Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 48545 

TABLE III—ENDURANCE TEST SCHEDULE

Description Load range 

Test wheel speed Test load: Percent of maximum load 

rating Total test 

revolution 

km/h r/m Step I (thousands) 

(7 hours) 

Step II 

(16 hours) 

Step III 

(24 hours) 

Speed-restricted service: 

90 km/h (55 mph) .... All .................................... 40 125 66 84 101 352.5 

80 km/h (50 mph) .... C, D ................................

E, F, G, H, J, L, M, N .....

48 

32 

150 

100 

75 

66 

97 

84 

114 

101 

423.0 

282.0 

56 km/h (35 mph) .... All .................................... 24 75 66 84 101 211.5 

Motorcycle ....................... All .................................... 80 250 a100 b108 117 510.0 

All other ........................... A, B, C, D .......................

E .....................................

F .....................................

G .....................................

H, J, L, M, N ...................

80 

64 

64 

56 

48 

250 

200 

200 

175 

150 

a75 

70 

66 

66 

66 

b97 

88 

84 

84 

84 

114 

106 

101 

101 

101 

510.0 

564.0 

564.0 

493.5 

423.0 

a 4 hours for tire sizes subject to high speed requirements S6.3. b 6 hours for tire sizes subject to high speed requirements S6.3. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Amend § 571.139 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph S2; 

■ b. Revising paragraph S4.1.1(a); 

■ c. Revising paragraph S6.2.1.1.1; 

■ d. Revising paragraph S6.3.1.1.1; and 

■ e. Revising paragraph S6.4.1.1.1. 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 571.139 Standard No. 139; New 

pneumatic radial tires for light vehicles. 

* * * * * 

S2 Application. This standard 

applies to new pneumatic radial tires for 

use on motor vehicles (other than 

motorcycles and low speed vehicles) 

that have a gross vehicle weight rating 

(GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less and 

that were manufactured after 1975. This 

standard does not apply to special tires 

(ST) for trailers in highway service, tires 

for use on farm implements (FI) in 

agricultural service with intermittent 

highway use, tires with rim diameters of 

12 inches and below, T-type temporary 

use spare tires with radial construction, 

and light truck tires with a tread depth 

of 18/32 inch or greater. 

* * * * * 

S4.1.1 * * * 

(a) Listed by manufacturer name or 

brand name in a document furnished to 

dealers of the manufacturer’s tires, to 

any person upon request, and in 

duplicate to the Docket Section (No. 

NHTSA–2009–0117), National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration, West 

Building, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, 

Washington, DC 20590; or 

* * * * * 

S6.2.1.1.1 Mount the tire on a test rim 

and inflate it to the pressure specified 

for the tire in the following table: 

Tire application 

Test 

pressure 

(kPa) 

Passenger car tires: 

Standard load .................... 220 

Extra load .......................... 260 

Light truck tires with a nominal 

cross section ≤295 mm (11.5 

inches): 

Load Range C ................... 320 

Load Range D ................... 410 

Load Range E ................... 500 

Light truck tires with a nominal 

cross section >295 mm (11.5 

inches) 

Load Range C ................... 230 

Load Range D ................... 320 

Load Range E ................... 410 

* * * * * 

S6.3.1.1.1 Mount the tire on a test 

rim and inflate it to the pressure 

specified for the tire in the following 

table: 

Tire application 

Test 

pressure 

(kPa) 

Passenger car tires: 

Standard load .................... 180 

Extra load .......................... 220 

Light truck tires with a nominal 

cross section ≤295 mm (11.5 

inches) 

Load Range C ................... 260 

Load Range D ................... 340 

Load Range E ................... 410 

Light truck tires with a nominal 

cross section >295 mm (11.5 

inches) 

Load Range C ................... 190 

Load Range D ................... 260 

Load Range E ................... 340 

* * * * * 

S6.4.1.1.1 This test is conducted 

following completion of the tire 

endurance test using the same tire and 

rim assembly tested in accordance with 

S6.3 with the tire deflated to the 

following appropriate pressure: 

Tire application 

Test 

pressure 

(kPa) 

Passenger car tires.

Standard load .................... 140 

Extra load .......................... 160 

Light truck tires with a nominal 

cross section ≤295 mm (11.5 

inches) 

Load Range C ................... 200 

Load Range D ................... 260 

Load Range E ................... 320 

Light truck tires with a nominal 

cross section >295 mm (11.5 

inches) 

Load Range C ................... 150 

Load Range D ................... 200 

Load Range E ................... 260 

* * * * * 

Issued in Washington, DC, under authority 

delegated in 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.5. 

Steven S. Cliff, 

Acting Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2021–18633 Filed 8–30–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

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; Threatened Species Status 

for Bartram’s Stonecrop With a Section 

4(d) Rule 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
48546 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), determine 

threatened species status under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), 

as amended, for Bartram’s stonecrop 

(Graptopetalum bartramii), a plant 

known from Arizona and Mexico. We 

also issue a final rule under the 

authority of section 4(d) (a ‘‘4(d) rule’’) 

of the Act that provides measures that 

are necessary and advisable to provide 

for the conservation of Bartram’s 

stonecrop. We have determined that 

designation of critical habitat for 

Bartram’s stonecrop is not prudent. 

DATES: This rule is effective September 

30, 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. 

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. 

What this document does. This rule 

lists Bartram’s stonecrop 

(Graptopetalum bartramii) as a 

threatened species. This document also 

finalizes a rule under the authority of 

section 4(d) of the Act that provides 

measures that are necessary and 

advisable to provide for the 

conservation of Bartram’s stonecrop. 

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 Bartram’s 

stonecrop faces the following threats: 

Reduction in water availability (Factors 

A and E); erosion, sedimentation, and 

burial (Factors A and E); trampling 

(Factor E); altered fire regime (Factors A 

and E); loss of shade (Factors A and E); 

altered flooding regime (Factors A and 

E); drought (Factors A and E); illegal 

collection (Factor B); and small 

population size (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 

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. In this case, 

we have found that the designation of 

critical habitat for Bartram’s stonecrop 

is not prudent at this time. 

Peer review and public comment. A 

species status assessment (SSA) team 

prepared an SSA report for Bartram’s 

stonecrop. 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 factors (both 

negative and beneficial) affecting the 

species. We sought the expert opinions 

of three 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 Bartram’s stonecrop. 

Previous Federal Actions 

On December 6, 2019, we published 

in the Federal Register (84 FR 67060) a 

proposed rule to list Bartram’s 

stonecrop as a threatened species under 

the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Our 

proposed rule included a proposed 4(d) 

rule for Bartram’s stonecrop. The 

December 6, 2019, rule also proposed to 

list the beardless chinchweed (Pectis 

imberbis) as an endangered species and 

designate critical habitat for the species. 

We addressed our proposal to list the 

beardless chinchweed as an endangered 

species and designate critical habitat for 

that species in a separate Federal 

Register document on June 15, 2021. 

Please refer to the December 6, 2019, 

proposed rule for a detailed description 

of previous Federal actions concerning 

Bartram’s stonecrop that occurred prior 

to December 6, 2019. 

Summary of Changes From the 

Proposed Rule 

In preparing this final rule, we 

reviewed and fully considered 

comments from the public on the 

proposed rule. We did not make any 

substantive changes to this final rule 

after consideration of the comments we 

received. We updated the SSA report (to 

version 2.0) based on comments and 

additional information provided as 

follows: 

(1) We included updated survey 

information provided to the Service and 

other reports of additional occurrences 

we received. 

(2) We incorporated additional 

information regarding stressors to 

specific populations provided by land 

managers. 

(3) We made many small, 

nonsubstantive clarifications and 

corrections throughout the SSA report 

and this rule, including under Summary 

of Biological Status and Threats, below, 

in order to ensure better consistency, 

clarify some information, and update or 

add new references. We considered 

whether this additional information 

altered our analysis of the magnitude or 

severity of threats facing the species. We 

conclude that the information we 

received during the comment period for 

the proposed rule did not change our 

previous analysis of the magnitude or 

severity of threats facing the species or 

our determination that Bartram’s 

stonecrop is a threatened species. 

I. Final Listing Determination 

Background 

Bartram’s stonecrop is a small, 

succulent, perennial plant and a 

member of the Crassulaceae family. It 

occurs in shaded evergreen woodlands 

on rocky canyon outcrops at elevations 

ranging from 3,500 to 6,800 ft. The 

species is particularly susceptible to 

reductions in water availability, altered 

fire regime, and the effects of small 

population size. Most populations are 

very small, with 58 percent of extant 

populations throughout the range of the 

species supporting fewer than 50 

individuals. These small populations 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 48547 

are particularly vulnerable to 

extirpation. 

Current Condition of Bartram’s 

Stonecrop 

Since 1924, we are aware of three 

populations that have been extirpated in 

the United States in recent years, and 

another that has contracted in size. 

Currently, 50 extant Bartram’s stonecrop 

populations occur across 12 mountain 

ranges, nine in southern Arizona and 

three in northern Mexico. In addition, 

the southeastern Arizona landscape has 

experienced many changes since the 

1890s, resulting from intensive cattle 

grazing, water development, and fire 

suppression (e.g., Bahre 1991, entire). 

These impacts may have reduced the 

range or number of populations and 

individuals. The U.S. populations total 

4,628 individuals within occupied 

habitats that total approximately 7 

hectares (17 acres). This estimate 

includes 10 plants from two U.S. 

populations (Gardner Canyon East and 

Thomas Canyon) and one Mexico 

population (Sierra La Estancia) that 

have not been revisited since the initial 

survey in 1980. 

Please refer to the December 6, 2019, 

proposed rule to list Bartram’s 

stonecrop with a species-specific rule 

under section 4(d) of the Act (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. 

The Act does not define the term 

‘‘foreseeable future,’’ which appears in 

the statutory definition of ‘‘threatened 

species.’’ Our implementing regulations 

at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a 

framework for evaluating the foreseeable 

future on a case-by-case basis. The term 

‘‘foreseeable future’’ extends only so far 

into the future as the Services can 

reasonably determine that both the 

future threats and the species’ responses 

to those threats are likely. In other 

words, the foreseeable future is the 

period of time in which we can make 

reliable predictions. ‘‘Reliable’’ does not 

mean ‘‘certain’’; it means sufficient to 

provide a reasonable degree of 

confidence in the prediction. Thus, a 

prediction is reliable if it is reasonable 

to depend on it when making decisions. 

It is not always possible or necessary 

to define foreseeable future as a 

particular number of years. Analysis of 

the foreseeable future uses the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

and should consider the timeframes 

applicable to the relevant threats and to 

the species’ likely responses to those 

threats in view of its life-history 

characteristics. Data that are typically 

relevant to assessing the species’ 

biological response include speciesspecific factors such as lifespan, 

reproductive rates or productivity, 

certain behaviors, and other 

demographic factors. 

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/. 

To assess Bartram’s stonecrop 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
48548 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

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. Bartram’s stonecrop occurs 

between elevations of 3,500 to 6,800 ft 

in Madrean woodlands with oaks, 

junipers, pines and species found in 

more mesic (wet) areas including 

sycamores, cottonwoods, and willows. 

The species typically occurs on rocky 

outcrops in deep, narrow canyons in 

heavy cover of litter and shade; and 

typically within 10 meters (m; 32.8 feet 

(ft)) of flowing or intermittent water. 

Bartram’s stonecrop requires adequate 

precipitation to maintain soil moisture, 

cooler temperatures, and humidity in 

the microenvironment and for 

germination, growth and reproduction. 

Based on microhabitats in which the 

species is typically found, species needs 

include crevices (with or without soil) 

for seeds to lodge and germinate, shade 

and deep leaf litter to help maintain soil 

moisture, and a humid microhabitat in 

this arid environment. In addition, the 

habitat must support sufficient 

Bartram’s stonecrop pollinators (e.g., 

flies, bees, and butterflies) including 

plants for pollinator foraging and 

nesting within pollinator flight distance 

of Bartram’s stonecrop populations. To 

maintain the 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. 

Several stressors influence whether 

Bartram’s stonecrop 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 Bartram’s 

stonecrop) that influence the viability of 

the species. We describe these stressors 

on viability in detail in chapter 4 of the 

SSA report (Service 2020a, entire). 

Stressors that have the potential to affect 

Bartram’s stonecrop’s population 

resiliency include: 

• Loss of water in nearby drainages 

from climate change (drought) and 

mining; 

• Altered fire regime resulting from 

fires ignited by recreationists, crossborder human activity, and lightning 

and exacerbated by nonnative plants; 

• Altered precipitation, drought, 

flooding, and freezing regime from 

current and future climate change; 

• Erosion, sedimentation, and burial 

from mining, recreation trails and roads, 

cross-border human activity, and postwildfire runoff; 

• Trampling from humans, and 

trampling and herbivory from wildlife 

and livestock; 

• Illegal collection; and 

• Small population size exacerbating 

all other stressors. 

The largest risk to viability of the 

species is caused by the loss of habitat 

and includes: (1) Groundwater 

extraction and prolonged drought that 

reduce nearby water levels and 

humidity within Bartram’s stonecrop 

habitat; and (2) altered fire regimes 

leading to erosion of Bartram’s 

stonecrop habitat, sedimentation and 

burial of individuals by post-fire runoff, 

and loss of overstory shade trees. These 

stressors play a large role in the future 

viability of Bartram’s stonecrop, 

especially for smaller populations. 

These stressors are currently reducing 

and are expected to continue to reduce 

nearby water levels, shade, and 

humidity within Bartram’s stonecrop 

habitat or directly impact individuals. 

Loss of Water 

Dewatering of streams from mining 

operations may lead to overstory canopy 

losses and subsequent loss of shade, as 

well as reductions in spring and stream 

flow and humidity in nearby Bartram’s 

stonecrop populations. The Rosemont 

Mine Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (Statement) notes that no 

Bartram’s stonecrop individuals were 

found in the project area or the footprint 

of the associated actions; however, 

individuals growing in the analysis area 

could experience indirect impacts from 

groundwater drawdown (USFS 2013a, 

p. 676). According to the Statement, the 

proposed mine pit would create a 

permanent drawdown of the water table, 

and groundwater would flow toward the 

pit and be lost to evaporation (USFS 

2013a, p. 339). The Bartram’s stonecrop 

plants growing just southwest of the 

proposed Rosemont Mine were analyzed 

in the Rosemont Final Environmental 

Impact Statement (USFS 2013a, pp. 

346–350). The predicted groundwater 

drawdown in the affected population at 

the end of active mining is 0.1–5 feet, 

depending on the site assessed and the 

model used. At 20 years from the mine 

closure, the predicted drawdown 

increases to a maximum of 15–20 feet. 

The water would be perpetually 

replenished in part by groundwater 

from the regional aquifer, and the pit 

would act as a hydraulic sink. Given 

that Bartram’s stonecrop is consistently 

found in locations with nearby springs 

or other water sources, the loss of 

groundwater and changes in soil 

moisture and humidity are expected to 

negatively affect the plant. For example, 

loss of groundwater in the unmapped 

spring in Box Canyon/Sycamore Canyon 

confluence, between Ruelas Spring and 

the Singing Valley Road residences, 

could substantially impact Bartram’s 

stonecrop plants growing nearby (just 

southwest of the proposed Rosemont 

Mine). 

Mining claims, trenching and 

exploration drilling activities, and a few 

active and proposed mines are present 

in Bartram’s stonecrop’s range. Many 

currently undeveloped areas of locatable 

mineral deposits may be explored and/ 

or mined in the future. We do not know 

the full extent of future mine activity 

within the range of Bartram’s stonecrop; 

however, a number of proposed mines 

are identified for development within 

Bartram’s stonecrop habitat. The range 

of current and projected mining 

activities varies from 1 to 10 per sky 

island mountain range with Bartram’s 

stonecrop occurrences (USFS 2012, 

entire). The loss or reduction of 

groundwater, stream flow, or spring 

flow in or near a Bartram’s stonecrop 

population due to mining-related 

activities could lead to extirpation of 

that population. 

