[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 15, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31830-31868]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-12005]



[[Page 31829]]

Vol. 86

Tuesday,

No. 113

June 15, 2021

Part II





Department of the Interior





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





Fish and Wildlife Service





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





50 CFR Part 17





Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Status for 
the Beardless Chinchweed and Designation of Critical Habitat; Final 
Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 15, 2021 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 31830]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2018-0104; FF09E21000 FXES11110900000 212]
RIN 1018-BD35


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Status 
for the Beardless Chinchweed and Designation of Critical Habitat

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), determine 
that the beardless chinchweed (Pectis imberbis) is an endangered 
species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended, and 
designate critical habitat. In total, approximately 10,604 acres (4,291 
hectares) in Pima, Cochise, and Santa Cruz Counties, Arizona, fall 
within the boundaries of the critical habitat designation.

DATES: This rule is effective July 15, 2021.

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2018-0104 and at https://www.fws.gov/southwest/. Comments and materials we received, as well as 
supporting documentation we used in preparing this rule, are available 
for public inspection at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 
FWS-R2-ES-2018-0104.
    The coordinates or plot points or both from which the maps are 
generated are included in the administrative record for this critical 
habitat designation and are available at http://www.regulations.gov 
under Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2018-0104, at https://www.fws.gov/southwest/
, and at the Arizona Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT). Any additional tools or supporting information 
that we developed for this critical habitat designation will also be 
available at the Service website and Field Office set out above, and 
may also be included in the preamble and/or at http://www.regulations.gov.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

    Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, a species may be 
listed as endangered or threatened throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range. Listing a species as an endangered or threatened 
species can only be completed by issuing a rule. Further, under the 
Act, any species that is determined to be an endangered or threatened 
species requires critical habitat to be designated, to the maximum 
extent prudent and determinable. Designations and revisions of critical 
habitat can only be completed by issuing a rule.
    What this document does. This rule lists the beardless chinchweed 
(Pectis imberbis) as an endangered species and designates critical 
habitat for this species under the Act.
    The basis for our action. Under the Act, we may determine that a 
species is an endangered or threatened species based on any of five 
factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for 
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) 
disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory 
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its 
continued existence. We have determined that the beardless chinchweed 
faces the following threats: Competition from a nonnative grass species 
(Factors A and E); altered fire regime exacerbated by nonnative grass 
invasion (Factors A and E); altered precipitation, drought, and 
temperature (Factors A and E); erosion, sedimentation and burial from 
road and trail maintenance, mining, livestock trampling and soil 
disturbance, and post-wildfire runoff (Factors A and E); summer and 
fall grazing from wildlife and livestock (Factor C); and small 
population size exacerbating all other stressors (Factor E). The 
existing regulatory mechanisms are not adequate to address these 
threats such that the species does not meet the Act's definition of an 
endangered or a threatened species (Factor D).
    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires the Secretary of the Interior 
(Secretary) to designate critical habitat concurrent with listing to 
the maximum extent prudent and determinable. Section 3(5)(A) of the Act 
defines critical habitat as (i) the specific areas within the 
geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed, on 
which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to 
the conservation of the species and (II) which may require special 
management considerations or protections; and (ii) specific areas 
outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is 
listed, upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are 
essential for the conservation of the species. Section 4(b)(2) of the 
Act states that the Secretary shall designate and make revisions to 
critical habitat on the basis of the best available scientific data 
after taking into consideration the economic impact, the impact on 
national security, and any other relevant impacts of specifying any 
particular area as critical habitat. The Secretary may exclude an area 
from critical habitat if he determines that the benefits of such 
exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such area as part of the 
critical habitat, unless he determines, based on the best scientific 
data available, that the failure to designate such area as critical 
habitat will result in the extinction of the species.
    The critical habitat we are designating in this rule, in eight 
units comprising 10,604 acres (4,291 hectares), constitutes our current 
best assessment of the areas that meet the definition of critical 
habitat for the beardless chinchweed.
    Economic analysis. In accordance with section 4(b)(2) of the Act, 
we prepared an economic analysis of the impacts of designating critical 
habitat. We made the draft economic analysis available for public 
comments on December 6, 2019 (84 FR 67060).
    Peer review and public comment. We sought the expert opinions of 
four independent and knowledgeable specialists regarding the species 
status assessment (SSA) report and received responses from two 
reviewers. These peer reviewers generally concurred with our methods 
and conclusions, and provided additional information, clarifications, 
and suggestions to improve the SSA. We also considered all comments and 
information we received from the public during the comment period for 
the proposed listing of, and the proposed designation of critical 
habitat for, the beardless chinchweed.

Previous Federal Actions

Supporting Documents

    A species status assessment (SSA) team prepared an SSA report for 
the beardless chinchweed. The SSA team was composed of Service 
biologists, in consultation with other species experts. The SSA report 
represents a compilation of the best scientific and commercial data 
available concerning the status of the species, including the impacts 
of past, present, and future

[[Page 31831]]

factors (both negative and beneficial) affecting the species.
    On December 6, 2019, we published in the Federal Register a 
proposed rule (84 FR 67060) to list the beardless chinchweed as an 
endangered species and to designate critical habitat for the species 
under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The December 6, 2019, rule also 
proposed to list Bartram's stonecrop (Graptopetalum bartramii) as a 
threatened species with a rule under section 4(d) of the Act. We will 
address our proposal to list Bartram's stonecrop (Graptopetalum 
bartramii) as a threatened species with a rule issued under section 
4(d) of the Act in a separate, future Federal Register document. Please 
refer to that proposed rule for a detailed description of previous 
Federal actions concerning the beardless chinchweed that occurred prior 
to the proposal's publication.

Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule

    In preparing this final rule, we reviewed and fully considered 
comments from the public on our December 6, 2019, proposed rule 
regarding beardless chinchweed. We updated the beardless chinchweed SSA 
report (to version 2.0) based on comments and additional information 
provided during the comment period, and those updates are reflected in 
this final rule, as follows:
    (1) We included updated survey information provided to the Service 
including the 2019 Coronado National Memorial indicating an increase in 
the Visitor Center population, and other reports of additional 
occurrences received.
    (2) We included additional information regarding critical habitat 
designation along the United States/Mexico border and coordination with 
Customs and Border Protection.
    (3) We included additional information we received regarding the 
date of discovery of a population.
    (4) We made many small, nonsubstantive clarifications and 
corrections throughout the SSA report and this rule, including under 
Summary of Biological Status and Threats, in order to ensure better 
consistency, clarify some information, and update or add new 
references.
    However, the information we received during the comment period for 
the proposed rule did not change our determination that the beardless 
chinchweed is an endangered species.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    In our December 6, 2019, proposed rule (84 FR 67060), we requested 
that all interested parties submit written comments on the proposal by 
February 4, 2020. We also contacted appropriate Federal and State 
agencies, scientific experts and organizations, and other interested 
parties and invited them to comment on the proposed determination, 
proposed designation of critical habitat, and draft economic analysis. 
Newspaper notices inviting general public comment were published in the 
Arizona Daily Star on December 9, 2019, and the Sierra Vista Herald on 
December 13, 2019. We did not receive any requests for a public 
hearing. All substantive information provided during the comment period 
either has been incorporated directly into the final rule or is 
addressed below.
Peer Reviewer Comments
    In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the 
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and our August 22, 
2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of peer review of 
listing actions under the Act, we sought the expert opinions of four 
appropriate specialists regarding the SSA report. We received responses 
from two specialists, which informed the SSA report and this final 
rule. The purpose of peer review is to ensure that our listing 
determinations and critical habitat designations are based on 
scientifically sound data, conclusions, and analyses. The peer 
reviewers have expertise in the biology of, habitat of, and threats to 
the species.
    We reviewed all comments we received from the peer reviewers for 
substantive issues and new information regarding the beardless 
chinchweed and its critical habitat. The peer reviewers generally 
concurred with our methods and conclusions, and provided additional 
information, clarifications, and suggestions to improve the SSA report 
and final rule. Peer reviewer comments are incorporated into the SSA 
report and this final rule as appropriate.
Public Comments
    We received 17 public comments in response to the proposed rule. We 
reviewed all comments we received during the public comment period for 
substantive issues and new information regarding the proposed rule. 
Nine comments provided substantive comments or new information 
concerning the proposed listing and designation of critical habitat for 
the beardless chinchweed. Below, we provide a summary of public 
comments we received; however, comments that we incorporated as changes 
into the final rule, comments outside the scope of the proposed rule, 
and those without supporting information did not warrant an explicit 
response and, thus, are not presented here. Identical or similar 
comments have been consolidated and a single response provided.
    (1) Comment: A commenter claimed that we did not notify the public 
of the imminent listing of the beardless chinchweed and the public 
needs more time to respond.
    Response: On August 8, 2012, we announced our 90-day finding that a 
petition to list beardless chinchweed as endangered or threatened under 
the Act presented substantial information indicating that listing of 
the species may be warranted (77 FR 47352). At that time, we requested 
data and information from the public regarding the species to inform 
our status review and determination if listing is warranted. In 
response to publication of the 90-day finding, increased interest in 
beardless chinchweed and its status led to additional surveys and 
research beginning in 2013. On October 23, 2017, we sent a letter to 
interested parties, landowners, and Tribes indicating that a species 
status assessment would be conducted for beardless chinchweed to inform 
our listing determination, and we again requested scientific and 
commercial data or other information on the species.
    In addition, the species has been included on our National Listing 
Workplan, which is publicly available on our website, since 2016. We 
updated the workplan in May 2019 and listed the 12-month finding for 
beardless chinchweed as a FY 2018 carryover action. The court-ordered 
settlement agreement of October 11, 2019, that stipulates delivery of a 
12-month finding to the Federal Register by November 29, 2019, is also 
publicly available.
    Finally, the December 6, 2019, proposed rule (84 FR 67060) opened a 
60-day public comment period on the proposed listing and critical 
habitat designation for the beardless chinchweed.
    As such, we complied with all requirements of the Act and conclude 
that the public was afforded adequate notice of the proposed listing of 
the beardless chinchweed.
    (2) Comment: Three commenters stated that relying on the 
conservation biology concepts of resiliency, redundancy, and 
representation to make the proposed listing determination is improper 
as they are not found in the

[[Page 31832]]

Act or the Service's implementing regulations and their meanings are 
uncertain, creating confusion if criteria for listing are being 
followed.
    Response: The SSA framework is an analytical approach developed by 
the Service to deliver foundational science for informing decisions 
under the Act (Smith et al. 2018, entire). The SSA characterizes 
species viability (defined as the ability to sustain populations in the 
wild over time) based on the best scientific understanding of current 
and future abundance and distribution within the species' ecological 
settings using the conservation biology principles of resiliency, 
redundancy, and representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 308-311). 
To sustain populations over time, a species must have the capacity to 
withstand: (1) Environmental and demographic stochasticity and 
disturbances (resiliency), (2) catastrophes (redundancy), and (3) novel 
changes in its biological and physical environment (representation). A 
species with a high degree of resiliency, representation, and 
redundancy is better able to adapt to novel changes and to tolerate 
environmental stochasticity and catastrophes. In general, species 
viability will increase and the risk of extinction will decrease with 
increases in resiliency, redundancy, and representation (Smith et al. 
2018, p. 306). The SSA provides decision-makers with a scientifically 
rigorous characterization of a species' status and the likelihood that 
the species will sustain populations over time, along with key 
uncertainties in that characterization. The beardless chinchweed SSA 
provides the best available scientific information to guide a 
determination of whether or not the beardless chinchweed is in danger 
of extinction now or in the foreseeable future.
    Notwithstanding our use of resiliency, redundancy, and 
representation as scientific concepts helpful in assessing and 
describing a species' viability and extinction risk, we adhere to all 
requirements of the Act in making our listing determinations. This 
includes applying the Act's definitions of an endangered species and a 
threatened species, as well as an assessment of the 5 listing factors 
(see Regulatory Framework, below).
    (3) Comment: A commenter noted that, in general, attempts to locate 
beardless chinchweed since 1983 have been uncommon and that more 
surveys are needed before a listing decision is made. The commenter 
suggested that more surveys for beardless chinchweed would result in 
occurrences discovered, as beardless chinchweed is often difficult to 
detect.
    Response: As required by the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(1)), we based 
the listing decision on the best available scientific and commercial 
information. We have worked in partnership with numerous agencies and 
organizations to visit most of the known U.S. locations of beardless 
chinchweed at least once (with some long-term monitoring initiated), as 
well as a portion of the Mexico populations. Although information from 
1983-2010 is limited, we used the best available information regarding 
the status of the species to assess the species' current and future 
conditions. The U.S. Forest Service (USFS), National Park Service 
(NPS), Service, industry surveyors, and other researchers gathering 
information on beardless chinchweed have increased survey efforts since 
2010 in suitable habitat in Arizona and Mexico. At a minimum, recent 
surveys and research on beardless chinchweed have occurred each year 
from 2010 to 2017, in 2019, and in 2020. Despite the difficulty of 
detecting beardless chinchweed, trained botanists are conducting 
surveys during the bloom period, enhancing the probability of 
detection.
    (4) Comment: A commenter stated that the available data are 
insufficient to show a true decline in the species and that no 
statistically valid historical population data and minimal recent data 
were used in the analysis; therefore, there is no credible scientific 
way to compare beardless chinchweed population health over time.
    Response: When making a listing decision for a species, the Service 
must determine if the best available information indicates that a 
species is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range (an endangered species) or likely to become an 
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range (a threatened species). Although 
species petitioned for listing or under assessment by the Service often 
show a decline in population abundance or distribution, such a decline 
is not required for the determination of endangered or threatened 
status for the species.
    The best available information for beardless chinchweed indicates 
21 separate historical populations across the range of the species. Of 
these, nine populations have been extirpated, and six populations are 
extant in southern Arizona. Of the remaining populations in southern 
Arizona, several populations with historical counts are now reduced in 
number. For example, 89 individuals occurred along Ruby Road in 1985, 
and after four separate surveys, 10 individuals were found along this 
road in 2015. Similarly, the Scotia Canyon population contained 122 
individuals in 1993, 35 in 2017, and 40 in 2020. Other populations 
could not be relocated at all, despite numerous species-specific 
surveys, and they are presumed extirpated. The condition of six 
additional populations in Mexico is unknown, but we have concluded the 
populations in Mexico are extant for the purposes of our analyses. 
Because of the current low numbers of the species, its limited 
distribution, and the past, current, and ongoing threats to its 
existence, we determine that the species is in danger of extinction.
    (5) Comment: A commenter claimed the Service suppresses location 
information to bolster the appearance of larger than actual numbers of 
extirpations and predicts additional populations occur on the west 
flank of the Huachuca Mountains. The commenter also identified Coronado 
Cave Trail, Joe's Canyon Trail, and an area west of the State of Texas 
Mine populations as extant patches. The commenter noted observations of 
beardless chinchweed in Box Canyon (Westland Resources 2010) and near 
Washington Camp by NPS in 2015 and recommended we describe the two 
populations as extant.
    Response: The Service has incorporated the best available 
information regarding beardless chinchweed distribution and abundance, 
including all historical and current populations. Explicit and precise 
location information is not included in the SSA in order to reduce or 
avoid potential risk to the species from plant collection or trampling 
due to additional foot traffic. The examples mentioned (Coronado Cave 
Trail, Joe's Canyon Trail, State of Texas Mine, Washington Camp, and 
Box Canyon Road) are addressed in the SSA and December 6, 2019, 
proposed rule (84 FR 67060), and the number of extirpated populations 
remains the same. We have incorporated the additional occurrence 
information for Joe's Canyon Trail, State of Texas Mine, and Washington 
Camp into the SSA report. The occurrence information for the Coronado 
Cave Trail was included in two other reports cited in the SSA (Westland 
2016, p. 4; Sebesta per. comm. 2017).
    The Joe's Canyon Trail subpopulation was noted in 1992 but was not 
observed on three surveys since 2014 (USFWS 2014a, p. 4; Westland 2016, 
p.4). The commenter notes he observed 30 vigorous plants (at least 53 
individuals) at the site in 2012. However, there is no

[[Page 31833]]

official report, note, photograph, or herbarium documentation of this 
2012 sighting. Based on the species' lack of occurrence during three 
surveys since 2014, we continue to categorize the Joe's Canyon Trail 
subpopulation as extirpated. We note the Joe's Canyon area is included 
in the critical habitat designation and look forward to conservation 
efforts and additional surveys of the site.
    The commenter notes he has information regarding a 2015 beardless 
chinchweed observation by NPS staff near the Washington Camp 
population. We are aware of, and include in the SSA, a notification of 
beardless chinchweed possibly being located in 2014 along a road near 
the historical location of the Washington Camp population (Buckley 
2020, pers. comm.). However, there is no written report, communication 
to a natural resource agency or database, field notes, photograph, or 
herbarium documentation of the possible 2015 sighting referenced by the 
commenter. Other surveys at the Washington Camp site in the Patagonia 
Mountains were unsuccessful in locating beardless chinchweed (Service 
2014a, pp. 1-2; Haskins and Murray 2017, pp. 2-3). Therefore, the 
additional information does not alter our conclusion, that the 
Washington Camp population is extirpated.
    We have visited the Box Canyon site on numerous occasions, and no 
beardless chinchweed plants have been relocated. The Westland 2010 Box 
Canyon survey report noted in the comment refers to 20 individuals of 
another species, Graptopetalum bartramii (Bartram's stonecrop), but 
does not note beardless chinchweed occurrence. A 2012 report by 
Westland notes that in 49 person-days of survey for beardless 
chinchweed in suitable habitat, no plants were located except within 
the McCleary Canyon area.
    (6) Comment: A commenter claimed the granite substrate is 
incorrectly identified habitat for beardless chinchweed but additional 
substrates, such as mudstones and rhyolite, likely play a role in the 
species' habitat. The commenter predicted there might be more beardless 
chinchweed on the west flank of the Huachuca Mountains.
    Response: Beardless chinchweed's known occurrences have been found 
on sunny to partly shaded southern exposures, on eroding limestone or 
granite soils and rock outcrops. The NPS is currently working on a 
beardless chinchweed and associated geology map, including additional 
substrates of mudstones and rhyolite. We expect this map, and the 
commenter's observations, will be very useful in determining where to 
conduct future surveys. Between 1990 and 1994, Bowers and McLaughlin 
took 41 botanical trips into the Huachuca Mountains, including the west 
flank, adding to the long history of botanical collection there (Bowers 
and McLaughlin 1996, p. 70). Beardless chinchweed has not been reported 
from this area at any time historically.
    (7) Comment: A commenter mentioned that the assumptions regarding 
the beardless chinchweed's population size and habitat degradation in 
Mexico might be inaccurate as the areas are remote and relatively 
undisturbed.
    Response: We relied on the best available data regarding population 
size and habitat conditions in Mexico. The last report of beardless 
chinchweed in Mexico was from 1940. There are numerous botanical 
collection trips in Mexico annually, and no beardless chinchweed 
occurrences have been reported. We sent inquiries regarding this 
species to 11 researchers familiar with the flora of Chihuahua and 
Sonora in 2017 and received no information on the status of the species 
in Mexico. Surveys in the 1990s and in 2017 and 2018 at historical and 
potential beardless chinchweed locations in Sonora, Mexico, revealed no 
beardless chinchweed. The lack of beardless chinchweed in Sonora may be 
associated with severe overgrazing (Sanchez-Escalante 2019, p. 17).
    Five of the six populations in Arizona contain fewer than 50 
individuals. Therefore, we concluded that the populations in Mexico, if 
extant, contain fewer than 50 individuals. In Mexico, rapid expansion 
of nonnative, invasive plant species and degradation of native plant 
communities have potential to invade large areas of northern Mexico, 
including beardless chinchweed sites. We made these conclusions based 
on the best available science and welcome additional information to 
inform future Service actions regarding the beardless chinchweed.
    (8) Comment: A commenter stated that much is unknown about 
beardless chinchweed and near-future additional surveys in Arizona and 
Mexico are required to ensure the need for listing and possible 
resultant economic loss.
    Response: We are required by the Act to make our determination 
solely on the basis of the best commercial and scientific information 
available at the time, but we do conduct an economic analysis of the 
impacts of critical habitat designation. The screening memo outlining 
the results of that analysis is available as a supporting document (IEc 
2018, entire). We used the best available information on the range of 
beardless chinchweed in the SSA report, the December 6, 2019, proposed 
rule (84 FR 67060), and this final rule. Species-specific surveys have 
been conducted in the mountain ranges in the U.S. portion of the 
beardless chinchweed's range. We conclude it is unlikely that large 
populations remain unaccounted for therein. If we receive new 
information in the future as a result of additional surveys, we will 
analyze such information in the course of developing a recovery plan 
for the species or in 5-year reviews of its status. If we determine 
that the new information indicates that the species no longer meets the 
definition of an endangered species, we will promptly begin rulemaking 
to assign the correct status.
    (9) Comment: A commenter noted that hundreds of plants and animals 
are at the northern fringe of their range in southern Arizona and are 
common and safe in Mexico.
    Response: Historical distributions of beardless chinchweed are 
focused in southern Arizona, with some disjunct populations in northern 
Mexico. There have been surveys for this species in Mexico, and 
numerous biologists from Mexico have been consulted regarding its 
presence in the country. Habitat has been altered extensively in 
Mexico, and no populations of the beardless chinchweed have been 
located there; therefore, we do not find the species to be common or 
safe in Mexico.
    (10) Comment: A commenter claimed that surveys by Sanchez-Escalante 
in Mexico were rushed and occurred in the wrong habitat and at the 
wrong time of year.
    Response: The researcher Sanchez-Escalante spent 35 days exploring 
55 sites in Sonora and Chihuahua and covered 6,900 kilometers with a 
team of trained botanists with the specific aim of locating populations 
of six identified rare plant species in appropriate habitats. No 
beardless chinchweed plants were located in 10 separate suitable 
habitats searched, including all historical locations in Sonora. These 
surveys were conducted during the flowering season in late September 
when the plants are most visible. Therefore, we conclude the Sanchez-
Escalante surveys were conducted using appropriate methods. Thus, we 
base our current understanding of the beardless chinchweed occurrences 
in Sonora and Chihuahua on the best available scientific information.
    (11) Comment: A commenter mentioned regular visitation is necessary 
to attain information on bloom period, seed production,

