in elevation in southern Arizona and Mexico. 
The plant is typically found in the shade of Madrean evergreen woodland 
overstory and under dense litter (Phillips et al. 1982a, p. 4). The 
petition states that this species is known from 12 locations in 
Arizona, including the Baboquivari, Chiricahua, Dragoon, Mule, 
Patagonia, Rincon, Santa Rita, and Tumacacori Mountains in Cochise, 
Pima, and Santa Cruz Counties, as well as from one location in Mexico. 
The petition makes special note that populations are known to be very 
small, typically consisting of a few individuals, and widely scattered.

Species Information for Beardless Chinch Weed

Taxonomy and Description
    The petition did not provide detailed information on taxonomy or a 
description of beardless chinch weed; therefore, we used information 
readily available in our files. Beardless chinch weed was first 
collected by Charles Wright in the early 1850s in Sonora, Mexico, and 
was described by Asa Gray in 1853 (Phillips et al. 1982b, p. 1). The 
name has remained unchanged since that time, and there are no known 
synonyms; therefore, we accept the characterization of beardless chinch 
weed as a valid species.
    Beardless chinch weed is an erect, many-branched, perennial herb 
growing 3-12 decimeters (dm) (12 to 47 in) from a woody caudex (stem 
base) (Phillips et al. 1982b, p. 2). The glabrous (without hairs) 
leaves are 1 to 5 cm (0.4 to 2 in) in length and 1 to 2 millimeters 
(mm) (0.04 to 0.08 in) wide with pointed tips, becoming smaller toward 
the tips (Phillips et al. 1982b, p. 2). The leaves have a row of 
narrow, oval-shaped glands on the underside surface near each margin 
and a single, oval-shaped gland on the upper surface (Phillips et al. 
1982b, p. 2). Daisy-like flower heads containing yellow ray and disk 
flowers are solitary or in open, flat-topped clusters at the tips of 
the branches (Phillips et al. 1982b, p. 2). The petals are also dotted 
with oil glands (Arizona Game and Fish Department 2003, p. 1). 
Flowering occurs from August to October when the plants are over 0.5 m 
(1.6 ft) in height (Kearney and Peebles 1951, p. 935; Phillips et al. 
1982b, p. 8). Unlike other species in this genus, beardless chinch weed 
has no fine hairs fringing the base of the upper leaves; instead, it 
has a single pair of trichomes (hair-like growth) on the lower leaves 
(Fishbein and Warren 1994, p. 19).
Habitat
    Beardless chinch weed is found in the Atascosa, Huachuca, Oro 
Blanco, Patagonia, and Santa Rita Mountains, and the Canelo Hills of 
Cochise, Pima, and Santa Cruz Counties, Arizona, as well as Chihuahua 
and Sonora, Mexico, from 1,150 to 1,725 m (3,773 to 5,660 ft) in 
elevation (Fishbein and Warren 1994, p. 19). All but two known 
populations in the United States occur on lands managed by the Coronado 
National Forest (Fishbein and Warren 1994, p. 20). While more typically 
found in tropical deciduous forests and oak woodlands at higher 
elevations, and grasslands at lower elevations, it has also been found 
on disturbed road cuts, arroyo cuts, and unstable rocky slopes, where 
it has little competition for sunlight (Phillips et al. 1982b, pp. 4, 
6; Fishbein and Warren 1994, p. 19). Of the 24 beardless chinch weed 
collections and occurrence location information in our files, 5 are 
from road cuts, and 19 are from grasslands (Deecken 1991, p. 1; Deecken 
1992, p. 1; Deecken 1994, p. 1; Fishbein and Warren 1994, pp. 22-24).
Abundance
    There are 11 populations of beardless chinch weed in southern 
Arizona; all populations are considered small (Fishbein and Warren 
1994, p. 19). The following is a summary of the locations and 
population estimates for beardless chinch weed in Arizona. A 1993 
survey of Scotia Canyon found 125 individuals (Fishbein and Warren 
1994, p. 22); surveys in the Canelo Hills from 1991, 1992, and 1994 
located 15, 40, and 4 individuals, respectively (Deecken 1991, p. 1; 
Deecken 1992, p. 1; Deecken 1994, p. 1); and a 1980-1981 survey done 
along the Ruby Road found 100 plants in 4 different locations (Phillips 
et al. 1982b, p. 8). In addition, we have records of two herbarium 
collections--Pe[ntilde]a Blanca Lake Recreation Area in 1975 (seven 
individuals) and the Santa Rita Mountains in 1981 (two individuals) 
(Fishbein and Warren 1994, p. 22). No other populations have recorded 
estimates, and no population estimates for known populations have been 
made since 1993. The petition states that surveys in potential habitat 
in the Huachuca Mountains and Canelo Hills in 1994 did not detect new 
populations and that the plant has not been seen in several Coronado 
National Forest sites since the late 1970s.
    The distribution and abundance of the species in Mexico is unknown, 
though beardless chinch weed has been collected from the Distrito 
Alamos and the Region of the Rio Bavispe in Sonora and the upper Rio 
Mayo basin in Chihuahua and Sonora (Fishbein and Warren 1994, pp. 20, 
24). The petition states that the plant has not been seen in Mexico 
since last collected there in 1936. The petition emphasizes that small 
population size exists across the species' range, warning that impacts 
to individual plants could result in population extirpation.