Altered Fire Regime 

Wildfire frequency in western forests 

from the mid-1980s to the present has 

nearly quadrupled compared to 1970– 

1985. The timing, frequency, extent, and 

destructiveness of wildfires are 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 48549 

expected to continue to increase 

(Westerling et al. 2006, p. 943), given 

historical land management actions, an 

increase in fire starts from cross-border 

human activity and recreationists (e.g., 

from campfires, cigarettes, target 

shooting), nonnative plant invasion, and 

continuing drought conditions 

(Westerling et al. 2006, p. 940; 

FireScape 2016, entire; Fire 

Management Information System 2016, 

p. 2). Direct impacts of fire include 

burning of Bartram’s stonecrop 

individuals, resulting in injury, 

reduction in reproductive structures, or 

plant mortality. Indirect impacts of fire 

on Bartram’s stonecrop may include 

increased runoff of floodwaters, postfire flooding, deposition of debris and 

sediment originating in the burned area, 

erosion, changes in vegetation 

community composition and structure, 

increased presence of nonnative plants, 

alterations in the hydrologic and 

nutrient cycles, and loss of overstory 

canopy shade essential to maintaining 

Bartram’s stonecrop microhabitat 

(Griffis et al. 2000, p. 243; Crawford et 

al. 2001, p. 265; Hart et al. 2005, p. 167; 

Smithwick et al. 2005, p. 165; Stephens 

et al. 2014, p. 42; Ferguson 2014, p. 43; 

Ferguson 2016a, p. 26). Fire primarily 

alters hydrology and erosion processes 

by consumption of the protective 

canopy, ground cover, and organic 

matter. When plants and litter are 

removed by fire, ground surface 

protection is decreased, less rainfall is 

intercepted, and less infiltration occurs 

(Pierson et al. 2011, p. 443). The 

exposed bare soil becomes susceptible 

to increased runoff generation and 

sediment detachment and transport 

(Pierson et al. 2011, p. 444). Amplified 

runoff post-fire carries sediment 

(Pierson et al. 2011, p. 443), causing 

erosion or burial of Bartram’s stonecrop 

plants. 

We are aware of 11 wildfires that 

occurred in known Bartram’s stonecrop 

sites from 2007–2017, killing some 

Bartram’s stonecrop individuals and 

removing shade in some sites (Ferguson 

2014, pp. 9–10, 15, 28–29; Ferguson 

2016a, p. 13; Ferguson 2016b, entire; 

Ferguson 2017b, p. 32; Ferguson 2017c, 

p. 2). Although we do not have pre-fire 

population counts in any population, 

two of the largest Bartram’s stonecrop 

populations occur in sky island 

mountain ranges that have had the 

fewest acres burned from 2010–2017, 

which indicates these populations may 

have experienced less of the detrimental 

effects of fire than smaller populations. 

Wildfires have burned in all nine sky 

island mountain ranges of southern 

Arizona with known Bartram’s 

stonecrop occurrences within the last 

decade. Wildfire could potentially cause 

extirpation of small Bartram’s stonecrop 

populations throughout the range of the 

species and have negative impacts on 

larger populations. Bartram’s stonecrop 

seeds are very tiny, reside at or near the 

soil surface (Shohet 1999, p. 48), and 

show no characteristics that would 

promote survival in a wildfire. 

The nonnative plants in the uplands 

surrounding and within Bartram’s 

stonecrop populations include 

nonnative grass species such as 

Lehmann’s lovegrass and rose natal, 

both of which have numerous 

advantages over native grasses. 

Lehmann’s lovegrass resprouts from 

roots and tiller nodes not killed by hot 

fire, is not hampered by the reduction 

in mycorrhizae associated with fire and 

erosion, responds to winter 

precipitation when natives grasses are 

dormant, produces copious seed earlier 

than native grasses, maintains larger 

seedbanks than native grasses, and has 

higher seedling survival and 

establishment than native grasses during 

periods of drought (Service 2020a, p. 

50). Rose natal is capable of growing in 

low moisture situations, has prolific 

seed production, and has stems that root 

from the nodes (Stokes et al. 2011, p. 

527). Both species outcompete native 

plants, reduce structural and spatial 

diversity of habitats, and increase 

biomass and fuel loads, increasing the 

fire frequency. Nonnative grasses have 

been reported with Bartram’s stonecrop 

individuals in four instances, at 

Sycamore Canyon, French Joe Canyon, 

Shaw Canyon, and Juniper Flat 

populations, and upslope of several 

populations of Bartram’s stonecrop in 

the Dragoon Mountains, increasing the 

likelihood of fire occurrence and 

subsequent impacts to these populations 

(Heritage Database Management System, 

E.O. ID 55; Simpson 2017, pers. comm.). 

Nonnative plant species increase the 

frequency and severity of wildfires; 

such wildfires can directly and 

indirectly impact individuals and 

populations. 

Altered Precipitation, Drought, 

Flooding, and Freezing Regimes 

The southwestern United States is 

warming and experiencing severe 

droughts of extended duration, changes 

in amount of snowpack and timing of 

snowmelt, 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 Bartram’s stonecrop, 

including increased nonnative 

competition (described above) and 

altered fire regimes during times of 

altered precipitation and drought. To 

analyze the effects of a changing climate 

to Bartram’s stonecrop, 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 IPCC report (IPCC 

2014, p. 57). We evaluated the effects of 

climate change on Bartram’s stonecrop 

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 4.5–8.5 range. 

Precipitation is bimodal within the 

mountain ranges where Bartram’s 

stonecrop occurs, with winter snow and 

rain, and summer monsoon rain. Fall 

and winter (October through March) 

precipitation is needed for Bartram’s 

stonecrop germination, and both 

summer (July and August) and fall 

(October and November) precipitation is 

needed for Bartram’s stonecrop flower 

production. Flowering is triggered by 

fall rains and does not occur during 

periods of water stress (Shohet 1999, pp. 

22, 25, 36, 39). Altered precipitation 

timing and form (i.e., snow versus rain), 

as well as reduced precipitation in the 

winter and spring and prolonged 

drought, are important stressors 

influencing the viability of Bartram’s 

stonecrop due to impacts on moisture 

availability for germination, growth, and 

flowering. In addition, due to increased 

nonnative competition during times of 

reduced precipitation and drought, 

impacts from these stressors to 

Bartram’s stonecrop populations would 

be exacerbated. 

Altered precipitation timing and form 

(snow versus rain), as well as reduced 

winter and spring precipitation and 

prolonged drought, are currently 

occurring and projected to increase or 

be altered from normal in the Southwest 

(Garfin et al. 2014, entire). Recently, 

there has been a decrease in the amount 

of snowpack, earlier snowmelt, and 

increased drought severity in the 

Southwest (Garfin et al. 2013, entire; 

Garfin 2013b, p. 465). Further, more 

wintertime precipitation is falling as 

rain rather than snow in the western 

United States (IPCC 2013, p. 204; Garfin 

2013b p. 465). This means that the 

amount of runoff in the spring when 

snow melts is reduced, as is soil 

moisture. Late winter-spring mountain 

snowpack in the Southwest is predicted 

to continue to decline over the 21st 

century under RCP 4.5 and 8.5 because 

of increased temperature (Garfin et al. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
48550 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

2013, pp. 6, 119). Reduced rain and 

snow, earlier snowmelt, and drying 

tendencies cause a reduction in latespring and summer runoff. Together 

these effects, along with increases in 

evaporation, result in lower soil 

moisture by early summer (Garfin 2013, 

p. 117). 

Precipitation timing and amount 

impact the germination, growth, and 

flowering of Bartram’s stonecrop, 

resulting in the loss of individuals and 

recruitment, and overall reducing the 

population size. Climatic events such as 

reduced snowpack, earlier snowmelt, 

and increased drought are regional and 

will impact all populations of Bartram’s 

stonecrop. 

In the Southwest, the period since 

1950 has been warmer than any period 

of comparable length in at least 600 

years, and average daily temperatures 

for the 2001–2010 decade were the 

highest in the time period including 

1901–2010 (Garfin et al. 2013, p. 3). 

Fewer cold waves and more heat waves 

occurred over the Southwest during 

2001–2010 compared to average decadal 

occurrences in the 20th century. More 

frequent hot and fewer cold temperature 

extremes over most land areas are 

predicted on daily and seasonal 

timescales, as global mean surface 

temperature increases (IPCC 2014, p. 

58). Heat waves are predicted to occur 

with a higher frequency and longer 

duration (IPCC 2014, p. 58). Occasional 

cold winter extremes will continue to 

occur (IPCC 2014, p. 60). Surface 

temperatures in the Southwest are 

predicted to increase substantially over 

the 21st century, with more warming in 

summer and fall than in winter and 

spring. Summer heat waves will become 

longer and hotter, while winter cold 

snaps will become less frequent but not 

necessarily less severe (Garfin et al. 

2013, p. 6; Garfin et al. 2014, p. 464). 

When temperatures rise, 

evapotranspiration rates also increase 

and soil moisture decreases. An increase 

in evapotranspiration results in water 

loss from the plant and increases stress 

on the plant. This increase in stress 

impacts photosynthesis, respiration, 

transpiration, water use efficiency, leaf 

conductance, growth rate, vigor, and gas 

exchange. These impacts result in 

reduced growth, flowering, and seed 

production, and, therefore, reduce 

overall recruitment and population 

numbers. 

Along with projected warming and 

increased evapotranspiration, droughts 

in parts of the Southwest will become 

hotter, more severe, and more frequent 

(Garfin et al. 2013, pp. 6, 137–138). 

Future droughts are projected to be 

substantially hotter, and for major river 

basins such as the Colorado River Basin, 

drought is projected to become more 

frequent, intense, and longer lasting 

than in the historical record. This 

projection of intensified drought 

conditions on the Colorado River is not 

due to changes in precipitation, but 

rather due directly to warming and its 

effect on reducing soil moisture (Garfin 

2013, p. 138). 

Although rare species in the 

southwestern United States evolved 

with drought, recent changes in 

temperature and rainfall patterns 

present stressful conditions of increased 

magnitude compared to what the 

species faced. Some species may shift 

their distributions in response to 

warming of the climate (McLaughlin et 

al. 2002, p. 6070). However, it is highly 

unlikely that Bartram’s stonecrop would 

be able to shift its range naturally to 

keep up with current and high projected 

rates of climate change due to its overall 

population decline and inability to 

maintain current populations. Because 

plants are not mobile, expanding the 

distribution of this species is dependent 

on seed dispersal. Bartram’s stonecrop 

seeds are small and limited in dispersal 

ability (Ferguson 2020). Given their 

geographic location in the landscape 

(i.e., in canyons with springs and 

streams), it is possible that seeds are 

transported by water and that 

populations may have been founded by 

a single individual plant or seed (Shohet 

1999, p. 58). Seeds may also be 

dispersed via gravity and wind. 

Seedling distribution studies indicate 

gravity is the most likely dispersal 

mechanism as seeds are fusiform shaped 

(elliptical like a football) (Ferguson 

2020, pers. comm.). Further, extant 

populations are small, which limits the 

amount of seed production for dispersal. 

It is highly unlikely that under elevated 

environmental stress associated with 

climate change, the species would be 

able to both maintain populations and 

colonize new areas with more suitable 

climate conditions. Thus, localized 

extirpations over portions of Bartram’s 

stonecrop’s range could result. 

Erosion, Sedimentation, and Burial 

Bartram’s stonecrop typically occurs 

on steep slopes with erodible soils and 

in areas susceptible to rock fall, making 

the plant particularly vulnerable to 

physical damage to its environment 

(Phillips et al. 1982, p. 10; Shohet 1999, 

p. 50; Ferguson 2014, p. 42; Ferguson 

2016a, pp. 15, 26). Soil erosion can 

result in the burial of individual plants, 

loss of soil where the plant is rooted, or 

dislodgment of plants. While displaced 

plants may re-root (Shohet 1999, pp. 

50–51, 60), it is more likely that these 

plants will not survive (Ferguson 2015, 

p. 2). Soil disturbance and erosion 

within or above Bartram’s stonecrop 

habitat may occur from a variety of 

activities, including livestock and 

wildlife movement; the placement and 

maintenance of infrastructure, trails, 

and roads; and recreationists or other 

individuals traveling along established 

trails or cross country (Phillips et al. 

1982, p. 10; Shohet 1999, p. 60; 

Ferguson 2014, p. 42; NPS 2015, p. 4; 

Ferguson 2016a, p. 26). 

Direct removal of Bartram’s stonecrop 

individuals and substrate due to erosion 

or burial of individuals may also occur 

due to the placement of mineral 

extraction sites and debris piles. Erosion 

from test pits (an excavation made to 

examine the subsurface conditions of a 

potential mine site) has been 

documented to remove portions of 

habitat occupied by Bartram’s stonecrop 

in Flux Canyon (Phillips et al. 1982, pp. 

9–10). 

Trampling 

The trampling of individual Bartram’s 

stonecrop plants may occur from a 

variety of activities, including livestock 

and wildlife movement; the placement 

and maintenance of infrastructure, 

trails, and roads; and recreationists or 

other individuals traveling along 

established trails or cross country 

(Phillips et al. 1982, p. 10; Shohet 1999, 

p. 60; Ferguson 2014, p. 42; NPS 2015, 

p. 4; Ferguson 2016a, p. 26). 

Populations may be particularly 

impacted during periods of unusual 

recreational use. We considered 

trampling as a stressor in our analysis of 

future viability only when it may impact 

a population with fewer than 50 

individuals, as more minor stressors are 

exacerbated in small populations. 

Illegal Collection 

The illegal collection of succulents is 

known to occur, and is often difficult to 

detect. Illegal collection of Bartram’s 

stonecrop individuals has been 

reported, and the effect of collection is 

more pronounced in small populations. 

More than half (58 percent) of Bartram’s 

stonecrop populations contain fewer 

than 50 individuals. The lifespan of 

Bartram’s stonecrop plants has been 

estimated at 5–10 years, allowing 

sufficient time for discovery and 

collection. 

Bartram’s stonecrop is an attractive 

and small plant not available from 

nurseries that can be easily collected by 

gardeners and succulent enthusiasts. 

This stressor was first noted in 1982, 

when exact localities were excluded 

from a summary report due to the 

possibility of illegal collection. Tagged 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 48551 

individuals were uprooted and taken 

from two sites in the Santa Rita 

Mountains in 1997–1998. Plants in close 

proximity to trails have higher 

discovery potential and are therefore 

more likely to be collected. Collectors 

advertise in internet forums seeking 

Bartram’s stonecrop seedlings or rooted 

cuttings. The similar southern Arizona 

species, Graptopetalum rusbyi (San 

Francisco leatherpetal), is cultivated 

and legally available for sale from plant 

nurseries. However, Bartram’s stonecrop 

is more difficult to propagate and 

maintain in captivity and is therefore 

vulnerable to collection from the wild 

because collectors cannot find them for 

purchase in nurseries. Small 

populations may not be able to recover 

from collection, especially if mature, 

reproductive Bartram’s stonecrop 

individuals are removed. The removal 

of mature plants reduces the overall 

reproductive effort of the population, 

thereby reducing the overall resilience 

of the population. While documented 

instances of collection are limited, the 

impacts from collection can be profound 

for small populations. 

Small Populations 

Small population size affects 

Bartram’s stonecrop 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. 

Twenty-nine of the 50 extant Bartram’s 

stonecrop populations in the United 

States contain fewer than 50 

individuals. Losses due to mining, 

erosion, trampling, collection, 

herbivory, fire, severe frost, or other 

stressors mentioned above are 

exacerbated in small populations and 

have the potential to seriously damage 

or completely remove these small 

populations. 

In summary, the stressors that pose 

the largest risk to future species viability 

are primarily related to habitat changes: 

Groundwater extraction from mining, 

long-term drought, and alteration in 

wildfire regime. These stressors may 

reduce nearby water levels, shade, and 

humidity within Bartram’s stonecrop 

habitat and may directly impact 

individuals. Other important stressors 

include erosion or trampling from 

livestock, wildlife, or human activities; 

illegal collection; herbivory of Bartram’s 

stonecrop individuals or their shade 

trees by wildlife and insects; abnormal 

freezing or flooding events; or other 

stressors that have the potential to 

seriously damage or completely remove 

small populations. Synergistic 

interactions among altered 

precipitation, nonnative grasses, 

drought, and increased temperatures 

cumulatively and cyclically impact 

Bartram’s stonecrop, and all stressors 

are exacerbated in small populations. 