[[Page 31834]]

reproduction method, pollinators, precipitation and growth 
relationships, and genetic diversity.
    Response: We are aware of limited information regarding the life 
history and species characteristics the commenter mentioned. We are 
supporting current research into the pollination, breeding systems, 
demographics, responses to fire and nonnative grass removal and we are 
in regular contact with the researchers working with beardless 
chinchweed. Further studies will inform conservation and recovery 
efforts for the species.
    (12) Comment: A commenter indicated that beardless chinchweed 
colonization of unoccupied habitat patches from known subpopulations 
has been documented repeatedly since 1993. The commenter opined that 
population losses are caused by metapopulation dynamics, and the 
species readily occupies newly disturbed habitat.
    Response: The beardless chinchweed has been located in plains, 
great basin, semi-desert grasslands, oak savanna, and Madrean evergreen 
woodland, and along disturbed roads, trails, and mining sites within 
these vegetation communities. Beardless chinchweed groups occurring in 
these habitats have collectively been counted as single subpopulations 
or populations since their discoveries, and fluctuations of the number 
of individuals found have been noted. We have no information on the 
detection of colonization of unoccupied habitat; we welcome these data 
from the commenter to inform subsequent Service actions.
    (13) Comment: A commenter claimed the Service lacks basic knowledge 
about the biology and habitat requirements of the beardless chinchweed 
and is not following the mandate to base listing decisions on the best 
scientific and commercial data available.
    Response: We based this final listing determination on the best 
available scientific and commercial information, and the commenter did 
not provide any new information for us to consider. The best available 
information on beardless chinchweed habitat indicates the species does 
best on eroding soils in native-dominated grasslands. Additional 
beardless chinchweed biology and habitat research is ongoing, and 
results will inform future Service actions. In assessing the viability 
of the beardless chinchweed, the best available scientific and 
commercial data provide information about some aspects of species' 
biology and habitat requirements, but may not represent a full and 
complete knowledge of the species. We drew reasonable conclusions about 
other aspects of the species' biology and requirements based on similar 
species, similar habitats, and best available information.
    (14) Comment: A commenter stated that the Service provides a 
misleading discussion of the current status of the beardless chinchweed 
and fails to recognize its life history as a disturbance-dependent and 
extremely difficult species to detect.
    Response: As described in the SSA report, beardless chinchweeed is, 
and has historically been, found in open, native-dominated desert 
grasslands, oak savannas, and oak woodlands. This species is also often 
associated with active disturbances from frequent, low severity 
wildfire; grazing and browsing of native animals during seed 
production; and natural erosion of unstable substrates, thus reducing 
competition. Many historical locations are now dominated by nonnative 
grasses, have an altered wildfire regime, and no longer support the 
species. Native-dominated habitats have diverse assemblages of 
vegetation, each with a different-shaped and -sized canopy and root 
system, which creates heterogeneity of form, height, and patchiness, 
and provides openness. This is in contrast to nonnative-dominated 
habitats, which are unnaturally dense, are evenly spaced, and have an 
even understory height; burn with regularity; and contain species that 
compete with beardless chinchweed for space, water, light, and 
nutrients. The documented invasion of nonnative grasses throughout most 
of the beardless chinchweed's range has greatly increased competition 
and altered fire regimes in these areas. Historical populations 
currently with nonnative grass dominance no longer support beardless 
chinchweed due to this alteration of habitat. There are currently no 
extant populations of beardless chinchweed without at least some level 
of nonnative grass invasion. We acknowledge that the species is 
difficult to detect. Despite the difficulty of detection, trained 
botanists are conducting surveys during the bloom period, enhancing the 
probability of detection.
    (15) Comment: A commenter claimed the Service did not do due 
diligence to list threats or make determinations but used the 
petitioner's list of threats. The commenter also suggested the 
Service's analysis of stressors is speculative and not based on hard 
data.
    Response: The Service's determination to list the species is based 
on a thorough review of the best available scientific and commercial 
information and was subject to appropriate peer review. The petition 
identifies livestock grazing as the primary threat to the beardless 
chinchweed. Our analysis determined nonnative invasion and high-
severity fire are the primary threats to the species, with livestock 
disturbance potentially benefitting the plants at certain times of the 
year and potentially harming it at other times (summer and fall). We 
used the best available scientific and commercial information in our 
analyses.
    (16) Comment: Three commenters claimed the Service's assumption 
that nonnative grasses decrease habitat suitability and alter the fire 
regime is not supported by the data and the method of assessment for 
the effect of competition with nonnative grasses is unclear. The 
species persists in nonnative grasslands and has positive population 
growth following the Monument Fire.
    Response: Beardless chinchweed typically occurs on steep, south-
facing, sunny to partially shaded hillslopes, with eroding bedrock and 
open areas with little competition from other plants. Since 2012, many 
surveys of historically documented beardless chinchweed population 
areas detected no beardless chinchweed plants. The change in habitat in 
these areas, with drastic increases in nonnative, invasive grasses that 
provide limited bare soil needed by beardless chinchweed, indicates 
that the areas are no longer suitable habitat for this species. Even in 
areas that support the beardless chinchweed, such as at Coronado 
National Memorial, biologists report that the beardless chinchweed has 
not been found in any location dominated by nonnative grasses. In all 
but a small number of historical populations, nonnative grasses have 
increased to an extent that they exclude most native species, including 
beardless chinchweed. Numerous surveys and studies indicate that the 
beardless chinchweed does not occur in sites heavily impacted by 
nonnative plants. Surveys for the beardless chinchweed note habitat 
conditions, including the extent of nonnative grasses.
    Historical frequent, low-severity fires in southern Arizona 
grasslands have been replaced with more frequent and more severe fires 
due, in part, to the invasion of nonnative plants. Beardless chinchweed 
grassland habitats have been altered to include nonnative grasses and 
hotter fires. The area where the beardless chinchweed occurs at 
Coronado National Memorial experienced low to moderate severity fire in 
the Monument Fire in 2011, and in 2019, low severity prescription fire

[[Page 31835]]

was used as a tool to benefit the beardless chinchweed (BAER 2017, 
entire; Fitting 2020, pers. comm).
    We assessed the effects of competition with nonnative grasses based 
on habitat conditions reported in surveys of beardless chinchweed 
populations. The extent of nonnative grasses in the area is negatively 
associated with beardless chinchweed occurrence. Beardless chinchweed 
occurs in areas with little natural competition and nonnative grasses 
are strong competitors for required resources of sunlight, water, and 
space. Several instances have been reported where surveys of more 
densely vegetated habitat resulted in no beardless chinchweed found, 
supporting this species' requirement for little competition (USFWS 
2014a, p. 4; USFWS 2014b, p. 1; USFWS 2014c, p. 4; USFWS 2014d, p. 2; 
Haskins and Murray 2017, p. 2). In addition, beardless chinchweed has 
not been found in any location dominated by nonnative grasses on 
National Park Service lands (National Park Service 2014, p. 4; Janway 
2017, pers. comm.).
    (17) Comment: A commenter indicated that managed livestock and wild 
ungulate grazing are proven to reduce fuels for fires and requested all 
language relating to domestic livestock threatening beardless 
chinchweed be removed from the SSA report and the rule.
    Response: Livestock grazing is not noted in the SSA report or the 
rule as a major threat to the beardless chinchweed. While grazing is 
not a major threat to the species, the activity does act as a stressor 
to the beardless chinchweed in some circumstances, and the effect of 
grazing is analyzed in the SSA report.
    Wild ungulate grazing is noted in beardless chinchweed populations. 
Coues white tail deer (Odocoileus virginianus ssp. couesi) and javelina 
(Pecari tajacu) were observed in the vicinity of browsed beardless 
chinchweed plants (USFWS 2015, pp. 1-2). In a 2019 study, researchers 
reported 75 percent of 785 individuals studied in the population at 
Coronado National Memorial showed signs of deer browse (Souther, 2020, 
p. 1). The loss of flowers in any year equates to a loss of seed 
production and seed bank storage, and reduction in genetic diversity.
    Livestock grazing is expected to have a similar impact. Beardless 
chinchweed does not flower until it reaches a height of over 1.6 ft 
tall. Without time and resources to regrow, browsed plants may be 
unable to attain adequate size for reproduction and are susceptible to 
impacts from grazing (Phillips et al. 1982, p. 8; Falk and Warren 1994, 
p. 157). Grazing pressure may have contributed to species' rareness due 
to reduced reproduction and alteration in habitat (Keil 1982, pers. 
comm.). Overgrazing is considered a stronger influence on beardless 
chinchweed habitat in Mexico (Fishbein and Warren 1984, p. 20; Sanchez-
Escalante 2019, p. 17).
    The beardless chinchweed SSA report concludes that grazing in 
winter or spring when the plant is dormant would increase disturbance 
and open habitat needed by the beardless chinchweed, while grazing in 
summer or fall when the plant is growing and flowering could damage 
plants or reduce seed production.
    (18) Comment: A commenter recommended using past climate data at a 
local level rather than modelling projections when discussing climate 
as a threat.
    Response: In the beardless chinchweed SSA report, figure 4.8a-c 
shows both the past and projected mean daily maximum temperatures in 
Cochise, Pima, and Santa Cruz Counties, Arizona. The data for past mean 
daily maximum temperatures also indicate increases in temperature in 
all three counties. Modeling projections based on the Intergovernmental 
Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment report (IPCC 2014, entire) and 
future climate projections from the National Climate Explorer Tool 
(USGS 2017a, entire) downscaled to county level were used to discuss 
climate change and the effects of current and future changes on 
beardless chinchweed. Section 4.2 of the SSA (USFWS 2020, pp. 29-42) 
describes these modelling projections in greater detail.
    (19) Comment: A commenter noted the degree of disturbance that is 
harmful versus helpful to the beardless chinchweed needs to be 
determined through research.
    Response: Additional research into the amounts and types of 
disturbance compatible with the beardless chinchweed would assist with 
further actions related to the species. Three extant populations occur 
along roadcuts, and another occurs along a maintained trail. Routine 
vegetation maintenance along the roads and trails reduces competition 
from other plants for sunlight and nutrients. However, roadside 
maintenance could also damage or remove plants. In addition, nonnative 
plant introduction and spread often occur in areas of disturbance, such 
as along roadways, along trails, in mining sites, and in areas of 
recreational use (Gelbard and Belnap 2003, p. 421; Brooks 2007, pp. 
153-154; Anderson et al. 2015, p. 1). Nonnative grasses compete with 
beardless chinchweed for space, water, light, and nutrients, and alter 
wildfire regimes. Many of these historical locations no longer support 
the beardless chinchweed due to alteration of habitat by nonnative 
grasses (NPS 2014, pp. 3-4; Service 2014a, pp. 1-2; Service 2014b, 
entire; Service 2014c, pp. 1-2). Therefore, for the purposes of our 
analysis, we conclude that the presence of nonnatives following a 
disturbance is not helpful to the beardless chinchweed.
    (20) Comment: A commenter stated that demographic and environmental 
stochasticity are naturally occurring phenomena for which beardless 
chinchweed plants are very well-adapted.
    Response: Demographic and environmental stochasticity are naturally 
occurring phenomena (Shaffer 1981, p. 131). However, beardless 
chinchweed populations adapted to naturally occurring phenomena now 
experience the additional stressors of nonnative grass (competition and 
altered fire regime) and the effects of a changing climate beyond the 
scope of normal occurrence. For example, effects due to a changing 
climate, coupled with other stressors, can have a cumulative impact 
resulting in greater than anticipated decline in rare species (Souther 
and McGraw 2014, pp. 1471-1472). In addition, populations that 
experience variability in abundance must maintain a minimum viable 
population to be able to repopulate after a demographic or 
environmental stochastic event or catastrophe (Holsinger and Falk 1991, 
p. 45). Rangewide (including Mexico), 11 of the 12 beardless chinchweed 
populations (83 percent) are small (fewer than 50 individuals). When 
the effect of small population size exacerbates other stressors beyond 
those naturally occurring phenomena that beardless chinchweed has 
adapted to, population abundance may be reduced to the extent that 
repopulation does not occur.
    (21) Comment: A commenter stated disturbance (including high 
intensity grazing, post-wildfire runoff, trail and road maintenance, 
and mining activities) are not threats to the beardless chinchweed. In 
addition, one commenter stated that road graders will be banned, yet 
they create habitat for the species.
    Response: The beardless chinchweed likely requires low to moderate 
intensity disturbance to maintain open habitat. This disturbance 
includes localized natural erosion of unstable substrates following 
precipitation events. Grazing could impact beardless chinchweed in

[[Page 31836]]

small populations with fewer than 50 individuals as flowers removed 
equate to reduction in genetic diversity and seed production. Many 
beardless chinchweed plants are precarious in their steep, sunny, 
erodible habitat, and heavy post-fire flooding and erosion could easily 
remove or bury plants. The beardless chinchweed is a species negatively 
affected by competition from other plants, particularly nonnative 
grasses. Activities that remove soils, increase nonnative plant spread, 
or reduce habitat for the beardless chinchweed negatively affect the 
species. Further, under this rule, the use of road graders will not be 
banned. The use of road graders in activities conducted, funded, 
permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies and the consequent effects 
to the beardless chinchweed would be evaluated in a section 7 
consultation to ensure that their use is compatible with beardless 
chinchweed conservation.
    (22) Comment: Three commenters indicated that the Service's 
conclusion that small and isolated populations make recolonization of 
extirpated beardless chinchweed populations unlikely is unsupported.
    Response: The current distribution of beardless chinchweed consists 
of populations widely separated on the landscape, and the plant's seeds 
are not expected to travel long distances as typical of desert plants 
in a specialized environment (Van Oudtshoorn and Van Rooyen 2013, p.2). 
In addition, much of the grassland habitat surrounding known 
populations has been altered by nonnative plant invasion and no longer 
supports beardless chinchweed (National Park Service 2014, pp. 3-4; 
USFWS 2014b, pp. 1-2; USFWS 2014c, entire; USFWS 2014d, pp. 1-2). 
Throughout the range of the species, beardless chinchweed populations 
are naturally fragmented between mountain ranges that are many miles 
away from other mountain ranges, so natural re-establishment is 
unlikely.
    (23) Comment: Three commenters were concerned that critical habitat 
units will be closed off to grazing and livestock will be removed 
during the growing season on occupied allotments, which may have 
significant impacts on cattle ranchers, or that the designation of 
critical habitat will force the U.S. Forest Service to build cattle 
exclosures. These allotments are dominated by nonnative species with 
the exception of where the beardless chinchweed occurs. One commenter 
recommended site-specific analysis to determine the level of management 
considerations needed.
    Response: The largest population of beardless chinchweed occurs on 
NPS lands and is not grazed by cattle. The USFS currently implements 
site-specific management for the extant beardless chinchweed sites, and 
we anticipate they will continue to do so in the future. Of 8 beardless 
chinchweed populations on USFS lands or portions of USFS lands, 4 
populations currently experience some level of grazing. Two populations 
occur in areas grazed only during March, which is outside of the 
growing season for the beardless chinchweed (Heitholt 2017a, pers. 
comm.). Another population is on an allotment that is grazed by cattle 
in winter and spring, also outside of the flowering period for the 
beardless chinchweed (Heitholt 2017b, pers. comm.). A fourth population 
is in a yearlong, deferred rest rotational grazing regime, meaning any 
growing season use is mitigated with growing season rest the following 
year; in general, this area receives less than 25 percent utilization 
due to topography and distance from water (Heitholt 2018, pers. comm.). 
Cattle have not grazed another population that occurs partially on USFS 
lands since 1968 (Wilcox 2017, pers. comm.).
    The overlap of grazing allotments with critical habitat units is 
fairly limited. Within occupied units, two allotments overlap with 
critical habitat by less than 5 percent of the allotments' land area 
(IEc 2018, p. 15). Within unoccupied units, one allotment overlaps 
critical habitat by approximately 7 percent and two allotments overlap 
by less than 3 percent of the allotments' land area (IEc 2018, p. 15). 
The USFS will conduct section 7 consultation on the effects of grazing 
to the beardless chinchweed and designated critical habitat following 
the listing of the species (see DATES, above). Any site-specific 
adjustments to grazing on allotments will be considered in the 
consultation process.
    (24) Comment: A commenter claimed the City of Sierra Vista, Fort 
Huachuca, and other affected parties were not consulted during the 
economic analysis process, which was performed too quickly.
    Response: For the economic analysis, we considered affected parties 
to be those that overlap with occurrences of, or are within immediate 
proximity to, the species (e.g., USFS, NPS, Federal agencies conducting 
border patrol activities). The City of Sierra Vista and Fort Huachuca 
are more than 18 miles from any known population of the beardless 
chinchweed; therefore, we did not seek input from those parties.
    (25) Comment: A commenter requested the opportunity to verify that 
their economic analysis comments were incorporated into the final 
economic analysis.
    Response: During the open public comment period on the December 6, 
2019, proposed rule (84 FR 67060), we accepted comments on the draft 
economic analysis for the critical habitat designation for the 
beardless chinchweed. We considered comments we received on the draft 
economic analysis. To view the economic analysis, go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2018-0104.
    (26) Comment: A commenter noted that proposed critical habitat 
units 1, 2, 6, 7, and 8 were visited during the 2019-2020 winter and 
that the proposed essential physical and biological features were 
present within discrete areas within a matrix of high canopy cover 
grassland primarily dominated by nonnative grasses. They recommended a 
wording change to indicate special management only in areas where all 
essential physical and biological features co-occur, as not all of 
these areas include all proposed essential physical and biological 
features.
    Response: Not all critical habitat units contain all of the 
essential physical and biological features; in fact, it is unlikely 
that any beardless chinchweed populations are free of nonnative grasses 
entirely. The critical habitat units are focused largely on areas that 
are currently dominated by native species or have a mix of native and 
nonnative plants (USFS 2017). One goal to conserve the beardless 
chinchweed is to work toward the reduction of nonnative plants in 
critical habitat units. If only units with no nonnative species were 
designated as critical habitat, there would be insufficient habitat to 
conserve the species.
    (27) Comment: One commenter is concerned that nonnatives are too 
extensive to treat outside of small areas.
    Response: We understand the challenges of controlling nonnative 
plants and restoring native grasses to a site. We note that treatment 
of nonnatives near beardless chinchweed populations is an initial step 
in conserving the species.
    (28) Comment: Two commenters stated that we failed to properly 
identify and use the species' physical and biological features to 
designate critical habitat. Another commenter stated that the physical 
and biological features identified in the proposed rule for the 
beardless chinchweed are general in nature and do not distinguish 
proposed critical habitat units from vast areas of potential habitat, 
suggesting there are hundreds of thousands (or more) acres of potential 
habitat for the species.