Evaluation of Information for This Finding

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing 
regulations at 50 CFR part 424 set forth the procedures for adding a 
species to, or removing a species from, the Federal Lists of Endangered 
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A species may be determined to be 
an endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five 
factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act:
    (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range;
    (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational
    purposes;
    (C) Disease or predation;
    (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
    (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence.
    In considering what factors might constitute threats we must look 
beyond the mere exposure of the species to the factor to determine 
whether the species responds to the factor in a way that causes actual 
impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a factor, but no 
response, or only a positive response,

[[Page 47355]]

that factor is not a threat. If there is exposure and the species 
responds negatively, the factor may be a threat and we then attempt to 
determine how significant a threat it is. If the threat is significant, 
it may drive or contribute to the risk of extinction of the species 
such that the species may warrant listing as an endangered or 
threatened species as those terms are defined by the Act. This does not 
necessarily require empirical proof of a threat. The combination of 
exposure and some corroborating evidence of how the species is likely 
impacted could suffice. The mere identification of factors that could 
impact a species negatively may not be sufficient to compel a finding 
that listing may be warranted. The information must contain evidence 
sufficient to suggest that these factors may be operative threats that 
act on the species to the point that the species may meet the 
definition of an endangered or threatened species under the Act.
    In making this 90-day finding, we evaluated whether information 
regarding the status and threats to Bartram stonecrop and beardless 
chinch weed, as presented in the petition and other information readily 
available in our files, is substantial, thereby indicating that the 
petitioned action may be warranted. Our evaluation of this information 
is presented below.

Evaluation of Petition Information and Finding for Bartram Stonecrop

    The petition presented information regarding the following factors 
as potential threats to the Bartram stonecrop: Mining, livestock 
grazing, recreation, road construction and maintenance, border patrol 
activities, exotic plant invasion and control, conversion of habitat 
for cultivation, overutilization, inadequacy of existing regulatory 
mechanisms, small population size, low reproductive rates, loss of 
protective cryptobiotic soils (a biological soil crust composed of 
living algae, fungi or lichens commonly found in arid regions) 
stochastic events, drought, and climate change. After reviewing the 
petition and other information presented by the petitioner and 
information readily available in our files, we have determined that 
there is substantial information to indicate that the Bartram stonecrop 
may warrant listing as a result of its apparently small population 
sizes that are subject to unauthorized collection. Following we present 
a discussion of these factors.
    As discussed in the ``Species Information for Bartram Stonecrop'' 
section above, the petitioner notes that populations are known to be 
very small, typically consisting of a few individuals, and widely 
scattered. Because Bartram stonecrop populations are small and 
discrete, they are vulnerable to a variety of disturbances, especially 
collection (USDA Forest Service 1991). The petition presented 
information that Bartram stonecrop has been collected, and that 
declines in the known populations may be due to collection (USDA Forest 
Service 1991).
    The petition also references Phillips et al. (1982a, p. 9), who 
report moderate to heavy recreational use near occupied sites, possibly 
increasing the likelihood of plant collection, especially when the 
plants are in bloom. Additional information readily available in our 
files states that stonecrop species in general are sometimes collected 
for the cactus and succulent trade, with rare species such as Bartram 
stonecrop, particularly sought (Coronado National Forest 2007, p. 13; 
USDA Forest Service 1991, p. 2). In addition, it is noteworthy that 
Phillips et al. (1982a, p. 4) did not provide specific locations in 
their report due to concern that plants of Bartram stonecrop might be 
targeted for collection. Van Devender (1981, pp. 3-4) mentions that 
collecting probably has an important impact, noting that Bartram 
stonecrop is attractive and often collected.
    Small populations may not be able to recover from collection, 
especially if the mature, reproductive plants are removed. The removal 
of mature plants reduces the overall reproductive effort of the 
population, thereby reducing the overall resilience of the population. 
Collection may have a profound effect on Bartram stonecrop populations 
due to the small number of locations and small population size.
    The information presented by the petitioner and readily available 
in our files suggests the Bartram stonecrop is subject to 
overutilization pressures and has apparently experienced declines in 
some populations as a result. This information is sufficient to suggest 
that this factor may be an operative threat that acts on the species to 
the point that it may meet the definition of an endangered or 
threatened species under the Act. Therefore, on the basis of our 
determination under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we find that the 
petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information 
indicating that listing Bartram stonecrop throughout its entire range 
may be warranted. Because we have found that the petition presents 
substantial information indicating that listing Bartram stonecrop may 
be warranted, we will be initiating a status review to determine 
whether listing Bartram stonecrop under the Act is warranted.
    This finding was made primarily based on information related to 
small population size and collection. However, as noted above, the 
petitioners also presented information suggesting that mining, 
livestock grazing, recreation, road construction and maintenance, 
border patrol activities, exotic plant invasion and control, conversion 
of habitat for cultivation, inadequacy of existing regulatory 
mechanisms, low reproductive rates, loss of protective cryptobiotic 
soils, stochastic events, drought, and climate change may be threats to 
the Bartram stonecrop. We will fully evaluate these potential threats 
during our status review, pursuant to the Act's requirement to review 
the best available scientific information when making that finding. 
Accordingly, we encourage the public to consider and submit information 
related to these and any other threats that may be operating on the 
Bartram stonecrop (see Request for Information).