Population Resiliency of Bartram’s 

Stonecrop 

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 Bartram’s stonecrop 

needs for long-term viability revealed a 

number of stressors influencing this 

species. Four Bartram’s stonecrop 

populations contain nonnative grasses, 

and nonnative grasses are present 

upslope from several additional 

populations. Further, altered fire 

regimes have the potential to affect all 

Bartram’s stonecrop populations. This 

altered fire regime enhances the spread 

of nonnatives. Consequently, all 

Bartram’s stonecrop populations will be 

further impacted by nonnative grasses 

in the future. 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 Bartram’s 

stonecrop and exacerbating an altered 

fire regime. 

Many currently undeveloped areas of 

locatable mineral deposits may be 

explored or mined in the future. We do 

not know the full extent of future mine 

activity within Bartram’s stonecrop’s 

range; however, 12 mining projects are 

currently ongoing or proposed within 8 

kilometers (5 miles) of Bartram’s 

stonecrop populations in Arizona. The 

range of current and projected mining 

activities varies from 1 to 10 per 

mountain range with Bartram’s 

stonecrop occurrences (USFS 2012, 

entire). One population, Sycamore 

Canyon (115 adult individuals in 2016), 

would be affected by groundwater 

drawdown due to the Rosemont Mine. 

Sycamore Canyon currently exhibits 

high resiliency. Further, this species is 

illegally collected and sold. Synergistic 

interactions among wildfire, nonnative 

grasses, decreased precipitation, and 

increased temperatures cumulatively 

and cyclically impact Bartram’s 

stonecrop, and all stressors are 

exacerbated in small populations. In 

addition, over half of extant Bartram’s 

stonecrop populations are small; 

therefore, loss due to erosion, trampling, 

collection, herbivory, fire, severe frost, 

or other stressors have the potential to 

seriously damage or completely remove 

these small populations. 

Resiliency categories of low, 

moderate, and high are characterized by 

relative levels of abundance, number of 

subpopulations and the spatial 

distribution of groups, seed production, 

recruitment, and extent of suitable 

habitat. The categories of conditions 

used to determine population resiliency 

are further described in the SSA report 

(Service 2020a, table 5.12) and the 

proposed listing rule (84 FR 67060, 

December 6, 2019, p. 84 FR 67069). Of 

the 50 extant populations, 2 populations 

(4 percent) exhibit high resiliency (also 

described as high condition), 40 

populations (80 percent) are in 

moderate condition, and 8 populations 

(16 percent) are in low condition. Many 

small populations exhibit moderate 

resiliency due to other demographic and 

habitat factors considered in the 

analysis of resiliency including number 

of subpopulations, recruitment, riparian 

elements, precipitation, and shade. 

Thus, the resiliency analysis of a 

population with a low abundance score 

and high scores in several or all the 

other categories of resiliency factors 

may result in an averaged score in the 

moderate resiliency category. The 

current resiliency of the known 

Bartram’s stonecrop populations is 

shown in table 1. 

TABLE 1—BARTRAM’S STONECROP CURRENT POPULATION RESILIENCY

Sky island Population Number of 

individuals 

Current 

resiliency 

Baboquivari .................................................................. Brown Canyon ............................................................ 115 Moderate. 

Sabino Wash .............................................................. 3 Low. 

Thomas Canyon ......................................................... 10 Moderate. 

Chiricahua ................................................................... Echo Canyon .............................................................. 186 Moderate. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
48552 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1—BARTRAM’S STONECROP CURRENT POPULATION RESILIENCY—Continued 

Sky island Population Number of 

individuals 

Current 

resiliency 

Indian Creek ............................................................... 0 Extirpated. 

Dragoon ....................................................................... Carlink Canyon ........................................................... 0 Extirpated. 

Jordan Canyon ........................................................... 415 Moderate. 

Sheephead .................................................................. 45 Moderate. 

Slavin Gulch ................................................................ 9 Moderate. 

Stronghold Canyon East ............................................. 388 Moderate. 

Stronghold Canyon West ............................................ 557 High. 

Empire ......................................................................... Empire Mountains ....................................................... 0 Extirpated. 

Mule ............................................................................. Juniper Flat ................................................................. 798 Moderate. 

Pajarito-Atascosa ........................................................ Alamo Canyon ............................................................ 134 Moderate. 

Holden Canyon ........................................................... 9 Low. 

Sycamore Canyon ...................................................... 313 High. 

Warsaw Canyon ......................................................... 13 Moderate. 

Patagonia .................................................................... Alum Gulch ................................................................. 52 Moderate. 

Flux Canyon ................................................................ 123 Moderate. 

Rincon ......................................................................... Bear Creek .................................................................. 171 Moderate. 

Chimenea-Madrona Canyon ....................................... 29 Low. 

Chimenea Canyon Side Branch ................................. 35 Moderate. 

Distillery ...................................................................... 3 Moderate. 

Happy Valley North ..................................................... 1 Low. 

Happy Valley South .................................................... 41 Moderate. 

Italian Spring Canyon ................................................. 30 Moderate. 

North Branch Turkey Creek ........................................ 11 Moderate. 

Posta Quemada .......................................................... 3 Moderate. 

Rincon Creek .............................................................. 38 Moderate. 

Rincon Peak ............................................................... 2 Moderate. 

Shaw Canyon ............................................................. 19 Moderate. 

South Branch Turkey Creek ....................................... 7 Moderate. 

Tanque Verde Ridge Trail .......................................... 90 Moderate. 

Tres Pipas Canyon ..................................................... 4 Moderate. 

West Branch Deer Creek ........................................... 10 Moderate. 

Santa Rita .................................................................... Adobe Canyon ............................................................ 82 Moderate. 

Bond Canyon .............................................................. 51 Moderate. 

Cave Canyon .............................................................. 50 Moderate. 

Gardner Canyon East ................................................. 10 Moderate. 

Gardner Canyon West ................................................ 14 Moderate. 

Josephine Canyon ...................................................... 76 Moderate. 

Madera Canyon .......................................................... 145 Moderate. 

Sawmill Canyon .......................................................... 36 Moderate. 

Squaw Gulch .............................................................. 55 Moderate. 

Sycamore Canyon ...................................................... 115 Moderate. 

Temporal Gulch .......................................................... 27 Moderate. 

Walker Canyon ........................................................... 19 Moderate. 

Whetstone ................................................................... Deathtrap Canyon ....................................................... 135 Moderate. 

French Joe Canyon .................................................... 87 Low. 

Guindani Canyon ........................................................ 3 Moderate. 

Sierra Las Avispas, Sonora ........................................ Sierra Las Avispas ...................................................... 2 Low. 

Sierra La Escuadra, Chihuahua .................................. Near Colonia Pacheco ................................................ 46 Low. 

Sierra La Estancia, Chihuahua ................................... Cuarenta Casas .......................................................... 10 Low. 

Bartram’s Stonecrop Representation 

No genetic studies have been 

conducted within or among the 53 

Bartram’s stonecrop historical 

populations in southern Arizona and 

Mexico. Mountain ranges that have only 

one or two populations, or have only 

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. Some genetic exchange 

likely occurs within populations 

containing many subpopulations, 

groups, or in populations with high 

abundance. 

However, Bartram’s stonecrop may 

exhibit some level of genetic diversity in 

response to elevational and other 

environmental variation between 

locations. The species occurs on 

multiple substrate types and at a range 

of elevations (3,500 to 6,800 feet), 

providing potential for local adaptation 

and genetic differentiation among 

populations. This range in elevation 

provides a variety of climatic conditions 

for the species to inhabit. Due to the loss 

of four populations, it is possible that 

there has been a loss of genetic 

diversity. 

In three populations, plants have been 

reported over many decades, indicating 

that these populations may have the 

genetic and environmental diversity to 

adapt to changing conditions. The 

species currently occurs across 50 

populations in 12 mountain ranges; 

therefore, we expect some level of 

genetic diversity exists among mountain 

ranges. 

Bartram’s Stonecrop Redundancy 

Bartram’s stonecrop populations in 

the United States and Mexico are 

naturally fragmented between mountain 

ranges. Currently, 50 extant Bartram’s 

stonecrop populations are spread across 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 48553 

12 different mountain ranges in 

southern Arizona and northern Mexico. 

Although this may imply some level of 

redundancy across the range of 

Bartram’s stonecrop, 43 of the 50 extant 

populations contain fewer than 150 total 

individual plants. Further, 29 

populations have 50 individuals or 

fewer, and 3 populations have been 

extirpated over recent (approximately 

10) years. Given the distance of the 

mountain ranges with Bartram’s 

stonecrop populations from each other, 

natural gene exchange or reestablishment following extirpation of 

populations within a mountain range is 

unlikely. In addition, the Mule 

Mountains contain a large number of 

Bartram’s stonecrop individuals, but are 

represented by a single population 

approximately 38 kilometers (23.6 

miles) away from the nearest 

population, making natural reestablishment of populations unlikely. 

Future Condition of Bartram’s 

Stonecrop 

We used the best available 

information to forecast the future 

viability of Bartram’s stonecrop. 

Maintaining multiple resilient 

populations over time (viability) 

depends on moisture in the 

microenvironment maintained by shade 

from overstory vegetation, spring and 

winter precipitation, proximity to water, 

and vegetation litter. We expect all 

extant Bartram’s stonecrop populations 

to experience changes to these habitat 

characteristics to varying degrees. In 

addition, direct impacts to Bartram’s 

stonecrop through being dislodged, 

buried, or collected will continue to 

impact the species. 

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 

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. 

Acknowledging inherent uncertainties 

regarding the scope of the stressors 

manifesting and the species’ response, 

we forecasted future conditions of 

Bartram’s stonecrop under four 

plausible future scenarios (see chapter 6 

of the SSA report; Service 2020a, pp. 

104–124). The scenarios span a range of 

potential stressors that are occurring or 

will occur in the future that will 

influence the future status of the species 

and the effects of those stressors on the 

species. We analyzed future projections 

in 10-year and 40-year timeframes 

because this is within the range of 

predictions of available hydrological 

and climate change model forecasts and 

is within the period of the Rosemont 

Mine effects. Forty years represents 

eight generations of Bartram’s 

stonecrop, which allows us to assess 

reproductive effects on the species and 

allows populations to have 

opportunities to rebound. The 10-year 

time step also represents a reasonable 

timeframe to judge the species’ shortterm vulnerability to stressors at the 

current level, without projecting 

changes to stressors that longer 

timeframes would provide. Thus, the 

future scenarios forecast the viability of 

Bartram’s stonecrop over the next 40 

years. The following stressors were 

considered at different levels of impact 

for each scenario: 

• Mining activity—water extraction, 

excavation, burial, shade reduction; 

• Altered fire regime—lightning, 

recreation, cross-border human activity, 

nonnative plants; 

• Climate effects (water)—reduction 

in available water including 

precipitation, soil moisture, humidity, 

surface water, aquifer recharge, 

reduction in riparian vegetation, 

increased number of days without 

water; 

• Climate effects (other)—dislodging 

from flooding events, seedling 

desiccation, flowering halt, shade 

removed; and 

• Effects to individual plants (applied 

to populations with fewer than 50 

individuals)—recreation, collection, 

trampling, livestock or wildlife grazing 

and herbivory. 

The levels of stressors assessed in 

each scenario are described in greater 

detail in chapter 6 of the SSA report 

(Service 2020a, pp. 104–124). 

The first scenario (‘‘continuation’’) 

evaluates the condition of Bartram’s 

stonecrop if impacts from drought, 

climate change, and other stressors 

continue as in the near past, while the 

other scenarios evaluate the response of 

the species to changes in those risks. 

Scenario 1 is evaluated at the 10-year 

time step. The second scenario 

(‘‘conservation’’) assumes impacts from 

drought, climate change, and other 

stressors continue as in the near past 

and also takes into account realistically 

possible additional protective measures, 

which may or may not happen. 

Scenarios 2, 3, and 4 are evaluated at 

the 40-year time step. The third scenario 

(‘‘moderate effects’’) assesses an 

increase in stressors to populations with 

changes in climate as projected in a 

lower (RCP 4.5) emissions scenario 

along with increases in other stressors. 

The final scenario (‘‘major effects’’) 

assesses a further increase in stressors to 

populations, with changes in climate 

projected at a higher (RCP 8.5) 

emissions scenario, and with additional 

increases in other stressors. These 

scenarios are described in more detail in 

chapter 6 of the SSA report (Service 

2020a). 

In scenario 1, we assess impacts to 

Bartram’s stonecrop from drought, 

climate change, and other stressors that 

continue as in the near past. Based on 

climate change projections, emissions 

will continue at the same rate as the 

near past, resulting in continued 

impacts to the species. In this scenario, 

we expect the viability of Bartram’s 

stonecrop to be characterized by a loss 

of resiliency, representation, and 

redundancy from the current levels. At 

the 10-year time step, no populations 

would exhibit high resiliency, 9 

populations would exhibit moderate 

resiliency, 41 populations would exhibit 

low resiliency and be more susceptible 

to loss, and no additional populations 

would be extirpated. 

In scenario 2, we assess impacts to 

Bartram’s stonecrop from drought, 

climate change, and other stressors that 

continue as in scenario 1 but with 

conservation measures implemented 

that provide a benefit to the species 

(e.g., nonnative control, forest thinning, 

and prevention of human-caused 

wildfire). Climate change impacts are 

projected to continue at the current rate, 

and no conservation measures address 

drying of habitat. In this scenario, we 

expect the viability of Bartram’s 

stonecrop to be characterized by similar 

levels of representation and redundancy 

and slightly lower levels of resiliency 

than it exhibits under the current 

condition. Because current stressors 

remain in place, conservation measures 

improve the resiliency of populations, 

but this effect is overshadowed by the 

impact of continued climate change and 

drought at the current level. 

The third scenario assesses ‘‘moderate 

effects’’ to Bartram’s stonecrop with 

impacts to the species evaluated at the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
48554 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

40-year time step. Under this scenario, 

water flow reduction due to drought and 

groundwater extraction continues to 

reduce the humid microhabitat for this 

species. Cross-border traffic continues, 

and risk of catastrophic wildfire is high 

due to dry conditions; invasion of 

nonnatives in the uplands; and 

increased risk of fire starts from illegal 

activity, recreation, and natural causes. 

Mining impacts individuals in the 

Patagonia and Santa Rita Mountains. 

Collection, trampling, freezing, 

herbivory, and human impacts also 

continue at current or increased levels. 

Under this scenario, within the 40- 

year timeframe, we expect Bartram’s 

stonecrop’s viability to be characterized 

by lower levels of resiliency, 

representation, and redundancy than it 

has currently, which are already 

reduced as described above. In 40 years, 

we expect that none of the 50 extant 

populations would exhibit high 

resiliency, 2 populations would exhibit 

moderate resiliency, 35 populations 

would exhibit low resiliency, and 13 

additional populations would be 

extirpated, further reducing species 

redundancy and representation (table 2, 

below; see table 6.6 in the SSA report 

(Service 2020a)). Under the moderate 

effects scenario, because of stressors 

described above, 45 populations would 

be reduced from their current condition 

(for population level projections, see 

figure 6.3 and table 6.6 in the SSA 

report (Service 2020a)). In this scenario, 

two of the three small populations in 

Mexico will be extirpated due to the 

amount of nonnatives contributing to 

fire, reduction in precipitation, increase 

in drought, and low resiliency of a small 

population. 

Under scenario 4, ‘‘major effects’’, we 

expect the viability of Bartram’s 

stonecrop to be characterized by lower 

levels of resiliency, representation, and 

redundancy than under scenario 3. At 

the 40-year time step, no populations 

exhibit high resiliency, one would 

exhibit moderate resiliency, 16 would 

exhibit low resiliency, and 36 

populations would be extirpated, 

further reducing redundancy and 

connectivity. 

Please refer to the SSA report (Service 

2020a, entire) for a more detailed 

discussion of our evaluation of the 

biological status of Bartram’s stonecrop, 

the influences that may affect its 

continued existence, and the modeling 

efforts undertaken to further inform our 

analysis. 