[[Page 31837]]

    Response: The physical and biological features identified for the 
beardless chinchweed are based on the species' known biology, ecology, 
and habitat requirements. These include the habitat required to 
maintain pollinators, space for expansion and colonization of beardless 
chinchweed populations, and the need of the species to have open spaces 
without excessive nonnative grass competition. In unoccupied critical 
habitat units, not all physical and biological features may be present, 
but these areas are essential for the conservation of the beardless 
chinchweed. Southern Arizona grasslands, oak savannas, and evergreen 
woodlands have been invaded by nonnative plant species to an extensive 
degree, rendering much of the potential habitat less suitable.

I. Final Listing Determination

Background

    Please refer to the December 6, 2019, proposed rule to list and 
designate critical habitat for the beardless chinchweed (84 FR 67060) 
and the SSA report for a full summary of species information. Both are 
available on our Southwest Region website at https://www.fws.gov/southwest/ and at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R2-
ES-2018-0104.

Regulatory and Analytical Framework

Regulatory Framework
    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing 
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining 
whether a species is an ``endangered species'' or a ``threatened 
species.'' The Act defines an endangered species as a species that is 
``in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of 
its range,'' and a threatened species as a species that is ``likely to 
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range.'' The Act requires that we 
determine whether any species is an ``endangered species'' or a 
``threatened species'' because of any of the following factors:
    (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range;
    (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes;
    (C) Disease or predation;
    (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
    (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence.
    These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused 
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued 
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for 
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as 
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative 
effects or may have positive effects.
    We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or 
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively 
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions 
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct 
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration 
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat'' 
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action 
or condition or the action or condition itself.
    However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not 
necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an 
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' In determining 
whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all 
identified threats by considering the expected response by the species, 
and the effects of the threats--in light of those actions and 
conditions that will ameliorate the threats--on an individual, 
population, and species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected 
effects on the species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of 
the threats on the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative 
effect of the threats in light of those actions and conditions that 
will have positive effects on the species, such as any existing 
regulatory mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines 
whether the species meets the definition of an ``endangered species'' 
or a ``threatened species'' only after conducting this cumulative 
analysis and describing the expected effect on the species now and in 
the foreseeable future.
Analytical Framework
    The SSA report documents the results of our comprehensive 
biological status review for the species, including an assessment of 
the potential threats to the species. The SSA report does not represent 
a decision by the Service on whether the species should be listed as an 
endangered or threatened species under the Act. It does, however, 
provide the scientific basis that informs our regulatory decisions, 
which involve the further application of standards within the Act and 
its implementing regulations and policies. The following is a summary 
of the key results and conclusions from the SSA report; the full SSA 
report can be found at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2018-0104 on http://www.regulations.gov and at https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Docs_Species.htm.
    To assess beardless chinchweed's viability, we used the three 
conservation biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and 
representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). Briefly, 
resiliency supports the ability of the species to withstand 
environmental and demographic stochasticity (for example, wet or dry, 
warm or cold years), redundancy supports the ability of the species to 
withstand catastrophic events (for example, droughts, large pollution 
events), and representation supports the ability of the species to 
adapt over time to long-term changes in the environment (for example, 
climate changes). In general, the more resilient and redundant a 
species is and the more representation it has, the more likely it is to 
sustain populations over time, even under changing environmental 
conditions. Using these principles, we identified the species' 
ecological requirements for survival and reproduction at the 
individual, population, and species levels, and described the 
beneficial and risk factors influencing the species' viability.
    The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages. 
During the first stage, we evaluated the individual species' life-
history needs. The next stage involved an assessment of the historical 
and current condition of the species' demographics and habitat 
characteristics, including an explanation of how the species arrived at 
its current condition. The final stage of the SSA involved making 
predictions about the species' responses to positive and negative 
environmental and anthropogenic influences. This process used the best 
available information to characterize viability as the ability of a 
species to sustain populations in the wild over time. We use this 
information to inform our regulatory decision.

Summary of Biological Status and Threats

    In this discussion, we review the biological condition of the 
species and its resources, and the threats that influence the species' 
current and future condition, in order to assess the species' overall 
viability and the risks to that viability.
    The beardless chinchweed is an erect, many-branched perennial of 
the Asteraceae (sunflower) family. It occurs on sunny, south-facing 
slopes in native-dominated grasslands, oak savannas,

[[Page 31838]]

and oak woodlands in southern Arizona and northern Mexico. The species 
is particularly susceptible to competition from other plants and is 
impacted by nonnative, invasive grasses, which outcompete this species 
for light, water, nutrients, and space, and exacerbate unnatural high-
severity fires. Nine populations have been extirpated since 1962, 
leaving 12 extant populations in Arizona and Mexico. The extirpated 
sites have high levels of invasion by nonnative grasses. Most 
populations are very small, with 92 percent of populations throughout 
the range of the species supporting fewer than 50 individuals. These 
small populations are particularly vulnerable to extirpation.
    The beardless chinchweed occurs between elevations of 3,799 to 
5,699 ft. It requires steep, south-facing, sunny to partially shaded 
hillslopes with open areas and little competition from other plants. To 
maintain species' viability, populations with multiple subpopulations 
and overall high abundance must be distributed across the species range 
and represent a range of environmental conditions. These populations 
must experience recruitment that exceeds mortality. Beardless 
chinchweed requires habitat consisting of native-dominated plant 
communities on eroding limestone or granite bedrock substrate with 
precipitation adequate for germination, growth and reproduction. The 
native-dominated plant communities include plains, great basin, and 
semi-desert grasslands, oak savanna, or Madrean evergreen woodlands and 
communities dominated by bunchgrasses with open spacing and little 
competition from other plants. In addition, these communities must 
support sufficient beardless chinchweed pollinators (e.g., flies, bees, 
and butterflies) including plants for pollinator foraging and nesting 
within pollinator flight distance of beardless chinchweed populations.
    Several stressors influence whether beardless chinchweed 
populations will grow to maximize habitat occupancy, which increases 
the resiliency of a population to stochastic events. We evaluated the 
past, current, and future stressors (i.e., negative changes in the 
resources needed by beardless chinchweed) that influence the viability 
of the species. These stressors are described in detail in chapter 4 of 
the SSA report (Service 2020). Stressors that have the potential to 
affect beardless chinchweed population resiliency include:
     Loss of habitat due to invasion by nonnative species;
     Altered fire regime exacerbated by invasion by nonnative 
species;
     Altered precipitation, drought, and temperature;
     Erosion, sedimentation, and burial from road and trail 
maintenance, mining, livestock trampling and soil disturbance, and 
post-wildfire runoff;
     Grazing from wildlife and livestock; and
     Small population size exacerbating all other stressors.
    The largest risk to viability of the species is caused by the loss 
of habitat from the invasion of nonnative grasses that compete for 
space, water, light, and nutrients and that alter wildfire regimes. 
This combination of stressors has resulted in many populations having 
fewer than 50 individuals remaining, which puts them at risk of 
extirpation from the primary stressor as well as additional stressors 
that would not have been a concern under natural conditions. Much of 
the historical range of the beardless chinchweed in both the United 
States and Mexico has been altered by an invasion of nonnative grasses 
and herbaceous plants. Although there are many nonnative plant species 
growing in historical beardless chinchweed habitats in both the United 
States and Mexico, two species in particular are most problematic to 
the beardless chinchweed at this time: Lehmann's lovegrass (Eragrostis 
lehmanniana) and rose natal (Melinis repens). Both of these species are 
strong competitors on southern exposures where the beardless chinchweed 
occurs.
Habitat Loss Caused by Nonnative Grasses
    Lehmann's lovegrass, a nonnative grass from South Africa, has 
numerous competitive advantages over native grasses in southern 
Arizona. Lehmann's lovegrass resprouts from roots and tiller nodes not 
killed by hot fire, is unhampered by the reduction in mycorrhizae 
associated with fire and erosion, responds to winter precipitation when 
natives grasses are dormant, produces copious seed earlier than native 
grasses, maintains larger seed banks than native grasses, and has 
higher seedling survival and establishment than native grasses during 
periods of drought (Anable 1990, p. 49; Anable et al. 1992, p. 182; 
Robinett 1992, p. 101; Fernandez and Reynolds 2000, pp. 94-95; Crimmins 
and Comrie 2004, p. 464; Geiger and McPherson 2005, p. 896; Schussman 
et al. 2006, p. 589; O'Dea 2007, p. 149; Archer and Predick 2008, p. 
26; Mathias et al. 2013, entire). This species outcompetes native 
grasses for water, light, and nutrients, forming nonnative-dominated 
grasslands that reduce structural, species, and spatial diversity and 
that produce two to four times the biomass of native grasslands 
(D'Antonio and Vitousek 1992, p. 70; McPherson 1995, pp. 136-137; 
VanDevender et al. 1997, p. 4; Huang et al. 2009, pp. 903-904). This 
change in vegetation structure results in a higher fuel load that is 
long-lasting through slow decomposition and results in more frequent 
fires that have longer flames, faster rates of spread, and higher 
severity and frequency than historical low-intensity burns of native 
desert grasslands (Anable et al. 1992, p. 186; Dennet et al. 2000, pp. 
22-23; Williams and Baruch 2000, p. 128; Crimmins and Comrie 2004, p. 
464). In addition, Lehmann's lovegrass-dominated grasslands recover 
quickly from fire, as fires scarify the ample seeds and remove canopy, 
allowing for high seedling emergence (Cable 1965, p. 328; Anable 1990, 
p. 15; Roundy et al. 1992, p. 81; McPherson 1995, p. 137; Biedenbender 
and Roundy 1996, p. 160).
    Rose natal, a native of Africa and Madagascar, is invasive in many 
locations, including southern Arizona and northern Mexico (Stevens and 
Fehmi 2009, p. 379; Romo et al. 2012, p. 34). Similar to Lehmann's 
lovegrass, rose natal is capable of growing in low moisture situations 
and has many advantages to outcompete native grasses of southern 
Arizona, such as prolific seed production and culms that root from the 
nodes (Stokes et al. 2011, p. 527). This aggressive grass displaces 
native vegetation in shrublands and oak stands, and increases fire 
frequency (Romo et al. 2012, p. 35; Center for Agriculture and 
Biosciences International 2020, entire).
    In addition, several other invasive African grasses and an invasive 
Asian grass have been documented in southern Arizona and northern 
Mexico (Van Devender and Reina 2005, p. 160; NatureServe 2020, entire; 
Fire Effects Information System 2020, entire; SEINet, entire). Other 
nonnative grasses in Mexico show rapid expansion and degradation of 
native communities, with the potential to invade large areas of 
northern Mexico (Arriaga et al. 2004, p. 1504). No beardless chinchweed 
populations in the United States are more than 1 kilometer (km) (0.6 
mile (mi)), and no beardless chinchweed populations in Mexico are more 
than 27 km (16.8 mi), away from documented nonnative grasses (SEINet, 
entire; Heitholt 2017b, pers. comm.). Because we have documented 
nonnative infestations in the field in locations not shown in SEINet, 
we conclude only a small portion of nonnative plants are

[[Page 31839]]

reported into the SEINet system in either country. Based on the above 
information, it is unlikely any beardless chinchweed population is free 
of nonnative plants. This encroachment of nonnatives has reduced 
beardless chinchweed population numbers and habitat, and as nonnatives 
continue to encroach on beardless chinchweed populations, the number of 
individuals and available habitat will continue to decrease.
Altered Fire Regime
    The desert grasslands, oak savannas, and oak woodlands of southern 
Arizona historically had large-scale, low-severity fire roughly every 
10 to 20 years and following periods of adequate moisture (McPherson 
and Weltzin 2000, p. 5; Brooks and Pyke 2002, p. 6; McDonald and 
McPherson 2011, p. 385; Fryer and Leunsmann 2012, entire). This low-
severity disturbance likely benefited beardless chinchweed by 
maintaining open microhabitats and reducing competition. Fires are now 
more frequent and intense due to the unnaturally dense and evenly 
spaced canopies of nonnative-dominated communities (as compared to more 
open and heterogeneous native-dominated grasslands), coupled with more 
frequent fire starts from recreationists and cross-border violators 
(Anable et al. 1992, p. 186; D'Antonio and Vitousek 1992, p. 75; Dennet 
et al. 2000, pp. 22-23; Williams and Baruch 2000, p. 128; Crimmins and 
Comrie 2004, p. 464; Emerson 2010, pp. 15, 17; United States Government 
Accountability Office 2011, p. 1; Wildland Fire Lessons Learned Center 
2011, entire). Nonnative grasses have higher seed output and large seed 
banks, earlier green-up in the spring, and greater biomass production 
than native grasses; all of these characteristics help to perpetuate a 
grass-fire cycle (D'Antonio and Vitousek 1992, p. 73; Zouhar et al. 
2008, pp. 17, 21; Steidl et al. 2013, p. 529).
    In many locations in southern Arizona in recent decades, repeat 
fires have occurred within short periods of time, aided by the 
dominance of nonnative grasses in the landscape. For example, in the 
Pajarito and Atascosa Mountains area, multiple fires burned the 
landscape between 2008 and 2016 (figure 4.4 in Service 2020). This 
landscape is now dominated by both nonnative Lehmann's lovegrass and 
rose natal (Service 2014b, entire; Heitholt 2017b, pers. comm.), and 
many historically documented locations that supported beardless 
chinchweed have not been found again (Service 2014b, entire; Fernandez 
2017, pers. comm.; Haskins and Murray 2017, p. 4). High-severity 
wildfires burn hotter than fires that beardless chinchweed evolved 
with; consequently, we conclude the plant is not capable of surviving 
high-severity fires.
Altered Precipitation, Drought, and Temperature
    The southwestern United States is warming and experiencing severe 
droughts of extended duration, changes in amount of snowpack and timing 
of snow melt, and changes in timing and severity of precipitation and 
flooding (Garfin et al. 2014, entire). The effects of a changing 
climate are important considerations in the analysis of the stressors 
to the beardless chinchweed, including increased nonnative competition 
(described above) during times of low precipitation and drought (Anable 
1990, p. 49; Robinett 1992, p. 101; Fernandez and Reynolds 2000, pp. 
94-95; Geiger and McPherson 2005, p. 896; Schussman et al. 2006, p. 
589; Archer and Predick 2008, p. 26; Mathias et al. 2013, entire). Low 
precipitation and drought will also impact moisture availability for 
beardless chinchweed germination, growth, and flowering. To analyze the 
effects of a changing climate on beardless chinchweed, we relied on the 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Fifth Assessment 
(IPCC 2014, entire) and IPCC Climate Change 2013--The Physical Science 
Basis (IPCC 2013, entire). Four emission scenarios, referred to as 
Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) were developed for the 
latest IPCC report (IPCC 2014, p. 57). We evaluated the effects of 
climate change on the beardless chinchweed using RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5 to 
bracket the range of environmental variability. The IPCC report (2014) 
expresses confidence that emissions will fall within the RCP 4.5 and 
8.5 range.
    Altered precipitation timing and form (snow versus rain), as well 
as reduced winter and spring precipitation and prolonged drought, are 
currently occurring and projected to increase or be altered from normal 
in the Southwest (Garfin et al. 2014, entire). Recently, there has been 
a decrease in the amount of snowpack, earlier snowmelt, and increased 
drought severity in the Southwest (Garfin et al. 2013, entire; Garfin 
2013b, p. 465). Further, more wintertime precipitation is falling as 
rain rather than snow in the western United States (IPCC 2013, p. 204; 
Garfin 2013, p. 465). This means that the amount of runoff in the 
spring when snow melts is reduced, as is soil moisture. Precipitation 
is bimodal within the mountain ranges where the beardless chinchweed 
occurs, with dormant season snow and rain, and growing season monsoon 
rains. Precipitation during October through March is important for 
beardless chinchweed germination and growth. In addition, the beardless 
chinchweed does not flower until it reaches a height of more than 0.5 
meter (m) (1.6 feet (ft)) tall; without sufficient precipitation, 
beardless chinchweed may be unable to attain adequate size for 
reproduction (Phillips et al. 1982, p. 8). Further, reduced 
precipitation, change in the timing and type of precipitation, and 
prolonged drought impact soil and ambient moisture availability for 
beardless chinchweed germination, seedling survival, plant growth, and 
flowering. In addition, due to increased nonnative competition during 
times of reduced precipitation and drought, impacts from these 
stressors to the beardless chinchweed would be exacerbated (Anable 
1990, p. 49; Robinett 1992, p. 101; Fernandez and Reynolds 2000, pp. 
94-95; Geiger and McPherson 2005, p. 896; Schussman et al. 2006, p. 
589; Archer and Predick 2008, p. 26; Mathias et al. 2013, entire).
    Projections of precipitation changes are less certain than those 
for temperature (Garfin et al. 2014, p. 465). Downscaled models project 
average precipitation will decrease in the southern Southwest where 
beardless chinchweed occurs, with seasonal changes in precipitation 
predicted. Projections of change in the mean annual precipitation from 
2021 to 2099 range from a decrease of 20 percent to an increase of 8 
percent (RCP 8.5 (major effects scenario in the SSA)) and a decrease of 
10 percent to an increase of 10 percent (RCP 4.5 (moderate effects 
scenario in the SSA)), with most models predicted a decline. (Garfin et 
al. 2013, p. 113). Under emissions scenarios of RCP 4.5 and 8.5, 
reduced winter and spring precipitation is consistently projected for 
the southern part of the Southwest by 2100, as part of the general 
global precipitation reduction in subtropical areas (Garfin et al. 
2014, p. 465). Late winter-spring mountain snowpack in the Southwest is 
predicted to continue to decline over the 21st century under RCP 4.5 
and RCP 8.5 scenarios because of increased temperature (Garfin et al. 
2013, pp. 118-119). Reduced rain and snow, earlier snowmelt, and drying 
tendencies cause a reduction in late-spring and summer runoff. 
Together, these effects, along with increases in evaporation, result in 
lower soil moisture by early summer (Garfin 2013, p. 117).