Evaluation of Petition Information and Finding for Beardless Chinch 
Weed

    The petition presented information regarding the following factors 
as potential threats to the beardless chinch weed: Mining, livestock 
grazing, recreation, road maintenance, exotic plant invasion and 
control, conversion of habitat for cultivation, inadequacy of existing 
regulatory mechanisms, small population size, low reproductive rates, 
stochastic events, drought, and climate change. After reviewing the 
petition, information presented by the petitioner, and information 
readily available in our files, we have determined that substantial 
information was presented to indicate that the beardless chinch weed 
may warrant listing due to the present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range as a result of 
livestock grazing. Following we present a discussion of these 
significant factors.
    With regard to the destruction, modification, or curtailment of 
beardless chinch weed habitat or range, the petition cites the USDA 
Forest Service (2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006), which acknowledges there 
have been impacts to beardless chinch weed individuals due to livestock 
herbivory and trampling. The petition states that impacts on 
individuals may have population-level effects because some populations 
are very small and there are only 13 known populations in Arizona. 
Eight of the known populations occur within grazing allotments on the 
Coronado National Forest, which the petition claims are heavily grazed. 
The petition also references Phillips et al.

[[Page 47356]]

(1992b) and Fishbein and Warren (1994) who report that plants do not 
flower until they are over 0.5 m (1.6 ft) tall and, under heavy grazing 
pressure, beardless chinch weed plants may be unable to attain adequate 
size for reproduction. An inability of the plants to reproduce could 
affect the stability of the populations and lead to an overall decrease 
in the species' vigor within these populations.
    Additional information readily available in our files states that 
grazing pressure may have contributed to the species' rareness; 
however, there is no evidence presented for this observation (Keil 
1982, pers. comm.). Falk and Warren (1994, p. 157) state that the 
species is thought to be susceptible to impacts from grazing. Deecken 
(1992, p. 1) noted finding a population of 15 or more plants on the 
edge of a cattle trail. In addition, Deecken (1995, pers. comm.) 
described a Coronado National Forest project that realigned a fence to 
prevent cattle from moving downslope through beardless chinch weed 
sites. Of the 24 records in our files that provide any indication of 
habitat, 19 were from grasslands of varying slope and likely accessible 
to livestock. This information indicates that livestock grazing may 
affect the species and its habitat, but does not provide conclusive 
evidence.
    The information presented by the petitioner and readily available 
in our files suggests that the beardless chinch weed is subject to 
livestock grazing pressures throughout much of its range and has 
apparently experienced declines in some populations as a result. This 
information is sufficient to suggest that this factor, exacerbated by 
the small population size, may be an operative threat that acts on the 
species to the point that it may meet the definition of an endangered 
or threatened species under the Act. Therefore, on the basis of our 
determination under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we find that the 
petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information 
indicating that listing beardless chinch weed throughout its entire 
range may be warranted. Because we have found that the petition 
presents substantial information indicating that listing beardless 
chinch weed may be warranted, we will initiate a status review to 
determine whether listing beardless chinch weed under the Act is 
warranted.
    This finding was made primarily based on information related to the 
present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its 
habitat or range as a result of livestock grazing. However, as noted 
above, the petitioners also presented information suggesting that 
mining, livestock grazing, recreation, road maintenance, exotic plant 
invasion and control, conversion of habitat for cultivation, inadequacy 
of existing regulatory mechanisms, small population size, low 
reproductive rates, stochastic events, drought, and climate change may 
be threats to the beardless chinch weed. We will fully evaluate these 
potential threats during our status review, pursuant to the Act's 
requirement to review the best available scientific information when 
making that finding. Accordingly, we encourage the public to consider 
and submit information related to these and any other threats that may 
be operating on the beardless chinch weed (see Request for 
Information).

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at 
http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Author

    The primary authors of this notice are the staff of the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Authority

    The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: July 26, 2012.
Thomas O. Melius,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-19334 Filed 8-7-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P