TABLE 2—BARTRAM’S STONECROP POPULATION CURRENT AND FUTURE RESILIENCY

Mountain range Population name Current 

condition Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 

Baboquivari ............................ Brown Canyon ....................... Moderate ................................ Moderate ........ Moderate ........ Moderate ........ Low. 

Sabino Wash ......................... Low ........................................ Low ................. Low ................. Low ................. Extirpated. 

Thomas Canyon .................... Moderate ................................ Low ................. Low ................. Low ................. Low. 

Chiricahua .............................. Echo Canyon ......................... Moderate ................................ Moderate ........ Moderate ........ Low ................. Low. 

Indian Creek .......................... Extirpated ............................... Extirpated ....... Extirpated ....... Extirpated ....... Extirpated. 

Dragoon ................................. Carlink Canyon ...................... Extirpated ............................... Extirpated ....... Extirpated ....... Extirpated ....... Extirpated. 

Jordan Canyon ...................... Moderate ................................ Moderate ........ Moderate ........ Low ................. Low. 

Sheephead ............................ Moderate ................................ Low ................. Low ................. Low ................. Low. 

Slavin Gulch .......................... Moderate ................................ Low ................. Low ................. Low ................. Extirpated. 

Stronghold Canyon E. ........... Moderate ................................ Moderate ........ Moderate ........ Low ................. Low.

Stronghold Canyon W ........... High ....................................... Moderate ........ Moderate ........ Moderate ........ Moderate. 

Empire .................................... Empire Mts ............................ Extirpated ............................... Extirpated ....... Extirpated ....... Extirpated ....... Extirpated. 

Mule ....................................... Juniper Flat ............................ Moderate ................................ Low ................. Moderate ........ Low ................. Low. 

Pajarito-Atascosa ................... Alamo Canyon ....................... Moderate ................................ Low ................. Low ................. Low ................. Low. 

Holden Canyon ...................... Low ........................................ Low ................. Low ................. Extirpated ....... Extirpated. 

Sycamore Canyon ................. High ....................................... Moderate ........ Moderate ........ Low ................. Low. 

Warsaw Canyon .................... Moderate ................................ Low ................. Low ................. Extirpated ....... Extirpated. 

Patagonia ............................... Alum Canyon ......................... Moderate ................................ Low ................. Low ................. Extirpated ....... Extirpated. 

Flux Canyon .......................... Moderate ................................ Low ................. Low ................. Extirpated ....... Extirpated. 

Rincon .................................... Bear Creek ............................ Moderate ................................ Moderate ........ Moderate ........ Low ................. Low. 

Chimenea-Madrona Canyon Low ........................................ Low ................. Low ................. Low ................. Extirpated. 

Chimenea Canyon Side 

Branch.

Moderate ................................ Low ................. Moderate ........ Low ................. Extirpated. 

Distillery Canyon .................... Moderate ................................ Low ................. Moderate ........ Extirpated ....... Extirpated. 

Happy Valley North ............... Low ........................................ Low ................. Low ................. Extirpated ....... Extirpated. 

Happy Valley South ............... Moderate ................................ Low ................. Moderate ........ Low ................. Extirpated. 

Italian Spring Canyon ............ Moderate ................................ Low ................. Low ................. Low ................. Extirpated. 

North Branch Turkey Creek .. Moderate ................................ Low ................. Low ................. Low ................. Extirpated. 

Posta Quemada Canyon ....... Moderate ................................ Low ................. Moderate ........ Low ................. Extirpated. 

Rincon Creek ......................... Moderate ................................ Low ................. Low ................. Low ................. Extirpated. 

Rincon Peak .......................... Moderate ................................ Low ................. Low ................. Low ................. Extirpated. 

Shaw Canyon ........................ Moderate ................................ Low ................. Moderate ........ Extirpated ....... Extirpated. 

South Branch Turkey Creek .. Moderate ................................ Low ................. Low ................. Low ................. Extirpated. 

Tanque Verde Ridge Trail ..... Moderate ................................ Moderate ........ Moderate ........ Low ................. Low. 

Tres Pipas Canyon ................ Moderate ................................ Low ................. Low ................. Low ................. Extirpated. 

West Branch Deer Creek ...... Moderate ................................ Low ................. Low ................. Low ................. Extirpated. 

Santa Rita .............................. Adobe Canyon ....................... Moderate ................................ Low ................. Low ................. Low ................. Extirpated. 

Bond Canyon ......................... Moderate ................................ Low ................. Low ................. Low ................. Extirpated. 

Cave Canyon ......................... Moderate ................................ Low ................. Low ................. Extirpated ....... Extirpated. 

Gardner Canyon East ............ Moderate ................................ Low ................. Low ................. Extirpated ....... Extirpated. 

Gardner Canyon West ........... Moderate ................................ Low ................. Low ................. Low ................. Extirpated. 

Josephine Canyon ................. Moderate ................................ Moderate ........ Moderate ........ Low ................. Low. 

Madera Canyon ..................... Moderate ................................ Low ................. Low ................. Low ................. Low. 

Sawmill Canyon ..................... Moderate ................................ Low ................. Low ................. Extirpated ....... Extirpated. 

Squaw Gulch ......................... Moderate ................................ Low ................. Low ................. Low ................. Extirpated. 

Sycamore Canyon ................. Moderate ................................ Low ................. Low ................. Extirpated ....... Extirpated. 

Temporal Gulch ..................... Moderate ................................ Low ................. Low ................. Low ................. Low. 

Walker Canyon ...................... Moderate ................................ Low ................. Low ................. Low ................. Extirpated. 

Whetstone .............................. Deathtrap Canyon ................. Moderate ................................ Low ................. Low ................. Low ................. Low. 

French Joe Canyon ............... Low ........................................ Low ................. Low ................. Low ................. Extirpated. 

Guindani Canyon ................... Moderate ................................ Low ................. Low ................. Low ................. Extirpated. 

Sierra Las Avispas, Sonora ... Sierra Las Avispas ................ Low ........................................ Low ................. Low ................. Extirpated ....... Extirpated. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 48555 

TABLE 2—BARTRAM’S STONECROP POPULATION CURRENT AND FUTURE RESILIENCY—Continued 

Mountain range Population name Current 

condition Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 

Sierra La Escuadra, Chihuahua.Near Colonia Pacheco .......... Low ........................................ Low ................. Low ................. Low ................. Low. 

Sierra La Estancia, Chihuahua.Cuarenta Casas ..................... Low ........................................ Low ................. Low ................. Extirpated ....... Extirpated. 

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 rule. 

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 three 

appropriate specialists regarding the 

2018 SSA report. The peer reviewers 

have expertise that includes familiarity 

with Bartram’s stonecrop and its habitat, 

biological needs, and threats. We 

received responses from two specialists, 

which informed the SSA report and 

proposed rule. The purpose of peer 

review is to ensure that our listing 

determinations and 4(d) rules are based 

on scientifically sound data, 

conclusions, and analyses. 

In the development of the final rule, 

we solicited further expert opinion on 

stressors and the effect of stressors as 

analyzed in the SSA from six 

knowledgeable specialists with 

scientific expertise that included 

familiarity with Bartram’s stonecrop and 

its habitat, biological needs, and threats 

(Service 2020b, entire). We reviewed all 

comments we received from the 

specialists for substantive issues and 

new information regarding Bartram’s 

stonecrop. The reviewers generally 

concurred with our methods and 

conclusions, and provided additional 

information, clarifications, and 

suggestions to improve the updated SSA 

report and final rule. Peer reviewer 

comments and expert opinions are 

incorporated into the SSA report 

(Service 2020a) 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. Seven 

commenters provided substantive 

comments or new information 

concerning the proposed listing and 4(d) 

rule for Bartram’s stonecrop. Below, we 

provide a summary of the substantive 

issues raised in the public comments we 

received; however, 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 indicated 

that the Service did not notify the 

public of the imminent listing of the 

species and the public needs more time 

to respond. 

Response: On August 8, 2012, we 

announced our 90-day finding that a 

petition to list Bartram’s stonecrop 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 or other 

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 

Bartram’s stonecrop 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 

an SSA would be conducted for 

Bartram’s stonecrop 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, which 

is publicly available on our website, 

since 2016. We updated the workplan in 

May 2019 and listed the 12-month 

finding for Bartram’s stonecrop as a FY 

2018 carryover action. The courtordered 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 proposed 4(d) rule 

for Bartram’s stonecrop. 

As such, we complied with all 

requirements of the Act and conclude 

that the public was afforded adequate 

notice of the proposed listing of 

Bartram’s stonecrop. 

(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 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
48556 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

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 Bartram’s 

stonecrop SSA provides the best 

scientific information available to guide 

a determination of whether or not 

Bartram’s stonecrop 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: Three commenters 

suggested the Service’s discussion of its 

proposed 4(d) rule for Bartram’s 

stonecrop conflicts with the Act and 

erroneously extends the ‘‘take’’ 

prohibition for fish and wildlife to a 

plant species. 

Response: 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. 

The final 4(d) rule for Bartram’s 

stonecrop provides for the conservation 

of the species by applying all of the 

prohibitions listed in section 9(a)(2) of 

the Act and 50 CFR 17.61 that are 

applicable to an endangered plant, 

except as otherwise authorized or 

permitted at 50 CFR 17.61(c)(2) and (3), 

50 CFR 17.71(b), and 50 CFR 17.72. 

In the December 6, 2019, proposed 

rule (84 FR 67060, p. 84 FR 67086), we 

also describe a range of activities that 

have potential to impact Bartram’s 

stonecrop, including: 

• Unauthorized handling or 

collecting of the species; 

• Ground-disturbing activities where 

the species occurs; 

• Activities that would affect 

pollinators where the species occurs 

and in the surrounding area; 

• Activities that would promote highseverity wildfires where the species 

occurs; 

• Activities that would reduce shade, 

reduce proximity to water, and lower 

the water table such that the cooler, 

humid microenvironment is affected; 

and 

• Herbicide applications where the 

species occurs. 

These activities are provided as 

examples of actions that may affect 

Bartram’s stonecrop, and as such would 

be subject to section 7 consultation for 

projects with a Federal nexus, and are 

not intended to be a list of prohibitions 

under the final 4(d) rule for Bartram’s 

stonecrop. 

(4) Comment: Several commenters 

stated that Service botanists have not 

visited sites with Bartram’s stonecrop 

and that if more surveys are done, more 

plants will be found as Bartram’s 

stonecrop is a small cactus with oneinch flowers that are hard to see. For 

example, the species has been 

discovered at 16 new locations since 

2015. 

Response: Bartram’s stonecrop is a 

succulent with specific habitat 

requirements and is detectable in bloom 

and out of bloom by trained botanists. 

All researchers involved with Bartram’s 

stonecrop surveys, including the 

Service, the National Park Service 

(NPS), the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), 

and the Arizona Game and Fish 

Department, as well as other academic 

and commercial entities, are 

experienced in both plant and habitat 

identification. Increased survey efforts 

since 2013 by such qualified individuals 

have led to newly discovered Bartram’s 

stonecrop populations or groups. We are 

aware of 70 total elemental occurrences 

(Arizona Game and Fish Department, 

Heritage Database Management System) 

in the 50 extant U.S. Bartram’s 

stonecrop populations. Of these, all but 

seven occurrences from five populations 

have been located or revisited since 

2010 (Service 2020a, tables 5.2–5.11). 

Following extensive survey efforts in 

Arizona and Mexico, we are now aware 

of 872 new individuals from the United 

States and Mexico since the SSA report 

was initially written (Service 2020a, 

entire). For example, between 2018 and 

2020, numerous surveys for Bartram’s 

stonecrop were conducted in the Rincon 

Mountains, and 13 additional Bartram’s 

stonecrop populations were located 

(Service 2020a, pp. 89–90), including 1 

population previously considered to be 

extirpated that contained one individual 

in 2019 (Service 2020a, p. 15). 

Similarly, recent surveys in the Santa 

Rita Mountains resulted in a newly 

discovered group of 55 individuals in 

Madera Canyon. We are also now aware 

of additional information from a private 

researcher’s surveys beginning in 2012. 

We have incorporated this and all 

verified information regarding species 

occurrences in the revised SSA report 

(version 2.0) and this final rule. 

Although the newly discovered 

individuals contribute to the overall 

abundance of Bartram’s stonecrop and 

may increase the resiliency of some 

populations, the threats to the species 

and the effect of those threats on the 

species remain such that the species is 

likely to become in danger of extinction 

within the foreseeable future. This 

additional information did not alter our 

conclusion that the species meets the 

Act’s definition of a threatened species. 

(5) Comment: Four commenters felt 

that there is not enough evidence to 

conclude that Bartram’s stonecrop 

populations are declining. Specifically, 

the Mule Mountains population has 

increased in size to 798 individuals and 

the statement in the proposed rule that 

there has been a contraction in size is 

outdated. 

Response: The 2015 survey of the 

Mule Mountains Juniper Flat population 

noted 798 individuals. This information 

is included in the SSA report (Service 

2018, pp. 50, 71, 79, 80; Service 2020a, 

pp. 52, 72, 80, 81) and December 6, 

2019, proposed rule (84 FR 67060). 

Extensive efforts during the 2015 survey 

located a larger group of plants within 

the known population. The newly 

discovered group of 798 plants is 

located approximately 300 meters from 

a southernmost group removed in a 

scouring flood and subsequent drying of 

the habitat. Therefore, if the larger group 

of Bartram’s stonecrop plants cooccurred with the smaller group, but 

was not observed, then the overall 

Juniper Flat population has contracted 

with the loss of the smaller group. No 

additional surveys or observed 

occurrences in the Mule Mountains 

have been reported to the Service since 

2015. 

The statement regarding a ‘‘general 

state of population decline’’ has been 

removed in this final rule as we 

acknowledge that populations fluctuate 

over time. However, we do not expect 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 48557 

populations extirpated due to drying of 

habitat to rebound over time as suitable 

habitat conditions would not be present. 

Specifically, drying of habitat has been 

linked to decreased abundance and 

extirpation of populations in the 

Chiricahua, Dragoon, Empire, Santa 

Rita, and Rincon mountains, including 

a group of plants from the largest 

population at Juniper Flat. In three of 

these instances, extirpation was 

associated with the drying of habitat, 

which rendered it no longer suitable for 

the species. 

(6) Comment: Two commenters 

suggested that the moist canyons where 

Bartram’s stonecrop have been found 

are associated with the attraction of the 

public and botanists to these locations, 

and that survey bias and poor 

detectability can result in the 

mischaracterization of Bartram’s 

stonecrop habitat. Several commenters 

questioned the characterization of 

Bartram’s stonecrop’s habitat needs with 

respect to moisture and proximity to 

water. 

Response: The Service completed a 

robust SSA based on the best available 

scientific and commercial information. 

Bartram’s stonecrop is a species found 

in Madrean woodlands, and does not 

appear to be a riparian species 

dependent on shallow ground water. 

The best available information on 

Bartram’s stonecrop indicates the 

species occurs near water sources 

(springs, seeps, or intermittent streams), 

which may provide humidity and create 

suitable microclimate conditions. The 

deep, narrow canyons and associated 

overstory species provide shade during 

a portion of the day and create a cooler 

temperature, and the vegetation litter 

promotes retention of soil moisture and 

contributes to the humid 

microenvironment. Of 56 extant 

Bartram’s stonecrop subpopulations 

with microhabitat condition 

documented, 78.6 percent were found 

within 10 meters of an intermittent or 

perennial streambed, an additional 14.3 

percent were found between 11 and 20 

meters from an intermittent or perennial 

streambed, and 7.1 percent were located 

more than 20 meters from an 

intermittent or perennial streambed. 

Researchers searched for plants at 

varying distances from streambeds, but 

note most plants were found nearer 

streambeds. In general, botanists visit 

many different habitat types in southern 

Arizona, and few Bartram’s stonecrop 

individuals have been located outside of 

habitats with relatively humid 

microhabitat conditions, as described in 

the SSA report (Service 2020a, pp. 18, 

24). 

(7) Comment: A commenter notes that 

other Bartram’s stonecrop populations 

are being discovered, and at least one of 

the presumed extirpated populations 

(Rincon North) cannot really be 

determined to be gone. 