[[Page 31840]]

Grazing
    There are two different perspectives on the influence of grazing on 
the beardless chinchweed:
    (1) Wildfire historically maintained native open habitat where the 
beardless chinchweed occurred, but with fire suppression, overgrazing 
may have alternatively provided native open habitats for this species 
to expand its range in the early 1900s, even without frequent fire 
(Schmalzel 2015, pers. comm.), due to open space being created and 
maintained by cattle; or
    (2) Grazing pressure may have contributed to the species' rareness 
(Keil 1982, entire) due to reduced reproduction and alteration in 
habitat.
    Regardless, grazing that occurs in small populations (fewer than 50 
individuals) of beardless chinchweed would have a negative population-
level impact through the reduction of flowers and seeds, and possibly 
individuals. Beardless chinchweed does not flower until it reaches a 
height of more than 0.5 m (1.6 ft) tall, indicating that grazing in 
summer or fall when the plant is growing and flowering could reduce 
seed production and recruitment. Approximately 75 percent of 
individuals studied in a population at Coronado National Memorial 
showed signs of deer browse (Souther 2019, pers. comm.). The effect on 
plant reproduction was variable, with browsing appearing at times to 
stimulate floral production (early season) and at other times appearing 
to inhibit it (immediately prior to seed set).
Small Populations
    Small population size affects beardless chinchweed population 
resiliency, as all stressors are exacerbated in populations with only a 
small number of individuals (fewer than 50). Small populations are less 
able to recover from losses caused by random environmental changes 
(Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 308-310), such as fluctuations in 
reproduction (demographic stochasticity), variations in rainfall 
(environmental stochasticity), or changes in the frequency or severity 
of disturbances, such as wildfires. Five of the six extant beardless 
chinchweed populations in the United States contain fewer than 50 
individuals. We expect that the six populations in Mexico are of 
similar size but may be in worse condition, because of limited native 
habitat management, similar climate change impacts, equally frequent 
wildfires, and likely more impacts from grazing. Losses due to mining, 
erosion, road and trail maintenance, trampling, grazing, or other 
stressors mentioned above are exacerbated in small populations and have 
the potential to seriously damage or completely remove these small 
populations. Synergistic interactions among wildfire, nonnative 
grasses, decreased precipitation, and increased temperatures 
cumulatively and cyclically impact the beardless chinchweed, and all 
stressors are exacerbated in small populations.
Current Condition of Beardless Chinchweed
    Since 1962, we are aware of nine extirpated populations and one 
extirpated subpopulation of the beardless chinchweed in the United 
States. Currently, six extant beardless chinchweed populations occur 
across four mountain ranges in southern Arizona: The Atascosa-Pajarito, 
Huachuca, and Santa Rita Mountains and the Canelo Hills. These six 
populations consist of 992 individuals spread across less than 2 
hectares (ha) (5 acres (ac)). Additionally, six populations have been 
reported from northern Mexico, but this information is from 1940 or 
earlier. In addition, we are aware of preliminary results of the fall 
2020 survey efforts of the Coronado National Forest and the NPS 
including the discovery of as many as 225 additional individuals near 
and within known populations in the Coronado National Memorial and 
Coronado National Forest. Prior to the discovery, the Coronado National 
Memorial population was the largest known with 846 beardless chinchweed 
individuals. The increased abundance and potential increased 
distribution improves the resiliency of the Coronado National Memorial 
population, but does not change the overall determination for the 
species. We will continue to incorporate the best scientific 
information from these and future survey efforts in revisions of the 
SSA and Service decisions.
Population Resiliency of Beardless Chinchweed
    To determine current condition, we assessed each population in 
terms of its resiliency. Our analysis of the past, current, and future 
stressors on the resources that the beardless chinchweed needs for 
long-term viability revealed that there are a number of stressors 
influencing this species. All beardless chinchweed populations likely 
contain nonnative grasses with a competitive advantage over native 
grasses during periods of drought. Further, altered fire regime has the 
potential to affect all populations. This altered fire regime enhances 
the spread of nonnatives, and all populations of beardless chinchweed 
contain nonnatives. Consequently, fire will aid in the spread of 
nonnatives, is currently a risk to all populations of the beardless 
chinchweed, and will be further exacerbated by nonnative grasses in the 
near future (approximately 10 years). Altered precipitation, increased 
temperatures, increased evapotranspiration, decreased soil moisture, 
and decreased winter and spring precipitation are current and ongoing 
environmental conditions impacting all populations of the beardless 
chinchweed and exacerbating an altered fire regime.
    Road maintenance is likely resulting in the loss of individuals in 
three populations (Ruby Road, Scotia Canyon, and Coronado National 
Memorial). In addition, all individuals in these three populations are 
currently being impacted by dust from the road. The Ruby Road and 
Scotia Canyon populations exhibit low resiliency, and the Coronado 
National Memorial population exhibits moderate resiliency. Two 
additional populations (McCleary Canyon-Gunsight Pass and McCleary 
Canyon-Wasp Canyon) will be impacted by Rosemont mining operations and 
dust in the near future (approximately 10 years; Westland 2010, p. iv). 
One of these populations currently exhibits low resiliency, and the 
other exhibits moderate resiliency. Rangewide (including Mexico), 11 of 
the 12 populations (83 percent) are small (fewer than 50 individuals). 
Synergistic interactions among wildfire, nonnative grasses, decreased 
precipitation, and increased temperatures cumulatively and cyclically 
impact the beardless chinchweed, and all stressors are exacerbated in 
small populations. Of the six extant populations in the United States, 
two exhibit moderate resiliency and four exhibit low resiliency (see 
table 1, below). A population with moderate resilience is one in which 
abundance ranges from 100-300 individuals the population contains 2 
subpopulations, and spatial distribution is limited with few groupings; 
seed production is moderate; recruitment and mortality are equal such 
that the population does not grow; the ability to withstand stochastic 
events or recover from stochastic events is limited due to low 
abundance and recruitment and to a reduced seed bank; and there is some 
suitable habitat. A population with low resilience is one in which 
abundance is less than 100 individuals, the population contains a 
single subpopulation, and spatial distribution is limited; seed 
production is low; mortality exceeds recruitment such that the 
population is declining; the ability

[[Page 31841]]

to withstand stochastic events or recover from stochastic events is 
unlikely due to low abundance and recruitment and to a limited seed 
bank; and there is limited suitable habitat. The categories of 
conditions used to determine population resiliency are further 
described in the SSA report (Service 2020, Table 5.10) and the proposed 
listing rule (84 FR 67060, December 6, 2019, p. 84 FR 67065).

                           Table 1--Beardless Chinchweed Current Population Condition
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Number of
     Mountain range/country            Population         Subpopulation      individuals     Current condition
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atascosa-Pajarito Mountains, USA  Pena Blanca Lake...  ..................               0  Extirpated.
                                  Ruby Road..........  10................            Low.
                                  Summit Motorway....  ..................               0  Extirpated.
Canelo Hills, USA...............  Audubon Research     Post Canyon.......               0  Low.
                                   Ranch.              Tributary of                    37
                                                        O'Donnell Canyon.
                                  Copper Mountain....  ..................               0  Extirpated.
                                  Harshaw Creek......  ..................               0  Extirpated.
                                  Lampshire Well.....  ..................               0  Extirpated.
Huachuca Mountains, USA.........  Scotia Canyon......  ..................              40  Low.
                                  Coronado National    Visitor Center....             785  Moderate.
                                   Memorial.           State of Texas                  61
                                                        Mine.
                                  Joe's Canyon Trail.  ..................               0  Extirpated.
Patagonia Mountains, USA........  Flux Canyon........  ..................               0  Extirpated.
                                  Washington Camp....  ..................               0  Extirpated.
Santa Rita Mountains, USA.......  Box Canyon.........  ..................               0  Extirpated.
                                  McCleary Canyon-     ..................              32  Moderate.
                                   Gunsight Pass.
                                  McCleary Canyon-     ..................              32  Low.
                                   Wasp Canyon.
Chihuahua, Mexico...............  Batopililas, Rio     ..................             ~10  Low.
                                   Mayo.
                                  Guasaremos, Rio      ..................             ~10  Low.
                                   Mayo.
Sonora, Mexico..................  Canon de la          ..................             ~10  Low.
                                   Petaquilla.
                                  North of             ..................             ~10  Low.
                                   Horconcitos.
                                  Canyon Estrella,     ..................             ~10  Low.
                                   Sierra de los
                                   Cendros; southeast
                                   of Tesopaco.
                                  Los Conejos, Rio     ..................             ~10  Low.
                                   Mayo.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Beardless Chinchweed Representation
    No genetic studies have been conducted within or among the 21 
historical populations of the beardless chinchweed in southern Arizona 
and Mexico. Mountain ranges that have only one or two populations, or 
have only have one subpopulation per population, or low numbers of 
individuals per population with several miles between mountain ranges, 
may not be as genetically diverse because pollination or transport of 
seeds between populations may be very limited or nonexistent. Five of 
the six extant U.S. populations do not have multiple subpopulations. 
The Coronado National Memorial population has two subpopulations. The 
six extant U.S. populations are separated geographically into four 
ranges separated by 16 to 61 km (9.9 to 37.9 mi). There is likely 
genetic diversity among mountain ranges, but reduced genetic diversity 
within populations. Further, overall genetic diversity is likely 
reduced given that some populations are extirpated.
    Extant U.S. populations of the beardless chinchweed range in 
elevation from 1,158 m (3,799 ft) to 1,737 m (5,699 ft). Of the 15 
historical U.S. populations, 8 (approximately 53 percent) fall below 
1,457 m (1,500 ft) elevation. Of these eight, six have been extirpated 
in recent decades. This loss of lower elevation populations may mean 
the loss of some local adaptation to warmer or drier environments and 
genetic differentiation among populations.
    In the Ruby Road, Scotia Canyon, and Coronado National Memorial 
populations, and the Tributary of O'Donnell subpopulations, plants have 
been reported over many decades, indicating that these populations may 
have the genetic and environmental diversity needed to adapt to 
changing conditions. However, both the Ruby Road and Scotia Canyon 
populations have been reduced in size in the past 30 years, and we have 
no previous count data at Coronado National Memorial for comparison.
Beardless Chinchweed Redundancy
    The beardless chinchweed populations in the United States and 
Mexico are naturally fragmented between mountain ranges. Currently, six 
extant U.S. populations of the beardless chinchweed are spread across 
the Atascosa-Pajarito, Huachuca, and Santa Rita Mountains and the 
Canelo Hills. The Atascosa-Pajarito Mountains and the Canelo Hills have 
only one extant population each, while the Santa Rita and Huachuca 
Mountains have two extant populations each. Range separation makes 
natural gene exchange or re-establishment following extirpation very 
unlikely. In addition, six historical populations of the beardless 
chinchweed are distributed across two general areas in northern 
Chihuahua and Sonora, Mexico. Their status is unknown, but we expect 
they are small populations with poor habitat based on populations in 
the United States, which are small and dominated by nonnative species. 
Although this may imply some level of redundancy across the range of 
the beardless chinchweed, five of the six extant populations in the 
United States contain fewer than 50 individual plants. Further, nine 
populations and one subpopulation have been extirpated in recent 
decades, largely from the lower elevations of the species' range, and 
several populations have been reduced in size in recent decades.
    We note that, by using the SSA framework to guide our analysis of 
the scientific information documented in the SSA report, we have not 
only analyzed individual effects on the species, but we have also 
analyzed their potential cumulative effects. We incorporate the 
cumulative effects into our SSA analysis when we characterize the 
current and future condition of the species. Our assessment of the 
current and future conditions encompasses and

[[Page 31842]]

incorporates the threats individually and cumulatively. Our current and 
future condition assessment is iterative because it accumulates and 
evaluates the effects of all the factors that may be influencing the 
species, including threats and conservation efforts. Because the SSA 
framework considers not just the presence of the factors, but to what 
degree they collectively influence risk to the entire species, our 
assessment integrates the cumulative effects of the factors and 
replaces a standalone cumulative effects analysis.

Determination of Beardless Chinchweed's Status

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing 
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining 
whether a species meets the definition of an endangered species or a 
threatened species. The Act defines ``endangered species'' as a species 
in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range, and ``threatened species'' as a species likely to become an 
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we determine 
whether a species meets the definition of ``endangered species'' or 
``threatened species'' because of any of the following factors: (A) The 
present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its 
habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, 
scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the 
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or 
manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
Status Throughout All of Its Range
    Historically, beardless chinchweed was known from 21 populations. 
Nine populations have been extirpated, leaving 12 extant populations 
(six in the United States and six in Mexico). The six populations in 
the United States consist of approximately 992 individuals spread 
across less than 2 ha (5 ac). Six populations have been reported from 
northern Mexico, but this information is from 1940 or earlier.
    The proliferation of invasive, nonnative grasses throughout most of 
the beardless chinchweed's range has greatly affected this species 
through increased competition and altered fire regimes. Many of the 
historical locations no longer support the beardless chinchweed due to 
this alteration of habitat (NPS 2014, pp. 3-4; Service 2014a, pp. 1-2; 
Service 2014c, entire; Service 2014c, pp. 1-2).
    All beardless chinchweed populations likely contain nonnative 
grasses, resulting in habitat loss (Factor A). Further, an altered fire 
regime (Factors A and E) impacts all populations currently or in the 
near future and drives the spread of nonnatives (Factor A), 
exacerbating the encroachment of nonnative grasses. Consequently, all 
remaining populations of the beardless chinchweed are impacted by 
nonnative grasses now or will be in the near future. Altered 
precipitation (Factors A and E), increased temperatures (Factors A and 
E), and decreased annual precipitation (Factors A and E) are current 
and ongoing regional environmental conditions that are impacting all 
populations of the beardless chinchweed. These environmental conditions 
exacerbate an altered fire regime, driving the spread of nonnative 
grasses with competitive advantages over native grasses during periods 
of drought. Road and trail maintenance (Factors A and E) could damage 
or remove individuals in three populations with low resiliency (Ruby 
Road, Scotia Canyon, and Coronado National Memorial). In addition, all 
individuals in these three populations may be impacted by dust (Factor 
E) from the road. Two additional populations (McCleary Canyon-Gunsight 
Pass and McCleary Canyon-Wasp Canyon) will be impacted by roads (Factor 
A) related to mining operations in the near future (Westland 2010, p. 
iv). All individuals of these two populations will also be impacted by 
dust (Factor E). One of these populations is already of low resiliency 
and the other is of moderate resiliency. Eleven of 12 populations (92 
percent) are small (fewer than 50 individuals). Synergistic 
interactions among wildfire, nonnative grasses, decreased 
precipitation, and increased temperatures cumulatively and cyclically 
impact the beardless chinchweed, and all stressors are exacerbated in 
small populations (Factor E). No conservation efforts have been 
implemented for this species.
    We find beardless chinchweed to have poor representation in the 
form of potential genetic diversity (Factor E). All but one population 
has fewer than 50 individuals. Small populations are susceptible to the 
loss of genetic diversity, genetic drift, and inbreeding. There are 
currently six populations spread across four mountain ranges in the 
United States and six populations in northern Mexico that are presumed 
extant. Five of the six extant U.S. populations do not have multiple 
subpopulations (the Coronado National Memorial population has two 
subpopulations). Mountain ranges that have only one or two populations, 
have only one subpopulation per population, or have low numbers of 
individuals per population with several miles between mountain ranges, 
may not be genetically diverse because pollination or transport of 
seeds between populations may be very limited. This could mean that 
between-population genetic diversity may be greater than within-
population diversity (Smith and Wayne 1996, p. 333; Lindenmayer and 
Peakall 2000, p. 200). Further, there may have been a loss of genetic 
diversity in the nine extirpated populations.
    Beardless chinchweed populations in the United States range in 
elevation from 1,158 m (3,799 ft) to 1,737 m (5,699 ft) in elevation. 
Of the 15 historical U.S. populations, 8 (approximately 53 percent) 
fall below 1,457 m (4,780 ft) elevation. Of these eight, six have been 
extirpated in recent decades. The loss of lower elevation populations 
may mean a loss of local adaptation to warmer or drier environments and 
genetic differentiation among populations (Factor E).
    The beardless chinchweed needs to have multiple resilient 
populations distributed throughout its range to provide for redundancy. 
These multiple resilient populations should be spread over the range 
and distributed in such a way that a catastrophic event will not result 
in the loss of all populations. With the known extant populations 
separated by as much as 35 km (21.8 mi) in southern Arizona and even 
farther in northern Mexico, there is little connection potential 
between disjunct populations. Therefore, a localized stressor such as 
grazing during flowering would impact only those groups of plants near 
the activity. However, nonnative plant invasion, climatic changes, and 
repeated large-scale, moderate- and high-severity fires occur across 
the region and could impact all populations now or in the near future. 
The distance among populations reduces connectivity, making it unlikely 
that another population naturally recolonizes a site after extirpation 
(Factor E).
    After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the 
cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1) 
factors, we find that the beardless chinchweed is presently in danger 
of extinction throughout its entire range based on the severity and 
immediacy of stressors currently impacting the species. The overall 
range has been significantly reduced (nine populations extirpated), and 
the remaining habitat and populations face a variety of factors

[[Page 31843]]

acting in combination to reduce the overall viability of the species. 
The risk of extinction is high because the remaining populations are 
small, are isolated, and have limited potential for natural 
recolonization. We find that a threatened species status is not 
appropriate for the beardless chinchweed because of the species' 
current precarious condition due to its contracted range, because the 
stressors are severe and occurring rangewide, and because the stressors 
are ongoing and expected to continue into the future. Thus, after 
assessing the best available information, we determine that the 
beardless chinchweed is in danger of extinction throughout all of its 
range.
Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range
    Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may 
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so 
in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of 
its range. Because we have determined that beardless chinchweed is in 
danger of extinction throughout all of its range, we did not undertake 
an analysis of any significant portions of its range. Because the 
beardless chinchweed warrants listing as endangered throughout all of 
its range, our determination is consistent with the decision in Center 
for Biological Diversity v. Everson, 2020 WL 437289 (D.D.C. Jan. 28, 
2020), in which the court vacated the aspect of our Final Policy on 
Interpretation of the Phrase ``Significant Portion of Its Range'' in 
the Endangered Species Act's Definitions of ``Endangered Species'' and 
``Threatened Species'' (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014) that provided the 
Service and National Marine Fisheries Service do not undertake an 
analysis of significant portions of a species' range if the species 
warrants listing as threatened throughout all of its range.
Determination of Status
    Our review of the best available scientific and commercial 
information indicates that the beardless chinchweed meets the 
definition of an endangered species. Therefore, we are listing the 
beardless chinchweed as an endangered species in accordance with 
sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.