Response: The discovery of 872 

additional individuals and new groups 

of plants in Arizona and Mexico, as 

described in our response to Comment 

(4), above, represent substantial survey 

effort by multiple groups. The 2015 

survey of the population referenced 

(referred to as Happy Valley North in 

the SSA report) did not locate any 

Bartram’s stonecrop individuals. 

However, in 2019, a single plant was 

located within this population. We have 

incorporated the updated information 

into the revised SSA report and describe 

the Happy Valley North population as 

extant. However, we note that one 

individual does not indicate a robust 

population and consider this population 

to be in very poor condition. 

(8) Comment: A commenter indicated 

we did not solicit information from 

Cecile Shohet, who conducted research 

on Bartram’s stonecrop for a Master’s of 

Science thesis. 

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 

worked in partnership with numerous 

agencies and organizations to visit most 

of the known U.S. locations of Bartram’s 

stonecrop occurrences 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 

to assess the species’ current and future 

conditions. The U.S. Forest Service, 

National Park Service, Service, industry 

surveyors, and other researchers 

gathering information on Bartram’s 

stonecrop have increased survey efforts 

since 2013 in suitable habitat in Arizona 

and Mexico. At a minimum, recent 

surveys and research on Bartram’s 

stonecrop have occurred each year from 

2013 to 2020. 

A solicitation for peer review of the 

SSA report was sent to Ms. Shohet on 

October 16, 2017, and no response was 

received. We solicited Ms. Shohet’s 

expert opinion on specific aspects of the 

SSA and have incorporated all 

information received following the 

publication of the December 6, 2019, 

proposed rule in the revised SSA. 

(9) Comment: Three commenters 

stated that there is little to no evidence 

that drying has contributed to the 

extirpation of Bartram’s stonecrop 

populations. 

Response: Bartram’s stonecrop occurs 

only in habitat near water sources with 

a relatively moist and humid 

microenvironment and occasionally 

occurs in lower abundance in habitat 

farther away from water. As such, we 

determined that the humid microhabitat 

conditions are a need for species 

viability (ability to sustain populations 

in the wild over time). Changes to 

required habitat conditions, including 

drying, are expected to negatively affect 

Bartram’s stonecrop populations and 

contribute to reductions in abundance 

and population extirpation. Bartram’s 

stonecrop seedlings are particularly 

susceptible to desiccation, and 

resurveys have shown large losses in 

this size class. 

Drying of habitat associated with 

population or group extirpations has 

been observed in the Carlink Canyon, 

Empire Mountains, and Mule 

Mountains. Extirpations occurring in 

drying habitat are unlikely to be 

recolonized since suitable conditions for 

Bartram’s stonecrop are no longer 

present. When suitable habitat is lost 

and not restored, Bartram’s stonecrop 

experiences an increased risk of 

extirpation and extinction. 

(10) Comment: The commenters 

stated that several morphological and 

metabolic characteristics of Bartram’s 

stonecrop are not discussed in the 

proposed rule despite their important 

role in determining the habitat 

requirements of Bartram’s stonecrop. 

These characteristics include a thick 

waxy covering on the epidermis, 

Crassulacean acid metabolism that 

results in stomata only opening at night, 

a shallow root system, and succulent 

leaves massed together as a rosette. 

Response: Crassulacean acid 

metabolism (CAM) plants minimize 

photorespiration and save water by 

separating the steps of carbon dioxide 

fixation and the Calvin cycle (used to 

turn carbon dioxide into sugar) in time, 

between day and night. Reducing 

photorespiration decreases wasted 

energy and decreases sugar synthesis. 

Approximately 6 percent of flowering 

plants are known to use CAM. CAM 

species vary widely in the efficacy and 

use of CAM, and many maintain the 

ability to conduct photosynthesis 

without reducing photorespiration 

during part of the day, part of the 

season, and/or part of their lifecycle. All 

or nearly all members of the nearly 

worldwide plant family Crassulaceae 

have the ability to perform CAM, and 

they occupy a range of microhabitats. 

Most taxa grow in arid habitats such as 

rocks and rock fissures under otherwise 

more humid climatic conditions, or in 

mountain regions in moderately arid 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
48558 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

areas, and are largely absent from hot 

deserts and arid lowlands. Therefore, it 

is not possible to predict a plant’s 

habitat based solely on knowing that it 

performs CAM. 

Bartram’s stonecrop exhibits 

morphological features characteristic of 

other Crasulaceae including a waxy 

covering of the leaves, a shallow root 

system, and the arrangement of the 

leaves in a rosette. These features are 

also found in succulents that occur in 

drier habitats and may act to promote 

water conservation, but do not alter the 

habitat requirements of Bartram’s 

stonecrop. 

(11) 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 

Bartram’s stonecrop populations 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 limited 

populations of Bartram’s stonecrop have 

been located there; therefore, we do not 

find it reasonable to conclude that the 

species is common or safe in Mexico. 

(12) 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 SanchezEscalante 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. Two new Bartram’s stonecrop 

populations were located and two 

historical Bartram’s stonecrop 

populations were confirmed out of 11 

suitable habitat locations surveyed. 

These surveys were conducted during 

the flowering season in late September 

when the plants are most visible. 

Therefore, we concluded the SanchezEscalante surveys were conducted using 

appropriate methods. Thus, we base our 

current understanding of the Bartram’s 

stonecrop occurrences in Sonora and 

Chihuahua on the best available 

scientific information. 

(13) Comment: A commenter 

mentioned that regular visitation is 

necessary to attain information on 

bloom period, seed production, 

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. The current 

knowledge of Bartram’s stonecrop 

phenology and reproduction is 

described in the SSA report (Service 

2020a, p. 20). The inflorescence stalks of 

Bartram’s stonecrop individuals grow 

for 30–40 days in July and August 

before coming to their full height, with 

flowers opening primarily between 

September and November (Kearney and 

Peebles 1951, p. 361; Phillips et al. 

1982, pp. 2, 7; Shohet 1999, p. 25). 

Flowering is triggered by fall rains and 

does not occur during periods of water 

stress (Shohet 1999 pp. 22, 25, 36, 39). 

Seed dispersal occurs from November to 

December. 

Bartram’s stonecrop requires 

pollinators for reproduction. The major 

pollinators of Bartram’s stonecrop are 

true flies and house flies, although 

honey bees may also play a role in 

pollination. Other species that have 

been noted on Bartram’s stonecrop 

include wasps, butterflies, and bee flies 

(Shohet 1999, p. 41; Ferguson 2014, p. 

26; Ferguson 2017b, p. 13). Fertilization 

success is greatest in earliest opening 

flowers, possibly due to more 

pollinators being available earlier in the 

season, although having a long period of 

flowering increases overall chance of 

pollination (Shohet 1999, p. 57). 

The full relationship between 

precipitation and plant growth in each 

life stage has not been fully elucidated. 

However, winter precipitation is needed 

for germination, although some 

germination likely occurs following 

summer rains. Summer (July and 

August) and fall (October and 

November) precipitation is needed for 

flower production. We are supporting 

current research into the specific 

microhabitat requirements for Bartram’s 

stonecrop including site characteristics 

of overstory vegetation, associated plant 

species, substrate characteristics, litter 

depth and character, local insolation 

and shade, soil temperature and soil 

moisture, and distance to perennial 

water. These studies will provide 

information on temperature and 

humidity parameters throughout the 

flowering, germination, and early 

seedling growth of the plants. Further 

studies will inform conservation and 

recovery efforts for the species. 

(14) 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. 

Three commenters also opined that the 

Service’s analysis of stressors and 

classification of the current condition is 

speculative and not based on hard data. 

Response: The Service’s 

determination to list the species is based 

on a thorough, scientific analysis that 

was subject to appropriate peer review. 

Although there are threats noted in 

common between the Bartram’s 

stonecrop SSA report and the petition to 

list the species (CBD 2010), there are 

also differences. The petition calls out 

mining, livestock grazing, and 

recreation as the primary threats to 

Bartram’s stonecrop. The SSA analysis 

determined the following primary 

influences on viability: Loss of water 

availability; erosion, sedimentation, and 

burial; altered fire regime; and loss of 

shade. We based our analyses on the 

best available information, which 

included recent studies of and surveys 

for Bartram’s stonecrop by the National 

Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, the 

Service, and private researchers. 

(15) Comment: A commenter claimed 

the Service lacks basic knowledge about 

the biology and habitat requirements of 

Bartram’s stonecrop 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 Bartram’s 

stonecrop indicates the species occurs 

near water sources (springs, seeps, or 

intermittent streams), which may 

provide humidity and create suitable 

microclimate conditions. The deep, 

narrow canyons and associated 

overstory species provide shade during 

a portion of the day and create a cooler 

temperature, and the vegetation litter 

promotes retention of soil moisture and 

contributes to the humid 

microenvironment. Additional 

Bartram’s stonecrop biology and habitat 

research is ongoing, and results will 

inform future Service actions. In 

assessing the viability of Bartram’s 

stonecrop, 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. 

(16) Comment: A commenter 

indicated that managed livestock and 

wild ungulate grazing reduce fuels for 

fires and requested all language relating 

to domestic livestock threatening 

Bartram’s stonecrop be removed from 

the SSA report and the rule. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 48559 

Response: Livestock grazing is not 

noted in the SSA report or the rule as 

a major threat to Bartram’s stonecrop. 

Rather, the Bartram’s stonecrop SSA 

report concluded that because Bartram’s 

stonecrop typically occurs on steep 

terrain, the plants are largely protected 

from grazing. However, trampling may 

occur when cattle graze in areas where 

Bartram’s stonecrop occurs. Mortality 

may be caused by direct trampling by 

livestock (Searle and Meyer 2020, p. 6), 

and dislodging of soils by the hard 

edges of hooves may lead to increased 

erosion or burial of nearby plants, 

affecting Bartram’s stonecrop 

individuals in areas with livestock 

grazing pressure. Therefore, while 

grazing is not a major threat to the 

species, trampling and direct mortality 

act as stressors to Bartram’s stonecrop in 

some circumstances, and the effect of 

livestock is analyzed in the SSA report. 

(17) Comment: A commenter 

suggested using past climate data at a 

local level rather than modelling 

projections when discussing climate as 

a threat. 

Response: In the Bartram’s stonecrop 

SSA report, figures 4.11a–c show both 

the past and projected mean daily 

maximum temperatures in Cochise, 

Pima, and Santa Cruz Counties, Arizona 

(Service 2020a, pp. 63–67). The data for 

past mean daily maximum temperatures 

also indicate increases in temperature in 

all three counties. Modelling 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 

Bartram’s stonecrop. Section 4.3 of the 

SSA (USFWS 2020, pp. 37–51) 

describes these modelling projections in 

greater detail. 

(18) Comment: A commenter stated 

that demographic and environmental 

stochasticity are naturally occurring 

phenomena for which Bartram’s 

stonecrop plants are very well adapted. 

Response: Demographic and 

environmental stochasticity are 

naturally occurring phenomena (Shaffer 

1981, p. 131). However, Bartram’s 

stonecrop populations adapted to 

naturally occurring phenomena now 

experience the additional stressors 

related to a changing fire regime, 

nonnative species, 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). 

Following a stochastic event that 

extirpates a population, suitable habitat 

for Bartram’s stonecrop must be present, 

including humidity and shade, to 

provide conditions for potential 

recolonization or regrowth. Rangewide 

(including Mexico), 29 of the 50 

Bartram’s stonecrop populations (58 

percent) are small (fewer than 50 

individuals). When the effect of small 

population size exacerbates other 

stressors beyond those naturally 

occurring phenomena that Bartram’s 

stonecrop has adapted to, population 

abundance may be reduced to the extent 

that repopulation does not occur. 

(19) Comment: Three commenters 

stated the analysis of mining as a threat 

is cursory, unsupported, and overstates 

the likelihood of mining projects 

occurring within the range of the 

species. They noted that no mining 

projects outside of Rosemont are 

specifically identified and that the 

Service used an outdated 2012 

document/map for this discussion. The 

commenters also stated that there is no 

evidence that loss of water from mining 

operations is a significant threat to 

Bartram’s stonecrop and noted that the 

shade trees associated with Bartram’s 

stonecrop habitat do not rely on 

groundwater. Therefore, the proposed 

rule overstated water drawdown from 

mining as a threat. 

Response: Mining is expected to affect 

Bartram’s stonecrop individuals and 

populations in several ways. The direct 

removal of Bartram’s stonecrop 

individuals due to erosion or burial 

from mineral extraction sites, test pits, 

and debris piles is expected to impact 

small populations. Fragmentation of 

Bartram’s stonecrop populations due to 

placement of mining operations and 

associated activities can interfere with 

pollination and reproduction (Rathcke 

and Jules 1993, p. 276). Due to 

uncertainty regarding the effect of 

fugitive dust or heavy metal pollution 

generated by mining operations on 

Bartram’s stonecrop’s growth and vigor, 

these potential stressors were not 

analyzed. The primary threat to 

Bartram’s stonecrop analyzed with 

regard to mining was the loss of 

overstory shade trees due to dewatering 

of nearby streams and groundwater 

drawdown. 

Bartram’s stonecrop-associated shade 

trees include the following riparian 

obligate species: Salix sp. (willow), 

Populus sp. (cottonwood), and Platanus 

sp. (sycamore). Within the following 

Bartram’s stonecrop locations, the 

associated overstory includes riparian 

trees that provide between 50 and 80 

percent shade to the sites: (1) Penasco 

Canyon: Willow; (2) Stronghold East: 

Ash; (3) Cave Canyon: Sycamore; (4) 

Josephine Canyon: Cottonwood and 

willow; (5) Santa Rita Sycamore 

Canyon: Ash; (6) Madera Canyon: 

Sycamore; (7) Jordan Canyon: 

Cottonwood, ash, and willow; (8) 

Warsaw/Old Glory Canyons: Willow; (9) 

Sawmill Canyon: Sycamore; and (10) 

Death Trap Canyon: Ash. Our response 

to Comment (6), above, describes the 

importance of riparian shade trees in 

maintaining the microhabitat needed by 

Bartram’s stonecrop. 

Dewatering of streams in the vicinity 

of mining operations may lead to 

overstory canopy changes and loss of 

shade, as well as reduction in spring 

and stream flow and humidity in nearby 

Bartram’s stonecrop populations. One 

mine has been proposed in the Santa 

Rita Mountains. Bartram’s stonecrop 

individuals and populations in the 

analysis area could experience indirect 

impacts from groundwater drawdown 

(USFS 2013a, p. 676). According to the 

Rosemont Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (USFS 2013a, p. 339), the 

proposed mine pit would create a 

permanent drawdown of the water table, 

and groundwater flowing toward the pit 

would be lost to evaporation. The water 

would be perpetually replenished in 

part by groundwater from the regional 

aquifer, and the pit would act as a 

hydraulic sink. The Bartram’s stonecrop 

plants growing just southwest of the 

proposed Rosemont Mine were analyzed 

in the Rosemont Final Environmental 

Impact Statement (USFS 2013a, pp. 

346–350). The predicted groundwater 

drawdown in the affected population at 

the end of active mining is 0.1–5 feet, 

depending on the site assessed and the 

model used. At 20 years from the mine 

closure, the predicted drawdown 

increases to a maximum of 15–20 feet. 

In our analysis, we describe a range of 

potential mining scenarios that may 

affect Bartram’s stonecrop: (1) Ongoing 

mining activity, (2) one to three new 

mining activities across the range of the 

species, and (3) greater than three new 

mining activities across the range of the 

species, to represent future levels of 

stressors to Bartram’s stonecrop from 

mining. We used the information from 

Coronado National Forest Mining 

Activity (USFS 2012) to develop these 

plausible ranges of potential activities. 

We are not aware of any other sources 

regarding potential mining activities; 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
48560 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

however, we welcome any new 

information on the likelihood of mining 

impacts to inform subsequent Service 

actions. 

(20) Comment: A commenter notes 

that Bartram’s stonecrop rock habitat 

should minimize wildfire, erosion, 

sedimentation, and burial, and that the 

12-month finding for Hexalectris 

colemanii concluded that wildfire was 

not a risk, yet it occurs in the same 

habitat as Bartram’s stonecrop. 

Response: The crevices in the rock 

habitat where Bartram’s stonecrop 

occurs provide shade, shelter, and soil 

moisture retention, and they provide the 

plant some protection from burning due 

to a lack of surrounding vegetation 

serving as fuel for fire in the rocky 

terrain. However, overstory tree and 

shrub species that provide shade to 

Bartram’s stonecrop plants may be 

impacted by fire. Due to the location of 

plants in crevices or shallow soil 

pockets in steep canyons, adherence to 

substrate or soil is tenuous, and plants 

can be easily dislodged due to post-fire 

flooding, foot traffic, eroding soil, or 

falling rocks. 

Unlike Bartram’s stonecrop, 

Hexalectris colemanii (Coleman’s 

coralroot) is an almost exclusively 

subterranean species and is likely 

capable of resprouting following fire. In 

addition, the threats of nonnative plants 

(e.g., Eragrostis lehmanniana 

(Lehmann’s lovegrass) and Melinis 

repens (rose natal)) were not considered 

to be threats to the Coleman’s coralroot 

(78 FR 76795; December 19, 2013), but 

are considered to be a threat to 

Bartram’s stonecrop. These nonnative 

plants increase fire risk and alter the fire 

regime (frequency and severity) within 

Bartram’s stonecrop habitat. 

We are aware of 11 wildfires that 

occurred in known Bartram’s stonecrop 

sites from 2007–2017, killing some 

Bartram’s stonecrop individuals and 

removing shade in some sites. Wildfires 

have burned in all nine sky island 

mountain ranges of southern Arizona 

with known Bartram’s stonecrop 

occurrences within the last decade. 

Wildfire could potentially cause 

extirpation of small Bartram’s stonecrop 

populations throughout the range of the 

species and have negative impacts on 

larger populations. Bartram’s stonecrop 

seeds are very tiny, reside at or near the 

soil surface (Shohet 1999, p. 48), and 

show no characteristics that would 

promote survival in a wildfire. 

(21) Comment: Three commenters 

stated that there is no evidence that 

erosion, sedimentation, or burial are 

significant threats to Bartram’s 

stonecrop. 

Response: Erosion, sedimentation, 

and burial of Bartram’s stonecrop 

individuals may occur as a result of 

mining, livestock pressure, recreation 

trails and roads, flooding events, cross 

border human activity, and postwildfire runoff. Bartram’s stonecrop is 

found in crevices or shallow soil 

pockets in steep canyons where 

adherence to substrate or soil is 

necessarily tenuous. Individual plants 

can be easily dislodged from these 

positions due to flooding, foot traffic, 

eroding soil, or falling rocks. 

Individuals dislodged by erosion and 

covered by rock fall have been observed 

in the Rhyolite Canyon subpopulation 

(Service 2020a, p. 76). Similarly, more 

than a half dozen individuals dislodged 

from trailside infrastructure were lost to 

erosion in the Madera population 

(Shohet 1999, p. 60). The effects of 

erosion, sedimentation, and burial and 

the loss of Bartram’s stonecrop 

individuals are exacerbated in small 

populations. 

(22) Comment: Some commenters 

stated that fire may not be so important 

for this species and that an altered fire 

regime poses an uncertain threat to 

Bartram’s stonecrop. 

Response: The Madrean evergreen 

woodlands of the sky islands where 

Bartram’s stonecrop occurs have 

evolved with frequent low-severity fire 

with an interval of 10 to 30 years 

between relatively widespread fires in 

the pine-dominant forests (Swetnam et 

al. 2010, p. 4). Due to a variety of human 

activities in the landscape (e.g., 

excessive livestock grazing, fuelwood 

cutting, nonnative introduction and 

expansion, and fire suppression starting 

around the turn of the last century 

through the mid-1900s), these 

woodlands now have high fuel loads, 

and high-severity fires are becoming 

increasingly more common (Swetnam et 

al. 2010, p. 11; FireScape 2016, entire). 

There is no evidence that such large, 

stand-replacing fires occurred 

historically; for example, fire-scar 

studies have revealed that only lowintensity surface fire regimes occurred 

within the range of Bartram’s stonecrop 

for the past three to five centuries 

(Swetnam et al. 2010, p. 15). 

Crevices provide shade, shelter, and 

soil moisture retention, and offer 

Bartram’s stonecrop plants protection 

from burning due to a lack of 

surrounding vegetation for fuel in the 

rocky terrain. Regardless, Bartram’s 

stonecrop individuals have been 

burned. We are aware of 11 wildfires 

that occurred in known Bartram’s 

stonecrop sites from 2007–2017, killing 

some Bartram’s stonecrop individuals 

and removing shade in some sites 

(Ferguson 2014, pp. 9–10, 15, 28–29; 

Ferguson 2016a, p. 13; Ferguson 2016b, 

entire; Ferguson 2017c, p. 32; Ferguson 

2017h, p. 2). Wildfires have burned in 

all nine sky island mountain ranges of 

southern Arizona with known Bartram’s 

stonecrop occurrences within the last 

decade. Wildfire could potentially cause 

extirpation of small Bartram’s stonecrop 

populations throughout the range of the 

species and have negative impacts on 

larger populations. Bartram’s stonecrop 

seeds are very tiny, reside at or near the 

soil surface (Shohet 1999, p. 48), and 

show no characteristics that would 

promote survival in a wildfire. 

Indirect threats to the species from 

fire include increased runoff of 

floodwaters, post-fire flooding that may 

scour habitat, deposition of debris and 

sediment originating in the burned area 

that could cover individuals, erosion of 

habitat, changes in vegetation 

community composition and structure, 

increased presence of nonnative plants, 

alterations in the hydrologic and 

nutrient cycles, and loss of overstory 

canopy shade essential for maintaining 

Bartram’s stonecrop microhabitat. 

(23) Comment: A commenter 

expressed that Bartram’s stonecrop 

should be listed as endangered and 

critical habitat should be designated. 

Response: When making a listing 

decision for a species under the Act, the 

Service must determine if the current 

status of the species indicates it 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). 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, and 

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 Act’s 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. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 48561 

We reviewed the potential risk factors 

(i.e., threats or stressors) that are 

affecting Bartram’s stonecrop now and 

into the future. While there are multiple 

stressors affecting Bartram’s stonecrop, 

the best available information indicates 

that these threats are not immediately 

impacting Bartram’s stonecrop such that 

the species meets the definition of an 

endangered species under the Act. 

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. The 

designation of critical habitat may not 

be prudent if the species is threatened 

by taking or other human activity and 

identification of critical habitat can be 

expected to increase the degree of such 

threat to the species. Bartram’s 

stonecrop is an attractive and small 

plant that can be easily collected by 

gardeners and succulent enthusiasts. 

This stressor was first noted in 1982, 

and observed in 1997–1998. Three 

researchers described the potential for 

collection of Bartram’s stonecrop and 

factors that may make collection more 

likely. The lifespan of Bartram’s 

stonecrop plants has been estimated at 

5–10 years, allowing sufficient time for 

discovery and collection. As noted in 

the August 8, 2012, 90-day finding for 

this species (77 FR 47352), small 

populations may not be able to recover 

from collection, especially if the mature, 

reproductive plants are removed. The 

removal of mature plants reduces the 

overall reproductive effort of the 

population, thereby reducing the overall 

resilience of the population. While 

documented instances of collection are 

limited, the impacts from collection can 

be profound for small populations. In 

this case, we have found that the 

designation of critical habitat for 

Bartram’s stonecrop is not prudent at 

this time as it would be likely to put the 

species at higher risk of collection. 

(24) Comment: The commenters state 

that there is no evidence that illegal 

collection of Bartram’s stonecrop 

individuals is a significant threat and 

that illegal collection is unlikely due to 

the short lifespan of the species and 

difficulty growing it horticulturally. 

Response: The illegal collection of 

succulents is known to occur, and is 

often difficult to detect. Illegal 

collection of Bartram’s stonecrop 

individuals has been reported, and the 

threat from it is more pronounced in 

small populations such as those in 

which the species occurs. More than 

half (58 percent) of Bartram’s stonecrop 

populations contain fewer than 50 

individuals. The lifespan of Bartram’s 

stonecrop plants has been estimated at 

5–10 years, allowing sufficient time for 

discovery and collection. 

Bartram’s stonecrop is an attractive 

and small plant not available from 

nurseries that can be easily collected by 

gardeners and succulent enthusiasts. 

This stressor was first noted in 1982, 

when exact localities were excluded 

from a summary report due to the 

possibility of illegal collection. Tagged 

individuals were uprooted and taken 

from two sites in the Santa Rita 

Mountains in 1997–1998. Plants in close 

proximity to trails have higher 

discovery potential and are therefore 

more likely to be collected. Collectors 

advertise in internet forums seeking 

Bartram’s stonecrop seedlings or rooted 

cuttings. The similar southern Arizona 

species, Graptopetalum rusbyi (San 

Francisco leatherpetal), is cultivated 

and legally available for sale from cactus 

nurseries. However, Bartram’s stonecrop 

is more difficult to propagate and 

maintain in captivity and is therefore 

vulnerable to collection from the wild 

because collectors cannot find them for 

purchase in nurseries. Small 

populations may not be able to recover 

from collection, especially if the mature, 

reproductive plants are removed. The 

removal of mature plants reduces the 

overall reproductive effort of the 

population, thereby reducing the overall 

resilience of the population. While 

documented instances of collection are 

limited, the impacts from collection can 

be profound for small populations. 

(25) Comment: The commenters state 

that there is no evidence that trampling 

is a significant threat to Bartram’s 

stonecrop. 

Response: As Bartram’s stonecrop is 

typically found in shady canyons, the 

possibility of individuals being lost to 

trampling remains. Trampling of 

individuals (direct mortality or damage 

due to crushing) related to recreation 

activities has been observed historically. 

Human traffic within Bartram’s 

stonecrop populations can cause soil 

erosion and plant loss, including 

damage from researchers. Individual 

Bartram’s stonecrop were trampled in a 

group of plants that bordered a campsite 

(Shohet 1999, p. 60). Westland 

Resources (2013, p. 19) noted that the 

potential placement of a trail through 

Bartram’s stonecrop populations may 

impact individual plants. A Bartram’s 

stonecrop plant in a group located 

within 10 meters (32.8 feet) of a 

frequently used hiking trail was covered 

by rock fall (Ferguson 2016a, pp. 14– 

15). Threats to individuals can be 

particularly important to small 

populations. 

(26) Comment: Some commenters 

state that altered precipitation, drought, 

and flooding regimes pose an uncertain 

threat to Bartram’s stonecrop, and that 

freezing is not detrimental unless 

severe. 

Response: The southwestern United 

States is warming and experiencing 

severe droughts of extended duration, 

decreased stream flows, changes in 

amount and timing of snow melt, and 

changes in timing and severity of 

precipitation and flooding (CLIMAS 

2014, entire). The seasonality and 

general precipitation requirements for 

Bartram’s stonecrop are described in 

detail in the SSA report (chapter 2, p. 

26). Bartram’s stonecrop occurs in 

habitats and microhabitats with a higher 

soil moisture, humidity, and vegetative 

community indicative of more mesic 

conditions than other succulents. 

Drying of habitats and more arid 

conditions have been associated with 

population extirpation. Bartram’s 

stonecrop and its habitat are very 

susceptible to drought, loss of humidity, 

increases in temperature, and increased 

intensity of storms and flooding (NPS 

2015, p. 4). 

Bartram’s stonecrop occurs in 

Madrean woodlands characterized by 

warm, wet summers and mild winters. 

Precipitation within the sky island 

mountain ranges is bimodal, with 

winter snow and rain, and summer 

monsoon rain. Mean annual 

precipitation in these habitats is 10–17 

inches, with more than 50 percent 

occurring in summer. The winter snow 

and rain coincide with Bartram’s 

stonecrop seed germination and growth. 

Winter precipitation is needed for 

Bartram’s stonecrop germination 

(although some germination likely 

occurs following summer rains), and 

both summer (July and August) and fall 

(captured partially in the October and 

November ‘‘winter’’ data) precipitation 

is needed for Bartram’s stonecrop flower 

production. 

The current and projected future 

trends in precipitation in the range of 

Bartram’s stonecrop are discussed in the 

SSA report’s sections 2.6 and 4.5 

(Service 2020a, pp. 26, 54–68). The 

region has experienced serious drought 

(a prolonged period of abnormally low 

rainfall) in recent decades (Bowers 

2005, p. 421; Garfin et al. 2013, p. 3; 

CLIMAS 2014, entire). Winter 

precipitation, in particular, has 

decreased over the past century, as 

recorded by weather stations within sky 

island mountain ranges containing 

Bartram’s stonecrop (see SSA report, 

figures 2.6a–h) (Service 2020a, pp. 27– 

30). Winter precipitation is projected to 

decrease in the southwestern United 

States (IPCC 2013, p. 1080). 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
48562 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

Precipitation is projected to decrease 

in the future with climate change, 

although it is expected to be more 

intense when it does occur (Seager et al. 

2007, p. 1181; Karl et al. 2009, pp. 24, 

33). Some projections suggest an overall 

similar amount of precipitation in the 

Southwest, but that it will be distributed 

differently in timing and intensity 

(Zhang et al. 2012, p. 390). Most climate 

change scenarios predict that the 

American Southwest will also become 

warmer during the 21st century 

(Overpeck et al. 2012, p. 5; Karl et al. 

2009, p. 129), and the frequency of 

droughts is projected to increase by the 

end of the 21st century. 

Continuing drought, increased 

temperatures, and increased 

evapotranspiration are expected to 

reduce vegetation cover and shade in 

Bartram’s stonecrop habitat through 

overstory tree loss (Ferguson 2014, p. 

42). Such tree mortality has already 

been observed in Bartram’s stonecrop 

populations, negatively impacting 

available microhabitat (Ferguson 2016a, 

pp. 12, 17, 26). Drought or reduced 

water resources disproportionately 

affect seedlings, as this stage is 

particularly vulnerable to desiccation. 

Bartram’s stonecrop plants are almost 

always located near water sources 

(springs, seeps, or intermittent streams), 

but above the floodline (Phillips et al. 

1982, p. 4; Shohet 1999, p. 22; NPS 

2014, p. 2). Crevices above the floodline 

offer protection from typical flood 

events. Bartram’s stonecrop needs 

crevices in solid bedrock or in shallow 

soil pockets on rock ledges and cliffs in 

deep, narrow canyons above normal 

flood levels to avoid seeds and plants 

being washed away during flood events. 

An increase in the flood frequency or 

intensity could result in an increase in 

the number of plants dislodged. 

Based on climate change projections, 

it is likely that the severity of storm 

events will increase, resulting in more 

runoff, more severe flooding events, and 

more erosion and sedimentation 

affecting populations, especially 

following wildfire events in the 

uplands. Rainfall events in the 

southwestern United States are 

projected to be less frequent but more 

intense, and larger flood events are 

expected to be more common in the 

future (Karl et al. 2009, p. 24). Erosion 

and soil loss from such storm events 

may increase with higher peak stream 

flows. Flooding can remove Bartram’s 

stonecrop individuals occurring near 

the stream’s edge and has the potential 

to remove entire small populations 

(Phillips et al. 1982, p. 10; The Nature 

Conservancy 1987, p. 2; Ferguson 2014, 

p. 42; Ferguson 2016a, p. 26; NPS 2015, 

p. 4; Ferguson 2017b, p. 15). One group 

within a Bartram’s stonecrop population 

was extirpated due to dislodging from a 

flooding event followed by drying of 

habitat (The Nature Conservancy 1987, 

p. 2). 

Bartram’s stonecrop is susceptible to 

damage from freezing events (Ferguson 

2014, pp. 23, 40). An early season frost 

was reported in one Bartram’s stonecrop 

population, and a hard frost is 

suspected of killing all plants in another 

population (Indian Creek) in 2011. Frost 

events are not projected to decrease in 

severity (Kodra et al. 2011, p. 3). 

Because continuing drought, more 

severe freezing events, and increased 

high intensity rainfall events all pose 

threats to Bartram’s stonecrop across the 

range of the species, this stressor is 

considered in our analysis of future 

species viability. We conclude that 

abnormal freezing events can seriously 

damage or completely remove small 

populations. 