Available Conservation Measures

    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
threatened species under the Act include recognition, recovery actions, 
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain 
practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness, and 
conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies; private 
organizations; and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the 
States and other countries and calls for recovery actions to be carried 
out for listed species. The protection required by Federal agencies and 
the prohibitions against certain activities are discussed, in part, 
below.
    The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered 
and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The 
ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these 
listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of 
the Act. Section 4(f) of the Act calls for the Service to develop and 
implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and 
threatened species. The recovery planning process involves the 
identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the 
species' decline by addressing the stressors to its survival and 
recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a 
point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning 
components of their ecosystems.
    Recovery planning consists of preparing draft and final recovery 
plans, beginning with the development of a recovery outline and making 
it available to the public within 30 days of a final listing 
determination. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation 
of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to be used to 
develop a recovery plan. Revisions of the plan may be done to address 
continuing or new stressors to the species, as new substantive 
information becomes available. The recovery plan also identifies 
recovery criteria for review of when a species may be ready for 
downlisting (reclassification from endangered to threatened) or 
delisting (removal from listed status), and methods for monitoring 
recovery progress. Recovery plans also establish a framework for 
agencies to coordinate their recovery efforts and provide estimates of 
the cost of implementing recovery tasks. Recovery teams (composed of 
species experts, Federal and State agencies, nongovernmental 
organizations, and stakeholders) are often established to develop 
recovery plans. When completed, the recovery outline, draft recovery 
plan, and the final recovery plan will be available on our website 
(http://www.fws.gov/endangered), or from our Arizona Ecological 
Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the 
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal 
agencies, States, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, 
and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat 
restoration of native vegetation, research, captive propagation and 
reintroduction, and outreach and education. The recovery of many listed 
species cannot be accomplished solely on Federal lands because their 
range may occur primarily or solely on non-Federal lands. To achieve 
recovery of these species requires cooperative conservation efforts on 
private, State, and Tribal lands.
    Following publication of this final rule, funding for recovery 
actions will be available from a variety of sources, including Federal 
budgets, State programs, and cost share grants for non-Federal 
landowners, the academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. 
In addition, pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the State of Arizona 
will be eligible for Federal funds to implement management actions that 
promote the protection or recovery of the beardless chinchweed. 
Information on our grant programs that are available to aid species 
recovery can be found at http://www.fws.gov/grants.
    Section 8(a) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1537(a)) authorizes the 
provision of limited financial assistance for the development and 
management of programs that the Secretary of the Interior determines to 
be necessary or useful for the conservation of endangered or threatened 
species in foreign countries. Sections 8(b) and 8(c) of the Act (16 
U.S.C. 1537(b) and (c)) authorize the Secretary to encourage 
conservation programs for foreign listed species, and to provide 
assistance for such programs, in the form of personnel and the training 
of personnel.
    Please let us know if you are interested in participating in 
recovery efforts for the beardless chinchweed. Additionally, we invite 
you to submit any new information on this species whenever it becomes 
available and any information you may have for recovery planning 
purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their 
actions with respect to any species that is listed as an endangered or 
threatened species and with respect to its critical habitat, if any is 
designated. Regulations implementing this interagency cooperation 
provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section 7(a)(2) 
of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities they

[[Page 31844]]

authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or destroy 
or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may 
affect a listed species, the responsible Federal agency must enter into 
consultation with the Service.
    Federal agency actions within the species' habitat that may require 
conference or consultation or both as described in the preceding 
paragraph include management and any other landscape-altering 
activities on Federal lands administered by the USFS (Coronado National 
Forest), Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 
and NPS (Coronado National Memorial).
    The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of 
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to endangered plants. 
The prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act, codified at 50 CFR 
17.61, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of 
the United States to: Import or export; remove and reduce to possession 
from areas under Federal jurisdiction; maliciously damage or destroy on 
any such area; remove, cut, dig up, or damage or destroy on any other 
area in knowing violation of any law or regulation of any State or in 
the course of any violation of a State criminal trespass law; deliver, 
receive, carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce, 
by any means whatsoever and in the course of a commercial activity; or 
sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce an endangered 
plant. Certain exceptions apply to employees of the Service, the 
National Marine Fisheries Service, other Federal land management 
agencies, and State conservation agencies.
    We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities 
involving endangered plants under certain circumstances. Regulations 
governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.62. With regard to 
endangered plants, a permit may be issued for scientific purposes or 
for enhancing the propagation or survival of the species. There are 
also certain statutory exemptions from the prohibitions, which are 
found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
    It is our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1, 
1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the maximum extent practicable at 
the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not 
constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent of this 
policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a listing on 
proposed and ongoing activities within the range of a listed species. 
Based on the best available information, the following actions are 
unlikely to result in a violation of section 9, if these activities are 
carried out in accordance with existing regulations and permit 
requirements; this list is not comprehensive:
    (1) Normal nonnative, invasive species control practices, such as 
herbicide use, that are carried out in accordance with any existing 
regulations, permit and label requirements, and best management 
practices;
    (2) Annual monitoring efforts; and
    (3) Additional surveys to understand the extent of occupied 
habitat. Based on the best available information, the following actions 
may potentially result in a violation of section 9 of the Act if they 
are not authorized in accordance with applicable law; this list is not 
comprehensive:
    (1) Unauthorized damage or collection of beardless chinchweed from 
lands under Federal jurisdiction;
    (2) Malicious destruction or degradation of the species or 
associated habitat on lands under Federal jurisdiction, including the 
intentional introduction of nonnative organisms that compete with or 
consume beardless chinchweed.
    Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a 
violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the Arizona 
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

II. Critical Habitat

Background

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
    (1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the 
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which 
are found those physical or biological features
    (a) Essential to the conservation of the species, and
    (b) Which may require special management considerations or 
protection; and
    (2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the 
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas 
are essential for the conservation of the species.
    Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define the geographical area 
occupied by the species as an area that may generally be delineated 
around species' occurrences, as determined by the Secretary (i.e., 
range). Such areas may include those areas used throughout all or part 
of the species' life cycle, even if not used on a regular basis (e.g., 
migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, and habitats used periodically, 
but not solely by vagrant individuals).
    Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use 
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring 
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures 
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and 
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated 
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law 
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live 
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where 
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise 
relieved, may include regulated taking.
    Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act 
through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation 
with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is 
not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect 
land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or 
other conservation area. Such designation does not allow the government 
or public to access private lands. Such designation does not require 
implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by 
non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner requests Federal agency 
funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed species 
or critical habitat, the Federal agency would be required to consult 
with the Service under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. However, even if the 
Service were to conclude that the proposed activity would result in 
destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat, the 
Federal action agency and the landowner are not required to abandon the 
proposed activity, or to restore or recover the species; instead, they 
must implement ``reasonable and prudent alternatives'' to avoid 
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
    Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat, 
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time 
it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they 
contain physical or biological features (1) which are essential to the 
conservation of the

[[Page 31845]]

species and (2) which may require special management considerations or 
protection. For these areas, critical habitat designations identify, to 
the extent known using the best scientific and commercial data 
available, those physical or biological features that are essential to 
the conservation of the species (such as space, food, cover, and 
protected habitat). In identifying those physical or biological 
features that occur in specific occupied areas, we focus on the 
specific features that are essential to support the life-history needs 
of the species, including, but not limited to, water characteristics, 
soil type, geological features, prey, vegetation, symbiotic species, or 
other features. A feature may be a single habitat characteristic, or a 
more complex combination of habitat characteristics. Features may 
include habitat characteristics that support ephemeral or dynamic 
habitat conditions. Features may also be expressed in terms relating to 
principles of conservation biology, such as patch size, distribution 
distances, and connectivity.
    Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat, 
we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical 
area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a 
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the 
species. When designating critical habitat, the Secretary will first 
evaluate areas occupied by the species. The Secretary will only 
consider unoccupied areas to be essential where a critical habitat 
designation limited to geographical areas occupied by the species would 
be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species. In addition, 
for an unoccupied area to be considered essential, the Secretary must 
determine that there is a reasonable certainty both that the area will 
contribute to the conservation of the species and that the area 
contains one or more of those physical or biological features essential 
to the conservation of the species.
    Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on 
the basis of the best scientific data available. Further, our Policy on 
Information Standards under the Endangered Species Act (published in 
the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the Information 
Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658)), 
and our associated Information Quality Guidelines, provide criteria, 
establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that our decisions 
are based on the best scientific data available. They require our 
biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of 
the best scientific data available, to use primary and original sources 
of information as the basis for recommendations to designate critical 
habitat.
    When we are determining which areas should be designated as 
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the 
information from the SSA report and information developed during the 
listing process for the species. Additional information sources may 
include any generalized conservation strategy, criteria, or outline 
that may have been developed for the species; the recovery plan for the 
species; articles in peer-reviewed journals; conservation plans 
developed by States and counties; scientific status surveys and 
studies; biological assessments; other unpublished materials; or 
experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
    Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another 
over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a 
particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that 
we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species. 
For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that 
habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be needed 
for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the 
conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical 
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation 
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act; (2) regulatory 
protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act 
for Federal agencies to ensure their actions are not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened 
species; and (3) the prohibitions found in section 9 of the Act. 
Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed species outside 
their designated critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy 
findings in some cases. These protections and conservation tools will 
continue to contribute to recovery of this species. Similarly, critical 
habitat designations made on the basis of the best available 
information at the time of designation will not control the direction 
and substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans, or 
other species conservation planning efforts if new information 
available at the time of these planning efforts calls for a different 
outcome.

Physical or Biological Features

    In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at 
50 CFR 424.12(b), in determining which areas we will designate as 
critical habitat from within the geographical area occupied by the 
species at the time of listing, we consider the physical or biological 
features that are essential to the conservation of the species and 
which may require special management considerations or protection. The 
regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define ``physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the species'' as the features that 
occur in specific areas and that are essential to support the life-
history needs of the species, including, but not limited to, water 
characteristics, soil type, geological features, sites, prey, 
vegetation, symbiotic species, or other features. A feature may be a 
single habitat characteristic or a more complex combination of habitat 
characteristics. Features may include habitat characteristics that 
support ephemeral or dynamic habitat conditions. Features may also be 
expressed in terms relating to principles of conservation biology, such 
as patch size, distribution distances, and connectivity. For example, 
physical features essential to the conservation of the species might 
include gravel of a particular size required for spawning, alkaline 
soil for seed germination, protective cover for migration, or 
susceptibility to flooding or fire that maintains necessary early-
successional habitat characteristics. Biological features might include 
prey species, forage grasses, specific kinds or ages of trees for 
roosting or nesting, symbiotic fungi, or a particular level of 
nonnative species consistent with conservation needs of the listed 
species. The features may also be combinations of habitat 
characteristics and may encompass the relationship between 
characteristics or the necessary amount of a characteristic essential 
to support the life history of the species.
    In considering whether features are essential to the conservation 
of the species, the Service may consider an appropriate quality, 
quantity, and spatial and temporal arrangement of habitat 
characteristics in the context of the life-history needs, condition, 
and status of the species. These characteristics include, but are not 
limited to, space for individual and population growth and for normal 
behavior; food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or 
physiological requirements; cover or shelter; sites for breeding, 
reproduction, or rearing (or development) of offspring;

[[Page 31846]]

and habitats that are protected from disturbance.
    The beardless chinchweed needs multiple populations distributed 
across its range that are large enough to withstand stochastic events, 
and connectivity to reestablish extirpated populations. Species that 
are widely distributed are less susceptible to extinction and more 
likely to be viable than species confined to small ranges (Carroll et 
al. 2010, entire). Historically, there were 21 populations across seven 
mountain ranges. Nine populations (and one subpopulation) have been 
extirpated in the United States, and all populations are extirpated 
from the Patagonia Mountains in the United States. This leaves six 
populations across four mountain ranges covering an occupied area of 
about 2 ha (5 ac) in the United States and six small populations in 
Mexico. Further, two mountain ranges only have one population each with 
fewer than 50 individuals. In addition, one mountain range has only two 
populations, both with fewer than 50 individuals each. The current 
distribution of this species does not represent its historical 
geographical distribution. Additional populations are needed to 
increase the redundancy of the species to secure the species from 
catastrophic events like wildfire and nonnative grass encroachment. 
Increased representation in the form of ecological environments are 
needed to secure the species against environmental changes like 
increased temperatures, increased drought, and increased 
evapotranspiration. Specifically, populations at higher altitudes are 
likely needed to secure the species' viability.
    All populations need protection from wildfires of high severity and 
of greater frequency than was known historically and from nonnative 
grass encroachment. Further, all populations need protection from 
stressors related to one or more of the following activities: 
Recreation, road and trail maintenance, grazing, trampling, and mining. 
As discussed above, these stressors are currently, or will in the near 
future, impact all populations. Protection is needed from these 
stressors to ensure the conservation of the species.
    The minimum viable population size for this species is unknown. 
General conservation biology indicates that at least 500 individual are 
needed for a minimum viable population. Currently, 11 of the 12 
populations have fewer than 50 individuals. In Arizona, there are 
currently approximately 992 individual beardless chinchweed plants 
spread across less than 2 ha (5 ac) within six extant populations 
spread across four mountain ranges. Space, in the form of habitat 
described above, is needed for an increase in the number of populations 
and the number of individuals per population.
    Space for individual and population growth is needed for the 
beardless chinchweed, including sites for germination, pollination, 
reproduction, pollen and seed dispersal, and seed banks in the form of 
open, native-dominated plains, great basin, and semi-desert grasslands, 
oak savannas, and Madrean evergreen or oak woodlands at 1,158 to 1,737 
m (3,799 to 5,699 ft) in elevation (SEINet, entire) representing the 
ecosystems where beardless chinchweed occurs. In addition, plants need 
space on steep, south-facing, sunny to partially shaded hillslopes, 
with eroding bedrock and open areas with little competition from other 
plants. Native-dominated habitats have diverse assemblages of 
vegetation, each with different-shaped and -sized canopy and root 
system, which creates heterogeneity of form, height, and patchiness and 
provides openness. The diverse vegetation is dominated by bunchgrasses 
with open spacing (adjacent to and within 10 m (33 ft) of beardless 
chinchweed plants), providing beardless chinchweed with the necessary 
open habitat with little competition. The beardless chinchweed is 
presumed to be a poor competitor due to its preference for this open 
habitat and the inability to find the species under dense vegetation 
conditions.
    Pollination is necessary for effective fertilization, out-crossing, 
and seed production in beardless chinchweed. Bees, flies, and 
butterflies most likely pollinate beardless chinchweed, like other 
yellow-flowered composites. Many bees and butterflies can travel a 
distance of 1 km (0.62 mi); consequently, adequate space for 
pollinators is needed around beardless chinchweed populations to 
support pollinators and, therefore, cross-pollination within and among 
populations and subpopulations. In addition, open space is needed in 
the form of seedbanks for population growth. Further, beardless 
chinchweed populations need space with soil moisture and nutrients for 
individual and population growth.
    Specific details about the physical or biological features 
essential to this species are described earlier in this document and in 
the SSA report (Service 2020).
Summary of Essential Physical or Biological Features
    We derived the specific physical or biological features essential 
to the conservation of the beardless chinchweed from studies of this 
species' habitat, ecology, and life history, as described below. We 
have determined that the following physical or biological features of 
the areas in Cochise, Pima, and Santa Cruz Counties, Arizona, are 
essential to the conservation of beardless chinchweed:
    (1) Native-dominated plant communities, consisting of:
    (a) Plains, great basin, and semi-desert grasslands, oak savanna, 
or Madrean evergreen woodland;
    (b) Communities dominated by bunchgrasses with open spacing 
(adjacent to and within 10 m (33 ft) of individual beardless 
chinchweed) and with little competition from other plants; and
    (c) Communities with plants for pollinator foraging and nesting 
within 1 km (0.62 mi) of beardless chinchweed populations.
    (2) Between elevation of 1,158 to 1,737 m (3,799 to 5,699 ft) 
elevation.
    (3) Eroding limestone or granite bedrock substrate.
    (4) Steep, south-facing, sunny to partially shaded hillslopes.
    (5) The presence of pollinators (i.e., flies, bees, and 
butterflies).

Special Management Considerations or Protection

    When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific 
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time 
of listing contain features which are essential to the conservation of 
the species and which may require special management considerations or 
protection. The features essential to the conservation of this species 
may require special management considerations or protection to reduce 
the following stressors: Altered fire regime, nonnative grass 
encroachment, grazing, erosion, and burial (see table 2, below). 
Special management considerations or protection are required within 
critical habitat areas to address these stressors. Management 
activities that could ameliorate these stressors include (but are not 
limited to): Prescribed fire, fire breaks, reduction of nonnative 
grasses, promotion or introduction of native forbs and grasses, 
cleaning of vegetation management equipment between uses, exclosure 
fences, and protection from erosion and burial. These management 
activities will protect the physical or biological features for the 
species by reducing or avoiding the encroachment or expansion of 
nonnative grass species, promoting native vegetation, and preventing 
the succession of vegetation so that open space and sun exposure are

[[Page 31847]]

maintained in beardless chinchweed habitat.

                              Table 2--Features That May Require Special Management
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Special management or
Features that may  require special  Stressors to features    protection  to address      Features protected by
             management                                             stressors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Native-dominated plant communities  Altered fire regime;   Fire breaks around          Avoidance of encroachment
                                     nonnative grasses;     populations; prescribed     of nonnatives from
                                     grazing; road and      fires; reduction of         wildfires and drought;
                                     trail maintenance.     nonnative grasses; clean    promotion of native
                                                            equipment to limit the      species through natural
                                                            spread of nonnatives;       fire regime or other
                                                            promotion or introduction   tools; avoidance of
                                                            of native forbs and         introducing nonnative
                                                            grasses.                    species.
Plants for pollinators............  Altered fire regime;   Fire breaks around          Avoidance of encroachment
                                     nonnative grasses.     populations; prescribed     of nonnatives from
                                                            fires; reduction of         wildfires and drought;
                                                            nonnative grasses;          promotion of native
                                                            promotion or introduction   species through natural
                                                            of native forbs and         fire regime or other
                                                            grasses.                    tools; avoidance of
                                                                                        introducing nonnative
                                                                                        species.
Open, sunny sites.................  Altered fire regime;   Prescribed fires;           Elimination or reduction
                                     nonnative grasses.     reduction of nonnative      of the loss of open
                                                            grasses; promotion or       space and sun exposure.
                                                            introduction of native
                                                            forbs and grasses.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

    As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best 
scientific data available to designate critical habitat. In accordance 
with the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b), we 
review available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of 
the species and identify specific areas within the geographical area 
occupied by the species at the time of listing and any specific areas 
outside the geographical area occupied by the species to be considered 
for designation as critical habitat.
    Because of the vulnerability associated with small populations, 
limited distributions, or both, conservation of the beardless 
chinchweed requires protection of both existing occupied habitat and 
potential habitat (i.e., suitable for occupancy but currently 
unoccupied), and the establishment of new populations to reduce or 
eliminate such vulnerability. The current distribution of beardless 
chinchweed is reduced from its historical distribution to a level where 
the species is in danger of extinction. Of the six U.S. populations 
that occur in four mountain ranges, two populations are in moderate 
condition and four are in low condition. Conservation of the species 
will require populations with increased resiliency, abundance, and 
distribution to increase the redundancy and representation of beardless 
chinchweed. Due to current stressors and expected future stressors, 
remaining populations are small, are isolated, and have limited 
potential for natural recolonization. We anticipate that recovery will 
require continued protection of existing populations and habitat, as 
well as reestablishment of populations at a subset of previously 
occupied habitats throughout the species' historical range in the 
United States. Reestablishment of additional populations will help to 
ensure that catastrophic events, such as wildfire, cannot 
simultaneously affect all known populations (i.e., increased 
redundancy). For these reasons, we conclude that a critical habitat 
designation limited to areas occupied at the time of listing would be 
inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species.
    We are designating critical habitat in areas within the 
geographical area currently occupied by the species (i.e., at the time 
of proposed listing). In this case, we determined that occupied areas 
are inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species. Thus, we 
looked at historically occupied areas that currently possess the 
physical and biological features to determine if any areas are suitable 
for beardless chinchweed recolonization and subsequent persistence. In 
addition to areas occupied by the species at the time of listing, we 
are designating specific areas outside the geographical area occupied 
by the species at the time of listing (Units 5, 6, and 7), which were 
historically occupied but are presently unoccupied, because those areas 
are essential for the conservation of the species and contain one or 
more of the physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of the species. The Service is reasonably certain that the 
unoccupied areas will contribute to the conservation of the species as 
a result of ongoing conservation efforts for beardless chinchweed with 
USFS that are expected to continue, including habitat management and 
research. When we are determining which areas should be designated as 
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the 
information developed during the listing process for the species. 
Additional information sources may include the recovery plan for the 
species, articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans 
developed by States and counties, scientific status surveys and 
studies, biological assessments, other unpublished materials, or 
experts' opinions or personal knowledge. In this case, we used existing 
occurrence data for the beardless chinchweed and information on the 
habitat and ecosystems upon which it depends. These sources of 
information included, but were not limited to:
    (1) Data used to prepare the rule to list the species;
    (2) Information from biological surveys;
    (3) Various agency reports and databases;
    (4) Information from NPS and other cooperators;
    (5) Information from species experts;
    (6) Data and information presented in academic research theses; and
    (7) Regional Geographic Information System (GIS) data (such as 
species occurrence data, land use, topography, aerial imagery, soil 
data, and land ownership maps) for area calculations and mapping.
Areas Occupied at the Time of Listing
    In accordance with the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 
CFR 424.12(b), we reviewed available information pertaining to the 
habitat requirements of the species, identified specific areas within 
the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing, 
and examined whether we could identify any specific areas outside

[[Page 31848]]

the geographical area occupied by the species to be considered for 
designation as critical habitat.
    The critical habitat designation does not include all populations 
known to have been occupied by the species historically; instead, it 
includes all currently occupied areas within the historical range that 
have retained the necessary physical or biological features that will 
allow for the maintenance and expansion of these existing populations. 
The following populations meet the definition of areas occupied by the 
species at the time of listing: McCleary Canyon (2 populations), 
Audubon Research Ranch, Scotia Canyon, Coronado National Memorial, and 
Ruby Road.
Areas Outside the Geographical Area Occupied at the Time of Listing
    Because we determined that a critical habitat designation limited 
to geographical areas occupied by the species would be inadequate to 
ensure the conservation of the species, we are also designating 
unoccupied areas. Pena Blanca Lake, Summit Motorway, Copper Mountain, 
Lampshire Well, Harshaw Creek, Flux Canyon, Washington Camp, Box 
Canyon, and Joe's Canyon are within the historical range of the 
beardless chinchweed, but are not currently occupied by the species. We 
determined these sites to be extirpated. Areas not occupied by the 
species at the time of listing are only considered to be essential if 
they contain one or more of the physical and biological features 
essential to the conservation of the species and if we have a 
reasonable certainty that the area will contribute to the conservation 
of the species. To determine if these areas are essential for the 
conservation of beardless chinchweed, we considered the life history, 
status, and conservation needs of the species such as: (1) The 
importance of the site to the overall status of the species to prevent 
extinction and contribute to future recovery of the beardless 
chinchweed; (2) whether the area could be restored to support the 
beardless chinchweed; (3) whether the site provides connectivity 
between occupied sites for genetic exchange; and (4) whether a 
population of the species could be reestablished in the area.
    Of the unoccupied areas, Lampshire Well, Harshaw Creek, and 
Washington Camp on USFS lands contain a mixture of native and nonnative 
grasses that could be feasibly restored to native conditions, thus 
making them suitable for reestablishment of the species, and they are 
important to the overall status of the species. The reestablishment of 
the Washington Camp population would reintroduce the species into the 
Patagonia Mountains, where currently it is extirpated. The 
reestablishment of beardless chinchweed into the Patagonia Mountains 
would restore the historical range of the species in terms of occupied 
mountain ranges. This area would provide key representation and 
redundancy needed for conservation of the species. Further, the 
addition of two reestablished populations in the Canelo Hills would 
increase the redundancy of the species in this area and reduce the 
chance that a catastrophic event would eliminate all populations in 
this area. Currently, there is only one population with 37 individuals 
in the Canelo Hills.
    Of the remaining historical populations in the United States, Pena 
Blanca Lake, Summit Motorway, Copper Mountain, Box Canyon, Joe's 
Canyon, and Flux Canyon are heavily infested with nonnative grasses to 
an extent where restoration of native vegetation is not likely 
feasible. Reestablishment of the species to these historical sites is 
not likely to be successful and, therefore, not likely to contribute to 
the recovery of the species. Therefore, these remaining historical 
sites are not included in the designation of critical habitat.
    In summary, for areas within the geographic area occupied by the 
species at the time of listing (i.e., currently occupied), we 
delineated critical habitat unit boundaries by evaluating the habitat 
suitability of areas within the geographic area occupied at the time of 
listing, and retaining those units that contain some or all of the 
physical or biological features to support life-history functions 
essential for conservation of the species.
    For areas outside the geographic area occupied by the species at 
the time of listing, we delineated critical habitat unit boundaries by 
evaluating areas not known to have been occupied at listing (i.e., that 
are not currently occupied) but that are within the historical range of 
the species to determine if they are essential to the survival and 
recovery of the species. Essential areas are those that: (1) Serve to 
extend an occupied unit; and (2) expand the geographic distribution 
within areas not occupied at the time of listing across the historical 
range of the species.
    We conclude that the areas we are designating as critical habitat 
provide for the conservation of the beardless chinchweed because they 
include habitat for all extant populations and include habitat for 
connectivity and dispersal opportunities within units. Such 
opportunities for dispersal assist in maintaining the population 
structure and distribution of the species. In addition, the unoccupied 
units each contain one or more of the physical or biological features 
and are likely to provide for the conservation of the species. Each of 
the unoccupied areas are on lands managed by the Coronado National 
Forest. The Forest Plan for the Coronado National Forest contains 
several important guidelines that will contribute to the conservation 
of the beardless chinchweed, including control of nonnative vegetation, 
promotion of native grasses, and protections for species listed under 
the Act (USFS 2018). Designation of critical habitat will facilitate 
the application of this guidance where it will do the most good for the 
beardless chinchweed.
    As a final step, we evaluated occupied units and refined the area 
by evaluating the presence or absence of appropriate physical or 
biological features. We selected the boundary of a unit to include 1 km 
(0.62 mi) of foraging and reproductive habitat for pollinators 
necessary for the beardless chinchweed. We then mapped critical habitat 
units using ArcMap version 10 (Environmental Systems Research 
Institute, Inc.), a GIS program.
    The areas included in the critical habitat designation provide 
sufficient habitat for recruitment, pollinators, seed bank, and seed 
dispersal. In general, the physical or biological features of critical 
habitat are contained within 1 km (0.62 mi) of beardless chinchweed 
plants within the population.
    When determining critical habitat boundaries within this final 
rule, we made every effort to avoid including developed areas such as 
lands covered by buildings, pavement, and other structures because such 
lands lack the physical or biological features necessary for the 
beardless chinchweed. The scale of the maps we prepared under the 
parameters for publication within the Code of Federal Regulations may 
not reflect the exclusion of such developed lands. Any such lands 
inadvertently left inside critical habitat boundaries shown on the maps 
of this rule have been excluded by text in the rule and are not 
designated as critical habitat. Therefore, a Federal action involving 
these lands will not trigger section 7 consultation with respect to 
critical habitat and the requirement of no adverse modification unless 
the specific action would affect the physical or biological features in 
the adjacent critical habitat.
    We are designating critical habitat in areas within the 
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing (i.e., 
currently occupied) and that contain one or more of the physical or 
biological features that are essential to

[[Page 31849]]

support the life-history processes of the species. Because of the 
species' vulnerabilities related to small, isolated populations, 
current and ongoing stressors, and limited distribution, we have 
determined that occupied areas are inadequate to ensure the 
conservation of the species. We are also designating specific areas 
outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of 
listing, that were historically occupied but are presently unoccupied, 
because we have determined that such areas are essential for the 
conservation of the species.
    On December 16, 2020, we published a final rule in the Federal 
Register (85 FR 81411) adding a definition of ``habitat'' to our 
regulations for purposes of critical habitat designations under the 
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). This rule became 
effective on January 15, 2021 and only applies to critical habitat 
rules for which a proposed rule was published after January 15, 2021. 
Consequently, this new regulation does not apply to this final rule.
    Units are designated based on one or more of the physical or 
biological features being present to support the beardless chinchweed's 
life-history processes. Some units contain all of the identified 
physical or biological features and support multiple life-history 
processes. Some units contain only some of the physical or biological 
features necessary to support the beardless chinchweed's particular use 
of that habitat.
    The critical habitat designation is defined by the map, as modified 
by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the end of this 
document under Regulation Promulgation. We include more detailed 
information on the boundaries of the critical habitat designation in 
the preamble of this document. We will make the coordinates or plot 
points or both on which the map is based available to the public on 
http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2018-0104, on our 
internet site at https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Docs_Species.htm, and at the field office responsible for the 
designation (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Final Critical Habitat Designation

    We are designating approximately 10,604 ac (4,291 ha) in eight 
units as critical habitat for the beardless chinchweed. The critical 
habitat areas we describe below constitute our current best assessment 
of areas that meet the definition of critical habitat for the beardless 
chinchweed. Those eight units are: (1) McCleary Canyon, (2) Audubon 
Research Ranch, (3) Scotia Canyon, (4) Coronado National Memorial, (5) 
Lampshire Well, (6) Harshaw Creek, (7) Washington Camp, and (8) Ruby 
Road. Table 3 shows the name, occupancy of the unit, land ownership, 
and approximate area of the designated critical habitat for the 
beardless chinchweed.

                      Table 3--Critical Habitat Units and Occupancy of Beardless Chinchweed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Occupied at the time of                            Size of unit in acres
       Critical habitat unit                    listing                   Ownership              (hectares)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1--McCleary Canyon.................  Yes..........................  U.S. Forest Service    1,686 ac (682 ha).
                                                                     (USFS).
2--Audubon Research Ranch..........  Yes..........................  Bureau of Land         1,170 ac (474 ha)
                                                                     Management (BLM),      BLM; 817 ac (331 ha)
                                                                     USFS, Private          USFS; 300 ac (121
                                                                     (Audubon Research      ha) private.
                                                                     Ranch).
3--Scotia Canyon...................  Yes..........................  USFS.................  855 ac (346 ha).
4--Coronado National Memorial......  Yes..........................  National Park Service  2,109 ac (853 ha).
5--Lampshire Well..................  No...........................  USFS.................  939 ac (380 ha).
6--Harshaw Creek...................  No...........................  USFS.................  1,013 ac (410 ha).
7--Washington Camp.................  No...........................  USFS.................  939 ac (380 ha).
8--Ruby Road.......................  Yes..........................  USFS.................  776 ac (314 ha).
                                                                                          ----------------------
    Total..........................  .............................  .....................  10,604 ac (4,291 ha)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.

    We present brief descriptions of all units, and reasons why they 
meet the definition of critical habitat for the beardless chinchweed, 
below. Each of the eight units contain at least one of the physical or 
biological features essential to the conservation of beardless 
chinchweed (see Summary of Essential Physical or Biological Features, 
above).
Unit 1: McCleary Canyon
    The McCleary Canyon unit occurs in the northeastern portion of the 
Santa Rita Mountains in Pima County, Arizona, and is managed by the 
USFS. This unit is 1,686 ac (682 ha) in size and is currently occupied. 
The unit contains two extant populations: Gunsight Pass and Wasp 
Canyon. Each population within the McCleary Canyon unit supports 32 
individual beardless chinchweed plants. The proposed Rosemont Copper 
Mine occurs in this unit, and ongoing and historical mining activities 
occur throughout the Santa Rita Mountains. This unit also receives 
substantial recreational pressure and livestock grazing. The Gunsight 
Pass population is one of the few populations within the range of the 
beardless chinchweed where native grass species dominate the site. The 
Wasp Canyon population has a mixture of native and nonnative grass 
species. The McCleary Canyon unit provides all five of the physical or 
biological features essential to the conservation of the beardless 
chinchweed. The physical and biological features in this unit may 
require special management considerations, including reduction in 
nonnative grass presence, promotion of native forbs and grasses, 
removal of livestock between April and October, and the creation of 
exclosures. This unit includes habitat for species already listed under 
the Act, including the jaguar (Panthera onca), ocelot (Leopardus 
(=Felis) pardalis), Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida), 
yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus), and Chiricahua leopard frog 
(Lithobates chiricahuensis, listed as Rana chiricahuensis). This unit 
overlaps with designated critical habitat for the jaguar.
Unit 2: Audubon Research Ranch
    The Audubon Research Ranch unit occurs in the northern portion of 
the Canelo Hills in Santa Cruz County, Arizona, and is managed by the 
Audubon Society, and some plants occur on the Coronado National Forest. 
This unit is 2,287 ac (926 ha) in size and is currently occupied. The 
O'Donnell Canyon population is currently extant but there was one 
additional population, Post Canyon, that occurred

[[Page 31850]]

here historically. The Audubon Research Ranch unit supports 37 
individual beardless chinchweed plants and is one of the few sites 
within the range of the beardless chinchweed where native grass species 
dominate the site. The Audubon Research Ranch unit provides all five of 
the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of 
the beardless chinchweed. Features in this unit may require special 
management considerations, including reduction in nonnative grass 
presence and promotion of native forbs and grasses. This unit includes 
habitat for species already listed under the Act: Jaguar, ocelot, 
Mexican spotted owl, yellow-billed cuckoo, Chiricahua leopard frog, 
Gila chub (Gila intermedia), northern Mexican gartersnake (Thamnophis 
eques megalops), and Huachuca water-umbel (Lilaeopsis schaffneriana 
var. recurva). In addition, this unit includes designated critical 
habitat for Chiricahua leopard frog, Gila chub, and Huachuca water-
umbel, and proposed critical habitat for northern Mexican gartersnake.
Unit 3: Scotia Canyon
    The Scotia Canyon unit occurs on the western slopes of the Huachuca 
Mountains in Cochise County, Arizona, and is managed by the USFS. This 
unit is 855 ac (346 ha) in size and is currently occupied by beardless 
chinchweed. This unit includes one extant population estimated to 
contain 40 individual beardless chinchweed plants. This unit has been 
impacted by historical mining, grazing, and wildfire. High recreational 
use also occurs in this unit. The Scotia Canyon unit is one of the few 
sites within the range of beardless chinchweed where native grass 
species dominate the site. The Scotia Canyon unit provides all five of 
the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of 
the beardless chinchweed. The physical and biological features in this 
unit may require special management considerations, including reduction 
in nonnative grass presence, promotion of native forbs and grasses, 
reduction in road maintenance activity, removal of livestock between 
April and October, and the creation of exclosures. This unit includes 
habitat for species already listed under the Act: Jaguar, ocelot, 
Mexican spotted owl, yellow-billed cuckoo, Chiricahua leopard frog, 
northern Mexican gartersnake, and Huachuca water-umbel. In addition, 
this unit includes designated critical habitat for jaguar and Huachuca 
water-umbel, and proposed critical habitat for northern Mexican 
gartersnake.
Unit 4: Coronado National Memorial
    The Coronado National Memorial unit occurs in the southern portion 
of the Huachuca Mountains in Cochise County, Arizona, and is managed by 
the NPS. This unit is 2,109 ac (853 ha) in size and is occupied by 
beardless chinchweed. The unit contains two extant subpopulations: The 
Visitor Center and the State of Texas Mine. The area around the visitor 
center supports approximately 785 individual beardless chinchweed 
plants. Another 61 plants have been documented in the vicinity of the 
State of Texas mine. This unit includes lands within the 1 km buffer of 
foraging and reproductive habitat for pollinators necessary for the 
beardless chinchweed where the historical subpopulation, Joe's Canyon 
Trail, occurred. As described in the response to public comments, 
beardless chinchweed may have been noted at Joe's Canyon Trail in 2012; 
however, three surveys since 2014 have not detected the species. The 
lands in this unit have been affected by historical mining, support a 
high level of recreational use, and experience ongoing impacts from 
wildfire. Portions of the Coronado National Memorial unit are dominated 
by native grass species, while other areas are a mixture of native and 
nonnative grasses. The Coronado National Memorial unit provides all 
five of the physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of beardless chinchweed. The physical and biological 
features in this unit may require special management considerations, 
including reduction in nonnative grass presence and promotion of native 
forbs and grasses. This unit includes habitat for species already 
listed under the Act: Jaguar, ocelot, Mexican spotted owl, yellow-
billed cuckoo, Chiricahua leopard frog, northern Mexican gartersnake, 
and Huachuca water-umbel. In addition, this unit includes designated 
critical habitat for jaguar and Mexican spotted owl.
Unit 5: Lampshire Well
    The Lampshire Well unit occurs in the Canelo Hills in Santa Cruz 
County, Arizona, and is managed by the USFS. This unit is 939 ac (380 
ha) in size and is currently unoccupied. Historically, beardless 
chinchweed populations occurred on this unit. This unit is 
characterized by communities of mixed native and nonnative grasses, and 
is subject to impacts from cross-border activities (foot traffic and 
increased fire ignition) and wildfire. This unit includes habitat for 
species already listed under the Act: Jaguar, ocelot, Mexican spotted 
owl, yellow-billed cuckoo, Chiricahua leopard frog, northern Mexican 
gartersnake, Huachuca water-umbel, and Canelo Hills ladies'-tresses 
(Spiranthes delitescens). In addition, this unit includes designated 
critical habitat for jaguar and proposed critical habitat for northern 
Mexican gartersnake.
    Although it is currently unoccupied, this unit contains all five of 
the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of 
beardless chinchweed. This unit consists of a mix of native and 
nonnative grasses, with scattered oak and juniper, at an elevation of 
1,646 m (5,400 ft), on granitic substrate with steep slopes facing the 
southwest. There are areas in this unit that contain more native 
grasses than nonnative grasses. The USFS is committed to managing for 
the recovery of listed species; reducing nonnative, invasive species; 
and managing fuel loads to reduce potential for high-intensity wildfire 
(USDA FS 2018, pp. 18, 67, 212, 216). The Lampshire Well unit is 
essential to the conservation of the species because it provides for 
habitat and population restoration opportunities, as well as provides 
habitat connectivity for beardless chinchweed and its pollinators. 
Recovery of this species will require new and expanded populations, and 
this unit provides necessary habitat that will contribute to the 
species' resiliency (larger and more populations), redundancy (more 
populations across the range), and representation (opportunities for 
increased genetic and environmental variation). We have determined that 
this unoccupied unit contains all five of the physical or biological 
features that are essential to the conservation of the species and that 
it is reasonably certain that it will contribute to the conservation of 
the species.
Unit 6: Harshaw Creek
    The Harshaw Creek unit occurs in the Canelo Hills in Santa Cruz 
County, Arizona, and is managed by the U.S. Forest Service. This unit 
is 1,013 ac (410 ha) in size and is currently unoccupied. Historically, 
beardless chinchweed populations occurred on this unit. This unit is 
characterized by communities of mixed native and nonnative grasses, and 
is subject to cross-border activities (foot traffic and increased fire 
ignition) and wildfire. This unit includes habitat for species already 
listed under the Act: Jaguar, ocelot, Mexican spotted owl, yellow-
billed cuckoo, Chiricahua leopard frog, northern Mexican gartersnake, 
Huachuca water-umbel, and Canelo Hills ladies'-tresses. In addition, 
this unit includes designated critical habitat for jaguar and proposed

[[Page 31851]]

critical habitat for northern Mexican gartersnake.
    Although it is currently unoccupied, portions of this unit contain 
all five of the physical or biological features essential for the 
conservation of beardless chinchweed. This unit consists of a mix of 
native and nonnative grasses, with scattered oak and junipers, at an 
elevation of 1,494 m (4,900 ft), on granitic, rocky substrate with 
steep slopes facing the southwest. There are areas in this unit with 
more native grasses than nonnative grasses. The U.S. Forest Service is 
committed to managing for the recovery of listed species; reducing 
nonnative, invasive species; and managing fuel loads to reduce 
potential for high-intensity wildfire (USDA Forest Service 2018, pp. 
18, 67, 212, 216). The Harshaw Creek unit is essential to the 
conservation of the species because it provides for habitat and 
population restoration opportunities, as well as provides habitat 
connectivity for beardless chinchweed and its pollinators. Recovery of 
this species will require new and expanded populations, and this unit 
provides for this needed habitat that will contribute to the species' 
resiliency (larger and more populations), redundancy (more populations 
across the range), and representation (opportunities for increased 
genetic and environmental variation). We have determined that this 
unoccupied unit contains all five of the physical or biological 
features that are essential to the conservation of the species and that 
it is reasonably certain to contribute to the conservation of the 
species.
Unit 7: Washington Camp
    The Washington Camp unit occurs in the northeastern portion of the 
Patagonia Mountains in Santa Cruz County, Arizona, and is managed by 
the U.S. Forest Service. This unit is 939 ac (380 ha) in size and is 
currently unoccupied. A number of mining activities are proposed on 
lands within this unit, and this unit is also subject to cross-border 
activities (foot traffic and increased fire ignition), recreational 
use, and wildfire. This unit is characterized by a mixture of native 
and nonnative grass species. This unit includes habitat for species 
already listed under the Act: Jaguar, ocelot, Mexican spotted owl, 
yellow-billed cuckoo, Chiricahua leopard frog, and northern Mexican 
gartersnake. In addition, this unit includes designated critical 
habitat for jaguar and Mexican spotted owl, and proposed critical 
habitat for northern Mexican gartersnake.
    Although it is currently unoccupied, portions of this unit contain 
all five of the physical or biological features essential for the 
conservation of beardless chinchweed. This unit consists of a mix of 
native and nonnative grasses, with scattered oak and juniper at an 
elevation of 1,646 m (5,400 ft), on granitic substrate with steep 
slopes facing the southwest. There are areas in this unit that contain 
more native grasses than nonnative grasses. The U.S. Forest Service is 
committed to managing for the recovery of listed species; reducing 
nonnative, invasive species; and managing fuel loads to reduce 
potential for high-intensity wildfire (USDA Forest Service 2018, pp. 
18, 67, 212, 216). The Washington Camp unit is essential to the 
conservation of the species because it provides for habitat and 
population restoration opportunities, as well as provides habitat 
connectivity for beardless chinchweed and its pollinators. Recovery of 
this species will require new and expanded populations, and this unit 
provides for this needed habitat that will contribute to the species' 
resiliency (larger and more populations), redundancy (more populations 
across the range), and representation (opportunities for increased 
genetic and environmental variation). We have determined that this 
unoccupied unit contains one or more of the physical or biological 
features that are essential to the conservation of the species and that 
it is reasonably certain that it will contribute to the conservation of 
the species.
Unit 8: Ruby Road
    The Ruby Road unit occurs in the Atascosa-Pajarito Mountains in 
Santa Cruz County, Arizona, and is managed by the U.S. Forest Service. 
This unit is 776 ac (314 ha) in size and is currently occupied. There 
is one extant population, Ruby Road, within this unit that supports 
approximately 10 individual beardless chinchweed plants. Despite the 
fact that nonnative grasses dominate this unit, beardless chinchweed is 
able to overcome this competition by occurring in areas along a 
roadside that is regularly maintained, which removes much of the 
nonnative grass cover. This unit has been affected by past mining 
activities, and is subject to ongoing cross-border activities (foot 
traffic and increased fire ignition), recreational use, grazing, and 
wildfire. The Ruby Road unit currently provides four of the physical or 
biological features essential to the conservation of beardless 
chinchweed. The physical and biological features in this unit may 
require special management considerations, including reduction in 
nonnative grass presence, promotion of native forbs and grasses, 
reduction in road maintenance activity, removal of livestock between 
April and October, and creation of exclosures. This unit includes 
habitat for species already listed under the Act: Jaguar, ocelot, 
Mexican spotted owl, yellow-billed cuckoo, Chiricahua leopard frog, and 
northern Mexican gartersnake. In addition, this unit includes 
designated critical habitat for jaguar, Mexican spotted owl, and 
Chiricahua leopard frog.