(27) Comment: Three commenters 

indicated that the Service’s conclusion 

that small and isolated populations are 

a threat to Bartram’s stonecrop is 

incorrect. 

Response: Small population size has 

the potential to decrease Bartram’s 

stonecrop population resiliency, as all 

stressors are exacerbated in populations 

with only a small number of 

individuals. Small populations are less 

able to recover from losses caused by 

random environmental changes (Shaffer 

and Stein 2000, pp. 308–310), such as 

fluctuations in reproduction 

(demographic stochasticity), variations 

in rainfall (environmental stochasticity), 

or changes in the frequency or severity 

of wildfires. 

Most known Bartram’s stonecrop 

populations are small, with over half of 

known individuals of the species 

residing in five populations. Twentynine of the 50 extant known Bartram’s 

stonecrop populations (58 percent) 

rangewide contain fewer than 50 

individuals, and 43 populations (86 

percent) contain fewer than 150 

individuals. The effect of more minor 

threats such as erosion, trampling, and 

illegal collection are all increased when 

Bartram’s stonecrop populations are 

already small. 

Determination of Bartram’s Stonecrop’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 

After evaluating threats to the species 

and assessing the cumulative effect of 

the threats under the section 4(a)(1) 

factors, we summarize our findings 

below. We have carefully assessed the 

best scientific and commercial 

information available regarding the past, 

present, and future threats to Bartram’s 

stonecrop. 

Bartram’s stonecrop has experienced 

population declines, and three 

populations have been lost entirely. 

Currently, 50 extant Bartram’s stonecrop 

populations contain 4,682 individuals 

in the United States and Mexico. Four 

Bartram’s stonecrop populations contain 

nonnative grasses and several more are 

near nonnative grasses resulting in 

current habitat loss and continued loss 

in the future (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 Bartram’s stonecrop are 

impacted by nonnative grasses now or 

will be in the near future. Altered 

precipitation (Factors A and E), 

increased temperatures (Factors A and 

E), and decreased annual precipitation 

(Factors A and E) are current and 

ongoing regional conditions that are 

impacting all populations of Bartram’s 

stonecrop. These environmental 

conditions exacerbate an altered fire 

regime, driving the spread of nonnative 

grasses with competitive advantages 

over native grasses during periods of 

drought. Many currently undeveloped 

areas of locatable mineral deposits may 

be explored or mined in the future 

(Factors A and E). The range of current 

and projected mining activities varies 

from 1 to 10 per mountain range with 

Bartram’s stonecrop occurrence (USFS 

2012, entire). One population, Sycamore 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 48563 

Canyon (115 adult individuals), will be 

affected by groundwater drawdown due 

to the Rosemont Mine, which will 

impact the shade and moist 

microclimate this species needs (Factor 

A). This species is known to be 

collected and sold (Factor B), and plants 

in close proximity to trails or roads have 

higher discovery potential and are, 

therefore, more likely to be collected. 

Twenty-nine of 50 populations (58 

percent) are small (fewer than 50 

individuals) (Factor E). Erosion (Factors 

A and E), trampling (Factor E), 

collection (Factor B), herbivory 

(predation) (Factor C), and fire (Factors 

A and E) have the potential to reduce or 

completely remove these small 

populations. Synergistic interactions 

among wildfire, nonnative grasses, 

decreased precipitation, and increased 

temperatures cumulatively and 

cyclically impact Bartram’s stonecrop, 

and all stressors are exacerbated in 

small populations (Factor E). The 

existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor 

D) do not address the majority of the 

threats to the species. Conservation 

efforts have not yet been implemented 

for this species. 

We find Bartram’s stonecrop to face 

increased vulnerability to the current 

and future threats due to the small 

population sizes of the majority of 

populations (Factor E). Small 

populations are susceptible to the loss 

of genetic diversity, genetic drift, and 

inbreeding. Currently 47 populations 

spread across nine mountain ranges in 

the United States and three ranges in 

Mexico exist as single populations (i.e., 

no subpopulations to provide further 

resiliency in case of extirpation). The 

mountain ranges are widely separated 

(14–42 kilometers (8.7–26 miles) apart) 

and may not be genetically diverse 

because pollination or transport of seeds 

between populations may be very 

limited. This could mean that betweenpopulation genetic diversity may be 

greater than within-population diversity 

(Smith and Wayne 1996, p. 333; 

Lindenmayer and Peakall 2000, p. 200). 

Further, there may have been a loss of 

genetic diversity in the three extirpated 

populations. However, it is likely that 

the species’ genetic representation will 

be lost given the impacts to populations 

through the reduction in the number of 

individuals per population and the loss 

of populations (Factor E). In addition, it 

is likely that ecological representation 

will continue to decline as those 

populations at lower elevations are lost 

due to reduced precipitation and 

increased temperatures (Factor E). 

Regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) 

and other management efforts by USFS 

and NPS provide some benefit to 

Bartram’s stonecrop, as the majority of 

known populations are located on USFS 

(67 percent of the area of populations) 

and NPS (22 percent) owned and 

managed lands. The Coronado National 

Forest Land and Resource Management 

Plan (Plan) includes actions to control 

nonnative invasive species, restore 

habitat for federally listed species, and 

contribute to the recovery of federally 

listed species (USFS 2018, pp. 38, 41, 

44, 46, 49, and 175). The Plan 

recognizes Bartram’s stonecrop 

occurrences on the Coronado National 

Forest (USFS 2018, pp. 54). The Arizona 

Department of Agriculture protects 

native plants including Bartram’s 

stonecrop under the 2009 Arizona 

Native Plan Law (Arizona Revised 

Statutes Title 3. Agriculture § 3–903) 

and removal is restricted to salvage of 

the plants. However, these efforts have 

not been able to ameliorate the threat of 

nonnative plant species and the altered 

fire regime and effects of drought. 

The overall range of the species has 

not been significantly reduced, although 

three populations are extirpated due to 

habitat alteration. Currently, 50 extant 

populations in 12 mountain ranges 

provides a level of protection from 

catastrophic events now and in the near 

future. While there are multiple 

stressors to the remaining populations, 

these stressors are not immediately 

impacting all populations such that 

Bartram’s stonecrop is currently in 

danger of extinction. The stressors that 

pose the largest risk to future species 

viability are primarily related to habitat 

changes: Groundwater extraction from 

mining, long-term drought, and 

alteration in wildfire regime. These 

stressors are occurring and impacting 

Bartram’s stonecrop and will continue 

to do so within the next 40 years. We 

chose a foreseeable future of 40 years 

(approximately 2060) because this is 

within the range of predictions of 

available hydrological and climate 

change model forecasts, is within the 

time period of the Rosemont Mine 

effects, and represents eight generations 

of Bartram’s stonecrop, which allows us 

to assess reproductive effects on the 

species and allows the species 

opportunities to rebound. The primary 

sources we examined in determining 

future scenarios include the RCP 4.5 

and 8.5 models in the IPCC (2013 and 

2014, entire) and Garfin et al. (2013, 

entire). In addition, we examined 

literature pertaining to wildfire 

frequency and severity, including 

Westerling et al. (2006), FireScape 

(2016), and Fire Management 

Information System (2016). An increase 

in temperature results in increased 

evapotranspiration rates and soil drying, 

resulting in the effects of future 

droughts becoming more severe (Garfin 

2013, pp. 137–138) and wildfires 

becoming more frequent and of 

increased intensity. The threats to 

Bartram’s stonecrop act synergistically 

to influence the viability of the species. 

For example, decreased water 

availability and invasion of nonnative 

grasses promote higher severity and 

frequency of fires, while the effect of 

fires in Bartram’s stonecrop habitat is to 

promote nonnative grass invasion and 

increase the likelihood of post-fire 

runoff and loss of shade trees. 

We find that Bartram’s stonecrop is 

likely to become an endangered species 

throughout all of its range within the 

foreseeable future. It is facing threats 

across its range that have led to reduced 

resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation, and we expect the 

species to continue to decline into the 

future. Thus, after assessing the best 

available information, we conclude that 

Bartram’s stonecrop is not currently in 

danger of extinction, but is likely to 

become in danger of extinction within 

the foreseeable future 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. The court in Center 

for Biological Diversity v. Everson, 2020 

WL 437289 (D.D.C. Jan. 28, 2020) 

(Center for Biological Diversity), vacated 

the aspect of the 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 that the Services do not 

undertake an analysis of significant 

portions of a species’ range if the 

species warrants listing as threatened 

throughout all of its range. Therefore, 

we proceed to evaluating whether the 

species is endangered in a significant 

portion of its range—that is, whether 

there is any portion of the species’ range 

for which both (1) the portion is 

significant; and (2) the species is in 

danger of extinction in that portion. 

Depending on the case, it might be more 

efficient for us to address the 

‘‘significance’’ question or the ‘‘status’’ 

question first. We can choose to address 

either question first. Regardless of 

which question we address first, if we 

reach a negative answer with respect to 

the first question that we address, we do 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
48564 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

not need to evaluate the other question 

for that portion of the species’ range. 

Following the court’s holding in 

Center for Biological Diversity, we now 

consider whether there are any 

significant portions of the species’ range 

where the species is in danger of 

extinction now (i.e., endangered). In 

undertaking this analysis for Bartram’s 

stonecrop, we choose to address the 

status question first—we consider 

information pertaining to the geographic 

distribution of both the species and the 

threats that the species faces to identify 

any portions of the range where the 

species is endangered. 

For Bartram’s stonecrop, we 

considered whether the threats are 

geographically concentrated in any 

portion of the species’ range at a 

biologically meaningful scale. We 

examined the following primary threats 

to the species: Reduction in water 

availability; altered fire regime; effects 

of climate change; and erosion, 

sedimentation, and burial. Loss due to 

trampling, collection, herbivory, severe 

frost, or other stressors also have the 

potential to impact individual Bartram’s 

stonecrop plants. The effects of these 

threats are exacerbated in small 

populations. Altered precipitation, 

drought, flooding, and freezing regimes 

from current and future climate change 

are issues for all Bartram’s stonecrop 

populations. Synergistic interactions 

among wildfire, nonnative grasses, 

decreased precipitation, and increased 

temperatures cumulatively and 

cyclically impact all Bartram’s 

stonecrop populations. Some 

populations are expected to be affected 

by threats due to varying causes. For 

example, a higher risk of fires as a result 

of cross-border human activity is 

expected in the Baboquivari, 

Chiricahua, Mule, Pajarito-Atascosa, 

Santa Rita, Patagonia, and Whetstone 

mountains, while a higher risk of fires 

as a result of recreationists is expected 

in the Chiricahua, Dragoon, PajaritoAtascosa, Patagonia, Rincon, and Santa 

Rita mountains. We found no 

concentration of threats in any portion 

of Bartram’s stonecrop’s range at a 

biologically meaningful scale. Thus, 

there are no portions of the species’ 

range where the species has a different 

status from its rangewide status. 

Therefore, no portion of the species’ 

range provides a basis for determining 

that the species is in danger of 

extinction in a significant portion of its 

range, and we determine that the 

species is likely to become in danger of 

extinction within the foreseeable future 

throughout all of its range. This is 

consistent with the courts’ holdings in 

Desert Survivors v. Department of the 

Interior, No. 16–cv–01165–JCS, 2018 

WL 4053447 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2018), 

and Center for Biological Diversity v. 

Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d, 946, 959 (D. 

Ariz. 2017). 

Determination of Status 

Our review of the best available 

scientific and commercial information 

indicates that Bartram’s stonecrop meets 

the Act’s definition of a threatened 

species. Therefore, we are listing 

Bartram’s stonecrop as a threatened 

species in accordance with sections 

3(20) and 4(a)(1) of the Act. 

Available Conservation Measures 

Conservation measures provided to 

species listed as endangered or 

threatened species under the Act 

include recognition, recovery actions, 

requirements for Federal protection, and 

prohibitions against certain practices. 

Recognition through listing results in 

public awareness, and conservation by 

Federal, State, Tribal, and local 

agencies; private organizations; and 

individuals. The Act encourages 

cooperation with the States and other 

countries and calls for recovery actions 

to be carried out for listed species. The 

protection required by Federal agencies 

and the prohibitions against certain 

activities are discussed, in part, below. 

The primary purpose of the Act is the 

conservation of endangered and 

threatened species and the ecosystems 

upon which they depend. The ultimate 

goal of such conservation efforts is the 

recovery of these listed species, so that 

they no longer need the protective 

measures of the Act. Section 4(f) of the 

Act calls for the Service to develop and 

implement recovery plans for the 

conservation of endangered and 

threatened species. The recovery 

planning process involves the 

identification of actions that are 

necessary to halt or reverse the species’ 

decline by addressing the stressors to its 

survival and recovery. The goal of this 

process is to restore listed species to a 

point where they are secure, selfsustaining, 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 reclassification from 

endangered to threatened 

(‘‘downlisting’’) or removal from 

protected status (‘‘delisting’’), 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 nonFederal 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 nonFederal 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 

Bartram’s stonecrop. 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 48565 

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 Bartram’s stonecrop. 

Additionally, we invite you to submit 

any new information on this species 

whenever it becomes available and any 

information you may have for recovery 

planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Section 7(a) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies to evaluate their 

actions with respect to any species that 

is proposed or listed as an endangered 

or threatened species and with respect 

to its critical habitat, if any is 

designated. Regulations implementing 

this interagency cooperation provision 

of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 

402. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies to ensure that activities 

they authorize, fund, or carry out are not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any endangered or 

threatened species or destroy or 

adversely modify its critical habitat. If a 

Federal action may affect a listed 

species or its critical habitat, the 

responsible Federal agency must enter 

into consultation with the Service. 

Federal agency actions within the 

species’ habitat that may require 

conference or consultation or both as 

described in the preceding paragraph 

include management and any other 

landscape-altering activities on Federal 

lands administered by the U.S. Forest 

Service (Coronado National Forest), 

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection, and 

National Park Service (Chiricahua 

National Monument and Saguaro 

National Park). 

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 final listing on proposed 

and ongoing activities within the range 

of a listed species. The discussion below 

regarding protective regulations under 

section 4(d) of the Act complies with 

our policy. 

II. Final Rule Issued Under Section 4(d) 

of the Act 

Background 

Section 4(d) of the Act contains two 

sentences. The first sentence states that 

the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) 

shall issue such regulations as he deems 

necessary and advisable to provide for 

the conservation of species listed as 

threatened. The U.S. Supreme Court has 

noted that statutory language like 

‘‘necessary and advisable’’ demonstrates 

a large degree of deference to the agency 

(see Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592 

(1988)). Conservation is defined in the 

Act to mean the use of all methods and 

procedures which are necessary to bring 

any endangered species or threatened 

species to the point at which the 

measures provided pursuant to the Act 

are no longer necessary. Additionally, 

the second sentence of section 4(d) of 

the Act states that the Secretary may by 

regulation prohibit with respect to any 

threatened species any act prohibited 

under section 9(a)(1), in the case of fish 

or wildlife, or section 9(a)(2), in the case 

of plants. Thus, the combination of the 

two sentences of section 4(d) provides 

the Secretary with wide latitude of 

discretion to select and promulgate 

appropriate regulations tailored to the 

specific conservation needs of the 

threatened species. The second sentence 

grants particularly broad discretion to 

the Service when adopting the 

prohibitions under section 9. 

The courts have recognized the extent 

of the Secretary’s discretion under this 

standard to develop rules that are 

appropriate for the conservation of a 

species. For example, courts have 

upheld rules developed under section 

4(d) as a valid exercise of agency 

authority where they prohibited take of 

threatened wildlife, or include a limited 

taking prohibition (see Alsea Valley 

Alliance v. Lautenbacher, 2007 U.S. 

Dist. Lexis 60203 (D. Or. 2007); 

Washington Environmental Council v. 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 2002 

U.S. Dist. Lexis 5432 (W.D. Wash. 

2002)). Courts have also upheld 4(d) 

rules that do not address all of the 

threats a species faces (see State of 

Louisiana v. Verity, 853 F.2d 322 (5th 

Cir. 1988)). As noted in the legislative 

history when the Act was initially 

enacted, ‘‘once an animal is on the 

threatened list, the Secretary has an 

almost infinite number of options 

available to him with regard to the 

permitted activities for those species. He 

may, for example, permit taking, but not 

importation of such species, or he may 

choose to forbid both taking and 

importation but allow the transportation 

of such species’’ (H.R. Rep. No. 412, 

93rd Cong., 1st Sess. 1973). 