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Section 7 Consultation
    Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the 
Service, to ensure that any action they fund, authorize, or carry out 
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered 
species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of designated critical habitat of such species. In 
addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to 
confer with the Service on any agency action which is likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed 
under the Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of 
proposed critical habitat.
    We published a final rule revising the definition of destruction or 
adverse modification on August 27, 2019 (84 FR 44976). Destruction or 
adverse modification means a direct or indirect alteration that 
appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat as a whole for the 
conservation of a listed species.
    If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical 
habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) must enter into 
consultation with us. Examples of actions that are subject to the 
section 7 consultation process are actions on State, Tribal, local, or 
private lands that require a Federal permit (such as a permit from the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act 
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the Service under section 10 
of the Act) or that involve some other Federal action (such as funding 
from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation 
Administration, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency). Federal 
actions not affecting listed species or critical habitat, and actions 
on State, Tribal, local, or private lands that are not federally 
funded, authorized, or carried out by a Federal agency, do not require 
section 7 consultation.

[[Page 31852]]

    Compliance with the requirements of section 7(a)(2) is documented 
through our issuance of:
    (1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but 
are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat; 
or
    (2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect, and 
are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
    When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is 
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and/or 
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we provide reasonable and 
prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable, that 
would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat. We define ``reasonable and prudent 
alternatives'' (at 50 CFR 402.02) as alternative actions identified 
during consultation that:
    (1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended 
purpose of the action,
    (2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal 
agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
    (3) Are economically and technologically feasible, and
    (4) Would, in the Service Director's opinion, avoid the likelihood 
of jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species and/or 
avoid the likelihood of destroying or adversely modifying critical 
habitat.
    Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project 
modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs 
associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are 
similarly variable.
    Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate 
formal consultation on previously reviewed actions. These requirements 
apply when the Federal agency has retained discretionary involvement or 
control over the action (or the agency's discretionary involvement or 
control is authorized by law) and, subsequent to the previous 
consultation, we have listed a new species or designated critical 
habitat that may be affected by the Federal action, or the action has 
been modified in a manner that affects the species or critical habitat 
in a way not considered in the previous consultation. In such 
situations, Federal agencies sometimes may need to request reinitiation 
of consultation with us, but the regulations also specify some 
exceptions to the requirement to reinitiate consultation on specific 
land management plans after subsequently listing a new species or 
designating new critical habitat. See the regulations for a description 
of those exceptions.
Application of the ``Adverse Modification'' Standard
    The key factor related to the destruction or adverse modification 
determination is whether implementation of the proposed Federal action 
directly or indirectly alters the designated critical habitat in a way 
that appreciably diminishes the value of the critical habitat as a 
whole for the conservation of the listed species. As discussed above, 
the role of critical habitat is to support physical or biological 
features essential to the conservation of a listed species and provide 
for the conservation of the species.
    Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and 
describe, in any proposed or final rule that designates critical 
habitat, activities involving a Federal action that may violate 7(a)(2) 
of the Act by destroying or adversely modifying such habitat, or that 
may be affected by such designation.
    Activities that the Services may, during a consultation under 
section 7(a)(2) of the Act, find are likely to destroy or adversely 
modify critical habitat include, but are not limited to:
    (1) Actions that would remove native bunchgrass communities. Such 
activities could include, but are not limited to, livestock grazing; 
fire management; trails construction and maintenance; infrastructure 
and road construction and maintenance; recreation management; minerals 
extraction and restoration; visitor use and management; and 
construction and maintenance of border roads, fences, barriers, and 
towers. These activities could eliminate or reduce open habitat 
necessary for growth, seed production, seedbank, and pollinators of 
beardless chinchweed.
    (2) Actions that would result in the introduction, spread, or 
augmentation of nonnative grass species. Such activities could include, 
but are not limited to, livestock grazing; fire management; trails 
construction and maintenance; infrastructure and road construction and 
maintenance; recreation management; minerals extraction and 
restoration; visitor use and management; and construction and 
maintenance of border roads, fences, barriers, and towers. These 
activities could increase the amount of nonnative grasses or introduce 
nonnative grasses, which eliminate or reduce open habitat necessary for 
growth, seed production, seedbank, and pollinators of beardless 
chinchweed.
    (3) Actions that would promote high-severity wildfires. Such 
activities could include, but are not limited to, recreation and 
encouraging the encroachment of nonnative grasses. These activities 
could eliminate or reduce open habitat necessary for growth, seed 
production, seedbank, and pollinators of beardless chinchweed.

Exemptions

Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act
    Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) 
provides that the Secretary shall not designate as critical habitat any 
lands or other geographical areas owned or controlled by the Department 
of Defense, or designated for its use, that are subject to an 
integrated natural resources management plan (INRMP) prepared under 
section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary 
determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit to the species 
for which critical habitat is proposed for designation. There are no 
Department of Defense lands with a completed INRMP within the final 
critical habitat designation.
Consideration of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall 
designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the 
best available scientific data after taking into consideration the 
economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant 
impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The 
Secretary may exclude an area from critical habitat if he determines 
that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying 
such area as part of the critical habitat, unless he determines, based 
on the best scientific data available, that the failure to designate 
such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the 
species. In making that determination, the statute on its face, as well 
as the legislative history, are clear that the Secretary has broad 
discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and how much weight to give 
to any factor. On December 18, 2020, we published a final rule in the 
Federal Register (85 FR 82376) revising portions of our regulations 
pertaining to exclusions of critical habitat. These final regulations 
became effective on January 19, 2021 and apply to critical habitat 
rules for which a proposed rule was published after January 19, 2021. 
Consequently, these new regulations do not apply to this final rule.
    We describe below the process that we undertook for taking into

[[Page 31853]]

consideration each category of impacts and our analyses of the relevant 
impacts.
Consideration of Economic Impacts
    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations require 
that we consider the economic impact that may result from a designation 
of critical habitat. To assess the probable economic impacts of a 
designation, we must first evaluate specific land uses or activities 
and projects that may occur in the area of the critical habitat. We 
then must evaluate the impacts that a specific critical habitat 
designation may have on restricting or modifying specific land uses or 
activities for the benefit of the species and its habitat within the 
areas proposed. We then identify which conservation efforts may be the 
result of the species being listed under the Act versus those 
attributed solely to the designation of critical habitat for this 
particular species. The probable economic impact of a critical habitat 
designation is analyzed by comparing scenarios both ``with critical 
habitat'' and ``without critical habitat.''
    The ``without critical habitat'' scenario represents the baseline 
for the analysis, which includes the existing regulatory and socio-
economic burden imposed on landowners, managers, or other resource 
users potentially affected by the designation of critical habitat 
(e.g., under the Federal listing as well as other Federal, State, and 
local regulations). The baseline, therefore, represents the costs of 
all efforts attributable to the listing of the species under the Act 
(i.e., conservation of the species and its habitat incurred regardless 
of whether critical habitat is designated). The ``with critical 
habitat'' scenario describes the incremental impacts associated 
specifically with the designation of critical habitat for the species. 
The incremental conservation efforts and associated impacts would not 
be expected without the designation of critical habitat for the 
species. In other words, the incremental costs are those attributable 
solely to the designation of critical habitat, above and beyond the 
baseline costs. These are the costs we use when evaluating the benefits 
of inclusion and exclusion of particular areas from the final 
designation of critical habitat when conducting a discretionary 4(b)(2) 
exclusion analysis.
    For this particular designation, we developed an incremental 
effects memorandum (IEM) considering the probable incremental economic 
impacts that may result from the designation of critical habitat. The 
information contained in our IEM was then used to develop a screening 
analysis of the probable effects of the designation of critical habitat 
for the beardless chinchweed (Industrial Economics, Incorporated (IEc) 
2018, entire). We began by conducting a screening analysis of the 
designation of critical habitat in order to focus our analysis on the 
key factors that are likely to result in incremental economic impacts. 
The purpose of the screening analysis is to filter out particular 
geographic areas of critical habitat that are already subject to such 
protections and are, therefore, unlikely to incur incremental economic 
impacts. In particular, the screening analysis considers baseline costs 
(i.e., absent critical habitat designation) and includes probable 
economic impacts where land and water use may be subject to 
conservation plans, land management plans, best management practices, 
or regulations that protect the habitat area as a result of the Federal 
listing status of the species. Ultimately, the screening analysis 
allows us to focus our analysis on evaluating the specific areas or 
sectors that may incur probable incremental economic impacts as a 
result of the designation. If there are any unoccupied units in the 
critical habitat designation, the screening analysis assesses whether 
any additional management or conservation efforts may incur incremental 
economic impacts. This screening analysis, combined with the 
information contained in our IEM, is what we consider our economic 
analysis of the critical habitat designation for the beardless 
chinchweed and is summarized in the narrative below.
    Executive Orders (E.O.) 12866 and 13563 direct Federal agencies to 
assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives in 
quantitative (to the extent feasible) and qualitative terms. Consistent 
with the E.O. regulatory analysis requirements, our effects analysis 
under the Act may take into consideration impacts to both directly and 
indirectly affected entities, where practicable and reasonable. If 
sufficient data are available, we assess to the extent practicable the 
probable impacts to both directly and indirectly affected entities.
    As part of our screening analysis, we considered the types of 
economic activities that are likely to occur within the areas likely 
affected by the critical habitat designation. In our evaluation of the 
probable incremental economic impacts that may result from the 
designation of critical habitat for beardless chinchweed, first we 
identified, in the IEM dated August 30, 2018, probable incremental 
economic impacts associated with the following categories of 
activities: (1) Federal lands management (NPS, USFS, Bureau of Land 
Management); (2) grazing (USFS, Bureau of Land Management); (3) wild 
and prescribed fire (NPS, USFS, Bureau of Land Management); (4) 
groundwater pumping (USFS); (5) mining (USFS); (6) fuels management 
(NPS, USFS, Bureau of Land Management); (7) transportation (road 
construction and maintenance; NPS, USFS); and (8) trampling and dust 
creation from recreation and border protection activities (U.S. Customs 
and Border Protection, USFS, NPS). We considered each industry or 
category individually. Additionally, we considered whether their 
activities have any Federal involvement. Critical habitat designation 
generally will not affect activities that do not have any Federal 
involvement; under the Act, the designation of critical habitat only 
affects activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by 
Federal agencies. In areas where beardless chinchweed is present, 
Federal agencies would already be required to consult with the Service 
under section 7 of the Act on activities they conduct, fund, permit, or 
authorize that may affect the species. When this rule becomes effective 
(see DATES, above), consultations to avoid the destruction or adverse 
modification of beardless chinchweed critical habitat will be 
incorporated into the existing consultation process.
    In our IEM, we clarified the distinction between the effects that 
would result from the species being listed and those attributable to 
the critical habitat designation (i.e., difference between the jeopardy 
and adverse modification standards) for beardless chinchweed. For 
species where the designation of critical habitat is finalized 
concurrently with the listing, like beardless chinchweed, it has been 
our experience that it is more difficult to discern which conservation 
efforts are attributable to the species being listed and those which 
will result solely from the designation of critical habitat. However, 
the following specific circumstances in this case help to inform our 
evaluation: (1) The essential physical or biological features 
identified for critical habitat are the same features essential for the 
life requisites of the species, and (2) any actions that would result 
in sufficient harm or harassment to constitute jeopardy to beardless 
chinchweed would also likely adversely affect the essential physical or 
biological features of critical habitat. The IEM outlines our rationale 
concerning this limited distinction between baseline conservation 
efforts and incremental impacts of the designation of critical

[[Page 31854]]

habitat for this species. This evaluation of the incremental effects 
has been used as the basis to evaluate the probable incremental 
economic impacts of this designation of critical habitat.
    The critical habitat designation for beardless chinchweed totals 
approximately 7,713 ac (3,121 ha, or 73 percent of the total critical 
habitat designation) of currently occupied habitat and 2,891 ac (1,170 
ha, or 27 percent of the total critical habitat designation) of 
unoccupied habitat (see Table 3, above). Every unit of critical habitat 
for the beardless chinchweed overlaps with the ranges of a number of 
currently listed species and designated critical habitats. Therefore, 
the actual number of section 7 consultations is not expected to 
increase; however, the analysis within these consultations would expand 
to consider effects to critical habitat for the beardless chinchweed. 
Consequently, there would likely be a small increase in the time needed 
to complete the consultation to include the assessment of beardless 
chinchweed critical habitat units (IEc 2018, entire). Section 7 
consultations involving third parties (State, Tribal, or private lands) 
are limited.
    Based on the locations of the critical habitat units and the types 
of projects we typically evaluate for the Coronado National Forest and 
the Coronado National Memorial, we estimate that there would likely be 
4 to 6 consultations annually that would include the beardless 
chinchweed. The entities that would incur incremental costs are Federal 
agencies, because 97 percent of critical habitat is on Federal land.
    In the 7,713 ac (3,121 ha) of occupied critical habitat (Units 1, 
2, 3, 4, and 8), any actions that may affect the species or its habitat 
would also affect designated critical habitat. Consequently, it is 
unlikely that any additional conservation efforts would be recommended 
to address the adverse modification standard over and above those 
recommended as necessary to avoid jeopardizing the continued existence 
of the beardless chinchweed. Therefore, only administrative costs are 
expected in these occupied units. While this additional analysis will 
require time and resources by the Federal action agency, the Service, 
and third parties, it is expected that, in most circumstances, these 
costs would predominantly be administrative in nature and would not be 
significant (IEc 2018, entire). In unoccupied areas, any conservation 
efforts or associated probable impacts would be considered incremental 
effects attributed to the critical habitat designation. In units 
occupied by the chinchweed, we determine the additional administrative 
cost to address chinchweed critical habitat in the consultation is 
minor, costing approximately $5,100 per consultation (2017 dollars). 
For the critical habitat units that are currently occupied by beardless 
chinchweed (Units 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8), we have not identified any 
ongoing or future projects or actions that would warrant additional 
recommendations or modifications to avoid adversely modifying critical 
habitat above those that we would recommend for avoiding jeopardy. 
Therefore, project modifications resulting from section 7 consultations 
in occupied units are unlikely to be affected by the designation of 
critical habitat.
    In unoccupied units (Units 5, 6, and 7), we determined the 
incremental administrative effort will be greater on a per consultation 
basis. Thus, we concluded an incremental per consultation 
administrative cost of $15,000 in unoccupied units (2017 dollars).
    In unoccupied units, incremental project modifications are 
possible. No known projects are currently scheduled to occur within the 
designated areas; however, U.S. Forest Service staff express there is 
always a possibility of future projects related to grazing, 
transportation, mining, and recreation activities in this region. We 
discuss potential costs resulting from these activities below.
    There are grazing allotments that overlap with unoccupied critical 
habitat. However, only one allotment overlaps with unoccupied critical 
habitat by more than 5 percent of the allotment's land area and two 
allotments with less than 5 percent of unoccupied critical habitat. In 
unoccupied units, our recommendations regarding alterations in amount 
or timing of grazing activities are not required because the species is 
not present. However, U.S. Forest Service may undertake range 
improvements to reduce the loss of native plant communities (e.g., 
bunchgrass) in the unoccupied critical habitat overlapping with grazing 
allotment units. The economic analysis estimates that range improvement 
projects in a given year may cost the agency from $1,000 to $250,000.
    During the improvement project, electric fencing (included in the 
U.S. Forest Service cost estimate) would be installed temporarily to 
exclude cattle. During this period, there could be a loss of forage, 
depending on the extent of overlap with existing grazing allotments, 
resulting in a temporary reduction in the number of animal unit months 
(AUMs; a measure of the amount of forage consumed by one cow and calf 
during one month) associated with the relevant allotment. The value of 
grazing permits associated with allotments on Federal land can be used 
to estimate the potential loss to ranchers during an exclusion period. 
We estimated a range of potential costs related to grazing, based on 
two scenarios. In the low-end scenario, we determined that AUM 
reductions would only occur in allotments where critical habitat 
accounts for greater than 5 percent of the total allotment area. 
Otherwise, ranchers are likely to be able to implement changes in 
practices that avoid the need to reduce the amount of cattle grazed on 
the allotment, and thus they avoid costs associated with lost AUMs. In 
the high-end scenario, we determined that ranchers are unable to change 
practices, and the loss in AUMs is proportional to the amount of 
overlap between designated critical habitat and the relevant allotment.
    To identify the allotments overlapping unoccupied units and the 
number of AUMs permitted in each allotment, data were obtained from 
U.S. Forest Service. Those data were then used to calculate potential 
AUM reduction for each allotment unit overlapping with unoccupied 
critical habitat. Only one allotment (San Rafael) overlaps with 
unoccupied critical habitat by more than 5 percent of the allotment's 
land area. In this allotment, a temporary reduction of 402 AUMs is 
possible. For the remaining allotments, we determined no impact on 
permitted AUMs in the low-end scenario. In the high-end scenario, a 
temporary reduction of 747 AUMs is possible if all of the unoccupied 
units are fenced to exclude cattle during range improvement efforts.
    The cost of reducing AUMs from occupied critical habitat during 
range improvement activities is unlikely to exceed $41,000 in the low-
end scenario or $76,000 in the high-end scenario (2017 dollars). 
Impacts associated with reduced AUMs could be greatest in Unit 7 
($27,000), followed by Unit 6 ($25,000) and Unit 5 ($24,000). These 
estimates represent perpetuity values; thus, the single year loss would 
be a fraction of this amount.
    Other activities that could overlap with unoccupied critical 
habitat include mining and road and trail construction. To avoid 
adverse effects to critical habitat, U.S. Forest Service might 
recommend moving these projects, if feasible, to avoid the critical 
habitat units. This could result in the need to construct additional 
linear miles of

[[Page 31855]]

road. If projects can easily be moved to other areas, U.S. Forest 
Service estimates total, on-time costs to the agency, as well as the 
project proponents, in the range of $0 to $500,000. Where avoidance of 
critical habitat is prohibitively expensive, U.S. Forest Service states 
that it would instead recommend monitoring and subsequent treatment for 
the introduction or spread of invasive plants due to project 
activities. The costs to U.S. Forest Service and project proponents of 
these activities might range from $1,000 to $500,000. For projects that 
result in a significant amount of vegetation that would not regrow in a 
timely manner (approximately 2 years), U.S. Forest Service might 
require more all-inclusive restoration, reclamation, and revegetation 
of the disturbed project footprints. In these cases, costs to U.S. 
Forest Service and project proponents might range from $10,000 to 
$1,000,000.
    The Service estimates a total of four to six consultations are 
likely to occur in a given year in designated areas. As a conservative 
estimate (i.e., more likely to overestimate than underestimate costs), 
we concluded that six consultations will occur and all of the 
consultations will be formal. The total administrative cost of these 
consultations is estimated to be $48,000 (IEc 2018, p. 16), including 
costs to the Service, the Federal action agency, and third parties. 
Incremental project modifications resulting solely from the designation 
of critical habitat are unlikely in occupied critical habitat. In 
unoccupied units, which are all managed by the U.S. Forest Service, 
projects associated with grazing, mining, road or trail construction 
and maintenance, and range improvements are possible. The costs per 
project, including costs to the U.S. Forest Service and State, local, 
or private project proponents, might range from $0 (simply moving a 
project to avoid critical habitat where the overlap between the project 
and critical habitat is minor) to $1,000,000 (projects that result in a 
significant amount of surface disturbance, such as a new mining 
proposal in an unoccupied unit); however, it is very difficult to 
accurately predict these potential costs as often they are 
significantly reduced through the section 7 consultation process. When 
no more than six consultations, and therefore projects, are likely in a 
given year, the section 7 impacts of this critical habitat designation 
are unlikely to exceed $10 million in a given year (IEc 2018, p. 16). 
However, as stated above, no known projects are currently scheduled to 
occur within the designated unoccupied areas; thus, these estimated 
impacts are meant to capture a conservative high-end estimate of 
potential impacts. Therefore, our economic screening analysis indicates 
the incremental costs associated with critical habitat are unlikely to 
exceed $100 million in any single year, and, therefore, would not be 
significant.
Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts
    We considered the economic impacts of the critical habitat 
designation and the Secretary is not exercising her discretion to 
exclude any areas from this designation of critical habitat for the 
beardless chinchweed based on economic impacts. A copy of the IEM and 
screening analysis with supporting documents may be obtained by 
contacting the Arizona Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) or by downloading from the internet at 
http://www.regulations.gov.
Exclusions Based on Impacts on National Security and Homeland Security
    Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act may not cover all Department of 
Defense (DoD) lands or areas that pose potential national-security 
concerns (e.g., a DoD installation that is in the process of revising 
its INRMP for a newly listed species or a species previously not 
covered). If a particular area is not covered under section 
4(a)(3)(B)(i), national-security or homeland-security concerns are not 
a factor in the process of determining what areas meet the definition 
of ``critical habitat.'' Nevertheless, when designating critical 
habitat under section 4(b)(2), the Service must consider impacts on 
national security, including homeland security, on lands or areas not 
covered by section 4(a)(3)(B)(i). Accordingly, we will always consider 
for exclusion from the designation areas for which DoD, Department of 
Homeland Security (DHS), or another Federal agency has requested 
exclusion based on an assertion of national-security or homeland-
security concerns.
    We cannot, however, automatically exclude requested areas. When 
DoD, DHS, or another Federal agency requests exclusion from critical 
habitat on the basis of national-security or homeland-security impacts, 
it must provide a reasonably specific justification of an incremental 
impact on national security that would result from the designation of 
that specific area as critical habitat. That justification could 
include demonstration of probable impacts, such as impacts to ongoing 
border-security patrols and surveillance activities, or a delay in 
training or facility construction, as a result of compliance with 
section 7(a)(2) of the Act. If the agency requesting the exclusion does 
not provide us with a reasonably specific justification, we will 
contact the agency to recommend that it provide a specific 
justification or clarification of its concerns relative to the probable 
incremental impact that could result from the designation. If the 
agency provides a reasonably specific justification, we will defer to 
the expert judgment of DoD, DHS, or another Federal agency as to: (1) 
Whether activities on its lands or waters, or its activities on other 
lands or waters, have national-security or homeland-security 
implications; (2) the importance of those implications; and (3) the 
degree to which the cited implications would be adversely affected in 
the absence of an exclusion. In that circumstance, in conducting a 
discretionary section 4(b)(2) exclusion analysis, we will give great 
weight to national-security and homeland-security concerns in analyzing 
the benefits of exclusion.
    No lands within the designation of critical habitat for beardless 
chinchweed are owned or managed by the DoD. The U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (Department of Homeland Security) conducts border security 
operations and enforcement activities within and outside the 60-foot 
Roosevelt Reservation along the United States/Mexico border (Unit 4).
    This rule takes into account any relevant national security impacts 
of the designation of critical habitat for the beardless chinchweed. We 
coordinated with the Customs and Border Protection (Department of 
Homeland Security) on the proposed and final designations of critical 
habitat. The agency did not request an exclusion from critical habitat 
based on potential national security impacts. We note that Congress has 
provided to the Secretary of Homeland Security a number of authorities 
necessary to carry out the Department's border security mission. One of 
those authorities is found at section 102 of the Illegal Immigration 
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, as amended 
(``IIRIRA''). In section 102(a) of IIRIRA, Congress provided that the 
Secretary of Homeland Security shall take such actions as may be 
necessary to install additional physical barriers and roads (including 
the removal of obstacles to detection of illegal entrants) in the 
vicinity of the United States border to deter illegal crossings in 
areas of high illegal entry into the United States. In

[[Page 31856]]

section 102(b) of IIRIRA, Congress mandated the installation of 
additional fencing, barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors on 
the southwest border. Finally, in section 102(c) of IIRIRA, Congress 
granted to the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority to waive 
all legal requirements that he determines are necessary to ensure the 
expeditious construction of barriers and roads authorized by section 
102 of IIRIRA. On May 15, 2019, the Secretary of Homeland Security 
issued waivers for legal requirements covering border barrier 
activities directly in the vicinity of the beardless chinchweed's known 
range and proposed critical habitat (85 FR 9794).
    No impacts to national security or homeland security were presented 
to the Service, and we have no reason to expect such impacts from this 
designation of critical habitat. Consequently, the Secretary is not 
exercising her discretion to exclude any areas from the final 
designation based on impacts on national security.
Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Impacts
    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant 
impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts on national 
security. We consider a number of factors including whether there are 
permitted conservation plans covering the species in the area, such as 
habitat conservation plans, safe harbor agreements, or candidate 
conservation agreements with assurances, or whether there are non-
permitted conservation agreements and partnerships that would be 
encouraged by designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat. In 
addition, we look at the existence of Tribal conservation plans and 
partnerships and consider the government-to-government relationship of 
the United States with Tribal entities. We also consider any social 
impacts that might occur because of the designation.
    In preparing this final rule, we have determined that there are 
currently no permitted conservation plans or other non-permitted 
conservation agreements or partnerships for the beardless chinchweed, 
and the final critical habitat designation does not include any Tribal 
lands or trust resources. We anticipate no impact on Tribal lands, 
partnerships, or permitted or non-permitted plans or agreements from 
this critical habitat designation. Accordingly, the Secretary is not 
exercising her discretion to exclude any areas from the final 
designation based on other relevant impacts.

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)
    Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will 
review all significant rules. The Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs has determined that this rule is not significant.
    Executive Order (E.O.) 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 
while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to 
promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, 
most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory 
ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory 
approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of 
choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, 
and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes 
further that regulations must be based on the best available science 
and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and 
an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner 
consistent with these requirements.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), 
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996 (SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), whenever an agency is required to 
publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must 
prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility 
analysis that describes the effects of the rule on small entities 
(i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government 
jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required 
if the head of the agency certifies the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
The SBREFA amended the RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a 
certification statement of the factual basis for certifying that the 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.
    According to the Small Business Administration, small entities 
include small organizations such as independent nonprofit 
organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school 
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 
residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses 
include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 
employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, 
retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual 
sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 
million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than 
$11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with 
annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic 
impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the 
types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this 
designation as well as types of project modifications that may result. 
In general, the term ``significant economic impact'' is meant to apply 
to a typical small business firm's business operations.
    Under the RFA, as amended, and as understood in the light of recent 
court decisions, Federal agencies are required to evaluate the 
potential incremental impacts of rulemaking on those entities directly 
regulated by the rulemaking itself; in other words, the RFA does not 
require agencies to evaluate the potential impacts to indirectly 
regulated entities. The regulatory mechanism through which critical 
habitat protections are realized is section 7 of the Act, which 
requires Federal agencies, in consultation with the Service, to ensure 
that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency is not 
likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Therefore, 
under section 7, only Federal action agencies are directly subject to 
the specific regulatory requirement (avoiding destruction and adverse 
modification) imposed by critical habitat designation. Consequently, it 
is our position that only Federal action agencies will be directly 
regulated by this designation. There is no requirement under the RFA to 
evaluate the potential impacts to entities not directly regulated. 
Moreover, Federal agencies are not small entities. Therefore, because 
no small entities will be directly regulated by this rulemaking, the 
Service certifies that this critical habitat designation will not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.
    During the development of this final rule, we reviewed and 
evaluated all information submitted during the comment period on the 
December 6, 2019, proposed rule (84 FR 67060) that may pertain to our 
consideration of the probable incremental economic impacts of this 
critical habitat designation. Based on this information, we affirm our 
certification that this critical habitat

[[Page 31857]]

designation will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities, and a regulatory flexibility 
analysis is not required.
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use--Executive Order 13211
    Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) requires 
agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking 
certain actions. OMB has provided guidance for implementing this 
Executive Order that outlines nine outcomes that may constitute ``a 
significant adverse effect'' when compared to not taking the regulatory 
action under consideration. The economic analysis finds that none of 
these criteria are relevant to this analysis. Thus, based on 
information in the economic analysis, energy-related impacts associated 
with beardless chinchweed conservation activities within critical 
habitat are not expected. As such, the designation of critical habitat 
is not expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, 
or use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action, and 
no Statement of Energy Effects is required.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 
et seq.), we make the following findings:
    (1) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a 
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation 
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal 
governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.'' 
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose 
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments'' with two 
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also 
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal 
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal 
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, 
local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the 
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance'' 
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's 
responsibility to provide funding,'' and the State, local, or tribal 
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of 
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families 
with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; 
Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; 
Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family 
Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal 
private sector mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an 
enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of 
Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a 
voluntary Federal program.''
    The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally 
binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties. 
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must 
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive 
Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require 
approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be 
indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally 
binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the 
extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they 
receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid 
program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would 
critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs 
listed above onto State governments.
    (2) We do not believe that this rule will significantly or uniquely 
affect small governments because the area included in the critical 
habitat designation is largely owned by Federal agencies, with a small 
amount of private land (3 percent). Consequently, we do not believe 
that the critical habitat designation significantly or uniquely affects 
small government entities. Therefore, a Small Government Agency Plan is 
not required.
Takings--Executive Order 12630
    In accordance with E.O. 12630 (Government Actions and Interference 
with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights), we have 
analyzed the potential takings implications of designating critical 
habitat for the beardless chinchweed in a takings implications 
assessment. The Act does not authorize the Service to regulate private 
actions on private lands or confiscate private property as a result of 
critical habitat designation. Designation of critical habitat does not 
affect land ownership, or establish any closures, or restrictions on 
use of or access to the designated areas. Furthermore, the designation 
of critical habitat does not affect landowner actions that do not 
require Federal funding or permits, nor does it preclude development of 
habitat conservation programs or issuance of incidental take permits to 
permit actions that do require Federal funding or permits to go 
forward. However, Federal agencies are prohibited from carrying out, 
funding, or authorizing actions that would destroy or adversely modify 
critical habitat. A takings implications assessment has been completed 
and concludes that this designation of critical habitat for beardless 
chinchweed does not pose significant takings implications for lands 
within or affected by the designation.
Federalism--Executive Order 13132
    In accordance with E.O. 13132 (Federalism), this rule does not have 
significant Federalism effects. A federalism summary impact statement 
is not required. In keeping with Department of the Interior and 
Department of Commerce policy, we requested information from, and 
coordinated development of the critical habitat designation with, the 
appropriate State resource agencies in Arizona. From a federalism 
perspective, the designation of critical habitat directly affects only 
the responsibilities of Federal agencies. The Act imposes no other 
duties with respect to critical habitat, either for States and local 
governments, or for anyone else. As a result, the rule does not have 
substantial direct effects either on the State, or on the relationship 
between the national government and the State, or on the distribution 
of powers and responsibilities among the various levels of government. 
The designation may have some benefit to these governments because the 
areas that contain the features essential to the conservation of the 
species are more clearly defined, and the physical or biological 
features of the habitat necessary to the conservation of the species 
are specifically identified. This information does not alter where and 
what federally sponsored activities may occur. However, it may assist 
these local governments in long-range planning because these local 
governments no longer have to wait for case-by-case section 7 
consultations to occur.
    Where State and local governments require approval or authorization 
from a Federal agency for actions that may affect critical habitat, 
consultation

[[Page 31858]]

under section 7(a)(2) would be required. While non-Federal entities 
that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise 
require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, 
may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the 
legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency.
Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988
    In accordance with Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), 
the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not 
unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of 
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We are designating critical 
habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Act. To assist the 
public in understanding the habitat needs of the species, this rule 
identifies the elements of physical or biological features essential to 
the conservation of the species. The designated areas of critical 
habitat are presented on a map, and the rule provides several options 
for the interested public to obtain more detailed location information, 
if desired.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
    This rule does not contain information collection requirements, and 
a submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) is not 
required. We may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to 
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently 
valid OMB control number.
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
    It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court 
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare 
environmental analyses pursuant to the National Environmental Policy 
Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) in connection with regulations 
adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. We published a notice 
outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on 
October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This position was upheld by the U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 
F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)).
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994 
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and 
Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the 
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our 
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal 
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with 
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, 
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), 
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with 
Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge 
that Tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal 
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make 
information available to Tribes.
    We determined that there are no Tribal lands occupied by the 
beardless chinchweed at the time of listing that contain the physical 
or biological features essential to the conservation of the species, 
and no Tribal lands unoccupied by the beardless chinchweed that are 
essential to the conservation of the species. Therefore, we are not 
designating critical habitat for the beardless chinchweed on Tribal 
lands, and no Tribal lands are affected by the designation.

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited in the SSA report and this 
rulemaking is available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov 
under Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2018-0104 and upon request from the Arizona 
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Authors

    The primary authors of this final rule are the staff members of the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Species Assessment Team and the 
Arizona Ecological Services Field Office.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Regulation Promulgation

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

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

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

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless 
otherwise noted.


0
2. Amend Sec.  17.12(h), the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants, 
by adding an entry for ``Pectis imberbis'' in alphabetical order under 
FLOWERING PLANTS to read as set forth below:


Sec.  17.12  Endangered and threatened plants.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Listing citations and
         Scientific name              Common name        Where listed         Status         applicable rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Flowering Plants
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Pectis imberbis.................  Beardless           Wherever found....  E              86 FR [INSERT Federal
                                   chinchweed.                                            Register PAGE WHERE
                                                                                          THE DOCUMENT BEGINS],
                                                                                          June 15, 2021; 50 CFR
                                                                                          17.96(a).\CH\
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
3. Amend Sec.  17.96(a) by adding an entry, in alphabetical order, for 
``Family Asteraceae: Pectis imberbis (beardless chinchweed)'' to read 
as follows:


Sec.  17.96   Critical habitat--plants.

    (a) Flowering plants.
* * * * *
Family Asteraceae: Pectis imberbis (Beardless Chinchweed)
    (1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Cochise, Pima, and 
Santa Cruz

[[Page 31859]]

Counties, Arizona, on the map in this entry.
    (2) Within these areas, the physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the beardless chinchweed consist of 
the following components:
    (i) Native-dominated plant communities, consisting of:
    (A) Plains, great basin, and semi-desert grasslands, oak savanna, 
or Madrean evergreen woodland;
    (B) Communities dominated by bunchgrasses with open spacing 
(adjacent to and within 10 meters (33 feet) of individual beardless 
chinchweed plants) and with little competition from other plants; and
    (C) Communities with plants for pollinator foraging and nesting 
within 1 kilometer (0.62 miles) of beardless chinchweed populations.
    (ii) 1,158 to 1,737 meters (3,799 to 5,699 feet) elevation.
    (iii) Eroding limestone or granite bedrock substrate.
    (iv) Steep, south-facing, sunny to partially shaded hillslopes.
    (v) The presence of pollinators (i.e., flies, bees, and 
butterflies).
    (3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as 
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the 
land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on 
the effective date of the rule.
    (4) Data layers defining map units were created using ArcMap 
version 10 (Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc.), a 
geographic information systems program on a base of USA Topo Maps. 
Critical habitat units were then mapped using NAD 1983, Universal 
Transverse Mercator (UTM) Zone 12N coordinates. The maps in this entry, 
as modified by any accompanying regulatory text, establishes the 
boundaries of the critical habitat designation. The coordinates or plot 
points or both on which each map is based are available to the public 
at the Service's internet site at https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Docs_Species.htm and at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket 
No. FWS-R2-ES-2018-0104, and at the field office responsible for this 
designation. You may obtain field office location information by 
contacting one of the Service regional offices, the addresses of which 
are listed at 50 CFR 2.2.
    (5) Note: Index map follows:
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15JN21.000


[[Page 31860]]


    (6) Unit 1: McCleary Canyon, Pima County, Arizona.
    (i) Unit 1 consists of 682 hectares (1,686 acres) of U.S. Forest 
Service lands.
    (ii) Map of Unit 1 follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15JN21.001
    

[[Page 31861]]


    (7) Unit 2: Audubon Research Ranch, Santa Cruz County, Arizona.
    (i) Unit 2 consists of 926 hectares (2,287 acres) of land, of which 
331 hectares (817 acres) are owned by the U.S. Forest Service, 474 
hectares (1,170 acres) by the Bureau of Land Management, and 121 
hectares (300 acres) by the Audubon Research Ranch.
    (ii) Map of Unit 2 follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15JN21.002
    

[[Page 31862]]


    (8) Unit 3: Scotia Canyon, Cochise County, Arizona.
    (i) Unit 3 consists of 346 hectares (855 acres) of U.S. Forest 
Service lands.
    (ii) Map of Unit 3 follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15JN21.003
    

[[Page 31863]]


    (9) Unit 4: Coronado National Memorial, Cochise County, Arizona.
    (i) Unit 4 consists of 853 hectares (2,109 acres) of National Park 
Service lands.
    (ii) Map of Unit 4 follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15JN21.004
    

[[Page 31864]]


    (10) Unit 5: Lampshire Well, Santa Cruz County, Arizona.
    (i) Unit 5 consists of 380 hectares (939 acres) of U.S. Forest 
Service lands.
    (ii) Map of Unit 5 follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15JN21.005
    

[[Page 31865]]


    (11) Unit 6: Harshaw Creek, Santa Cruz County, Arizona.
    (i) Unit 6 consists of 410 hectares (1,013 acres) of U.S. Forest 
Service lands.
    (ii) Map of Unit 6 follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15JN21.006
    

[[Page 31866]]


    (12) Unit 7: Washington Camp, Santa Cruz County, Arizona.
    (i) Unit 7 consists of 380 hectares (939 acres) of U.S. Forest 
Service lands.
    (ii) Map of Unit 7 follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15JN21.007
    

[[Page 31867]]


    (13) Unit 8: Ruby Road, Santa Cruz County, Arizona.
    (i) Unit 8 consists of 314 hectares (776 acres) of U.S. Forest 
Service lands.
    (ii) Map of Unit 8 follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15JN21.008
    

[[Page 31868]]


* * * * *

Martha Williams,
Principal Deputy Director, Exercising the Delegated Authority of the 
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-12005 Filed 6-14-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C