Exercising this authority under 

section 4(d), we have developed a rule 

that is designed to address Bartram’s 

stonecrop’s specific stressors and 

conservation needs. Although the 

statute does not require the Service to 

make a ‘‘necessary and advisable’’ 

finding with respect to the adoption of 

specific prohibitions under section 9, 

we find that this rule as a whole satisfies 

the requirement in section 4(d) of the 

Act to issue regulations deemed 

necessary and advisable to provide for 

the conservation of Bartram’s stonecrop. 

As discussed above under 

Determination of Bartram’s Stonecrop’s 

Status, we have concluded that 

Bartram’s stonecrop is likely to become 

in danger of extinction within the 

foreseeable future due to groundwater 

extraction and prolonged drought 

expected to reduce nearby water levels 

and humidity within Bartram’s 

stonecrop’s microenvironment, and 

altered fire regimes leading to erosion of 

Bartram’s stonecrop habitat that could 

dislodge plants, to sedimentation that 

could cover individuals, and to loss of 

overstory shade trees. In addition, 

collection, trampling, herbivory, 

flooding, and dislodging and burial from 

recreationists, cross-border violators, 

and domestic and wild animals 

contribute to the risk of extinction 

within the foreseeable future due to the 

majority of populations being small and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
48566 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

isolated. The provisions of this 4(d) rule 

will promote conservation of Bartram’s 

stonecrop by encouraging management 

of the landscape in ways that meet both 

land management considerations and 

the conservation needs of Bartram’s 

stonecrop. The provisions of this rule 

are one of many tools that the Service 

will use to promote the conservation of 

Bartram’s stonecrop. 

Provisions of the 4(d) Rule 

This 4(d) rule provides for the 

conservation of Bartram’s stonecrop by 

prohibiting the following activities, 

except as otherwise authorized or 

permitted: Import or export; certain acts 

related to removing, damaging, and 

destroying; delivery, receipt, transport, 

or shipment in interstate or foreign 

commerce in the course of commercial 

activity; or sale or offering for sale in 

interstate or foreign commerce. 

As discussed under Summary of 

Biological Status and Threats, above, 

multiple factors are affecting the status 

of Bartram’s stonecrop. A range of 

activities have the potential to impact 

Bartram’s stonecrop, including: 

(1) Unauthorized damage or collection 

of Bartram’s stonecrop from lands under 

Federal jurisdiction; and 

(2) Malicious destruction or 

degradation of the species or associated 

habitat on lands under Federal 

jurisdiction, including: 

(a) The intentional introduction of 

nonnative organisms that compete with 

or consume Bartram’s stonecrop; 

(b) Ground-disturbing activities that 

impact the species or its habitat; 

(c) Activities that would affect 

pollinators where the species occurs 

and in the surrounding area; 

(d) Activities that would promote 

high-severity wildfires where the 

species occurs; and 

(e) Activities that would reduce shade 

or lower the water table such that the 

cooler, humid microenvironment is 

affected. 

These activities are provided as 

examples of actions that may affect 

Bartram’s stonecrop and are not 

intended to be a list of prohibitions 

under the final 4(d) rule for Bartram’s 

stonecrop. As a whole, the 4(d) rule will 

help in the efforts to recover Bartram’s 

stonecrop by prohibiting activities that 

damage individuals and populations 

and providing exceptions to those 

prohibitions for permitted or 

conservation activities. 

We may issue permits to carry out 

otherwise prohibited activities, 

including those described above, 

involving threatened plants under 

certain circumstances. Regulations 

governing permits are codified at 50 

CFR 17.72, which states that ‘‘the 

Director may issue a permit authorizing 

any activity otherwise prohibited with 

regard to threatened species.’’ That 

regulation also states, ‘‘The permit shall 

be governed by the provisions of this 

section unless a special rule applicable 

to the plant is provided in sections 

17.73 to 17.78.’’ We interpret that 

second sentence to mean that permits 

for threatened species are governed by 

the provisions of section 17.72 unless a 

special rule, which we have defined to 

mean a species-specific 4(d) rule, 

provides otherwise. We recently 

promulgated revisions to section 17.71 

providing that section 17.71 will no 

longer apply to plants listed as 

threatened in the future. We did not 

intend for those revisions to limit or 

alter the applicability of the permitting 

provisions in section 17.72, or to require 

that every species-specific 4(d) rule 

spell out any permitting provisions that 

apply to that species and speciesspecific 4(d) rule. To the contrary, we 

anticipate that permitting provisions 

would generally be similar or identical 

for most species, so applying the 

provisions of section 17.72 unless a 

species-specific 4(d) rule provides 

otherwise would likely avoid 

substantial duplication. Moreover, this 

interpretation brings section 17.72 in 

line with the comparable provision for 

wildlife at 50 CFR 17.32, in which the 

second sentence states, ‘‘Such permit 

shall be governed by the provisions of 

this section unless a special rule 

applicable to the wildlife, appearing in 

sections 17.40 to 17.48, of this part 

provides otherwise.’’ Under 50 CFR 

17.12 with regard to threatened plants, 

a permit may be issued for the following 

purposes: For scientific purposes, to 

enhance propagation or survival, for 

economic hardship, for botanical or 

horticultural exhibition, for educational 

purposes, or for other purposes 

consistent with the purposes and policy 

of the Act. Additional statutory 

exemptions from the prohibitions are 

found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act. 

We recognize the special and unique 

relationship with our State natural 

resource agency partners in contributing 

to conservation of listed species. State 

agencies often possess scientific data 

and valuable expertise on the status and 

distribution of endangered, threatened, 

and candidate species of wildlife and 

plants. State agencies, because of their 

authorities and their close working 

relationships with local governments 

and landowners, are in a unique 

position to assist the Services in 

implementing all aspects of the Act. In 

this regard, section 6 of the Act provides 

that the Services shall cooperate to the 

maximum extent practicable with the 

States in carrying out programs 

authorized by the Act. Therefore, any 

qualified employee or agent of a State 

conservation agency that is a party to a 

cooperative agreement with the Service 

in accordance with section 6(c) of the 

Act, who is designated by his or her 

agency for such purposes, will be able 

to conduct activities designed to 

conserve Bartram’s stonecrop that may 

result in otherwise prohibited activities 

without additional authorization. 

Nothing in this 4(d) rule changes in 

any way the recovery planning 

provisions of section 4(f) of the Act, the 

consultation requirements under section 

7 of the Act, or the ability of the Service 

to enter into partnerships for the 

management and protection of Bartram’s 

stonecrop. However, interagency 

cooperation may be further streamlined 

through planned programmatic 

consultations for the species between 

Federal agencies and the Service. 

III. 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 at 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 48567 

are not limited to, all activities 

associated with scientific resources 

management such as research, census, 

law enforcement, habitat acquisition 

and maintenance, propagation, live 

trapping, and transplantation, and, in 

the extraordinary case where population 

pressures within a given ecosystem 

cannot be otherwise relieved, may 

include regulated taking. 

Critical habitat receives protection 

under section 7 of the Act through the 

requirement that Federal agencies 

ensure, in consultation with the Service, 

that any action they authorize, fund, or 

carry out is not likely to result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. The designation of 

critical habitat does not affect land 

ownership or establish a refuge, 

wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other 

conservation area. Such designation 

does not allow the government or public 

to access private lands. Such 

designation does not require 

implementation of restoration, recovery, 

or enhancement measures by nonFederal landowners. Where a landowner 

requests Federal agency funding or 

authorization for an action that may 

affect a listed species or critical habitat, 

the 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 

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 (HCPs), or 

other species conservation planning 

efforts if new information available at 

the time of these planning efforts calls 

for a different outcome. 

Prudency Determination 

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as 

amended, and implementing regulations 

(50 CFR 424.12), require that, to the 

maximum extent prudent and 

determinable, the Secretary shall 

designate critical habitat at the time the 

species is determined to be an 

endangered or threatened species. Our 

regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state 

that the Secretary may, but is not 

required to, determine that a 

designation would not be prudent in the 

following circumstances: 

(i) The species is threatened by taking 

or other human activity and 

identification of critical habitat can be 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
48568 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

expected to increase the degree of such 

threat to the species; 

(ii) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of a species’ habitat or range 

is not a threat to the species, or threats 

to the species’ habitat stem solely from 

causes that cannot be addressed through 

management actions resulting from 

consultations under section 7(a)(2) of 

the Act; 

(iii) Areas within the jurisdiction of 

the United States provide no more than 

negligible conservation value, if any, for 

a species occurring primarily outside 

the jurisdiction of the United States; 

(iv) No areas meet the definition of 

critical habitat; or 

(v) The Secretary otherwise 

determines that designation of critical 

habitat would not be prudent based on 

the best scientific data available. 

In the proposed listing rule (84 FR 

67060; December 6, 2019), we 

determined that designation of critical 

habitat for Bartram’s stonecrop would 

not be prudent. However, we invited 

public comment and requested 

information on the threats of taking or 

other human activity, on Bartram’s 

stonecrop and its habitat, and the extent 

to which designation might increase 

those threats. 

During the comment period, we did 

not receive any substantive comments, 

or any comments that would require us 

to change the not prudent determination 

or our rationale for it (see 84 FR 67060, 

December 6, 2019, p. 84 FR 67088). 

Therefore, we restate our conclusion 

that the designation of critical habitat is 

not prudent, in accordance with 50 CFR 

424.12(a)(1), because Bartram’s 

stonecrop faces a threat by collection, 

and designation can reasonably be 

expected to increase the degree of these 

threats to the species by making location 

information more readily available. 

Required Determinations 

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 listing a species 

as an endangered or threatened species 

under the Act. We published a notice 

outlining our reasons for this 

determination in the Federal Register 

on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). 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 no Tribal interests 

will be affected by this rule. 

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 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 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– 

1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise 

noted. 

■ 2. Amend § 17.12 in paragraph (h), the 

List of Endangered and Threatened 

Plants, by adding an entry for 

‘‘Graptopetalum bartramii’’ in 

alphabetical order under FLOWERING

PLANTS to read as follows: 

§ 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

Scientific name Common name Where listed Status Listing citations and 

applicable rules 

FLOWERING PLANTS

* * * * * * * 

Graptopetalum bartramii Bartram’s stonecrop ....... Wherever found .............. T 86 FR [INSERT Federal Register PAGE WHERE 

THE DOCUMENT BEGINS], 8/31/2021; 50 CFR 

17.73(a). 4d

* * * * * * * 

■ 3. Add § 17.73 to read as follows: 

§ 17.73 Special rules—flowering plants. 

(a) Graptopetalum bartramii 

(Bartram’s stonecrop)—(1) Prohibitions. 

The following prohibitions apply to 

Graptopetalum bartramii, except as 

provided under paragraph (a)(2) of this 

section: 

(i) Import or export. It is unlawful to 

import or to export any Graptopetalum 

bartramii. Any shipment in transit 

through the United States is an 

importation and an exportation, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 48569 

whether or not it has entered the 

country for customs purposes. 

(ii) Remove and reduce to possession. 

It is unlawful to remove and reduce to 

possession the species from areas under 

Federal jurisdiction; maliciously 

damage or destroy the species on any 

such area; or remove, cut, dig up, or 

damage or destroy the species on any 

other area in knowing violation of any 

law or regulation of any State or in the 

course of any violation of a State 

criminal trespass law. 

(iii) Interstate or foreign commerce. It 

is unlawful to deliver, receive, carry, 

transport, or ship in interstate or foreign 

commerce, by any means whatsoever, 

and in the course of a commercial 

activity, any Graptopetalum bartramii. 

(iv) Sale or offer for sale. (A) It is 

unlawful to sell or to offer for sale in 

interstate or foreign commerce any 

Graptopetalum bartramii. 

(B) An advertisement for the sale of 

any Graptopetalum bartramii which 

carries a warning to the effect that no 

sale may be consummated until a permit 

has been obtained from the Service, 

shall not be considered an offer for sale 

within the meaning of this paragraph. 

(v) It is unlawful to attempt to 

commit, solicit another to commit, or 

cause to be committed, any of the acts 

described in this paragraph (a)(1). 

(2) Exceptions from prohibitions. The 

following exceptions from prohibitions 

apply to Graptopetalum bartramii: 

(i) A person may apply for a permit 

in accordance with 50 CFR 17.72 that 

authorizes an activity otherwise 

prohibited by this paragraph for 

Graptopetalum bartramii. 

(ii)(A) Any employee or agent of the 

Service, any other Federal land 

management agency, or a State 

conservation agency, who is designated 

by that agency for such purposes, may, 

when acting in the course of official 

duties, remove and reduce to possession 

Graptopetalum bartramii from areas 

under Federal jurisdiction without a 

permit if such action is necessary to: 

(1) Care for a damaged or diseased 

specimen; 

(2) Dispose of a dead specimen; or 

(3) Salvage a dead specimen which 

may be useful for scientific study. 

(B) Any removal and reduction to 

possession pursuant to this paragraph 

must be reported in writing to the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service within 5 days. 

The specimen may only be retained, 

disposed of, or salvaged in accordance 

with written directions from the 

Service. 

(iii) Any qualified employee or agent 

of the Service or of a State conservation 

agency which is a party to a cooperative 

agreement with the Service in 

accordance with section 6(c) of the Act, 

who is designated by that agency for 

such purposes, may, when acting in the 

course of official duties, remove, cut, 

dig up, damage, or destroy 

Graptopetalum bartramii on areas under 

Federal jurisdiction. 

(b) [Reserved]. 

Martha Williams, 

Principal Deputy Director Exercising the 

Delegated Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2021–18476 Filed 8–30–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 20 

[Docket No. FWS–HQ–MB–2020–0032; 

FF09M22000–212–FXMB1231099BPP0] 

RIN 1018–BE34 

Migratory Bird Hunting; 2021–2022 

Seasons for Certain Migratory Game 

Birds 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule prescribes the 

seasons, hours, areas, and daily bag and 

possession limits for hunting migratory 

birds. Taking of migratory birds is 

prohibited unless specifically provided 

for by annual regulations. This rule 

permits the taking of designated species 

during the 2021–22 season. 

DATES: This rule takes effect on August 

31, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: You may inspect comments 

received on the migratory bird hunting 

regulations at http://

www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 

FWS–HQ–MB–2020–0032. You may 

obtain copies of referenced reports from 

the Division of Migratory Bird 

Management’s website at http://

www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/, or at 

http://www.regulations.gov at Docket 

No. FWS–HQ–MB–2020–0032. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jerome Ford, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Department of the Interior, 

(202) 208–1050. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulations Schedule for 2021 

On October 9, 2020, we published in 

the Federal Register (85 FR 64097) a 

proposal to amend title 50 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations (CFR) at part 20. 

The proposal provided a background 

and overview of the migratory bird 

hunting regulations process, and 

addressed the establishment of seasons, 

limits, and other regulations for hunting 

migratory game birds under §§ 20.101 

through 20.107, 20.109, and 20.110 of 

subpart K. Major steps in the 2021–22 

regulatory cycle relating to open public 

meetings and Federal Register 

notifications were illustrated in the 

diagram at the end of the October 9, 

2020, proposed rule. For this regulatory 

cycle, we combined the elements 

described in that diagram as 

‘‘Supplemental Proposals’’ with the one 

described as ‘‘Proposed Season 

Frameworks.’’ 

We provided the meeting dates and 

locations for the Service Regulations 

Committee (SRC) and Flyway Council 

meetings on Flyway calendars posted on 

our website at https://www.fws.gov/ 

birds/management/flyways.php. On 

October 20–21, 2020, we held open 

meetings with the Flyway Council 

Consultants, at which the participants 

reviewed information on the current 

status of migratory game birds and 

developed recommendations for the 

2021–22 regulations for these species. 

The October 9, 2020, proposed rule 

provided detailed information on the 

proposed 2021–22 regulatory schedule 

and announced the SRC meetings. 

On February 22, 2021, we published 

in the Federal Register (86 FR 10622) 

the proposed frameworks for the 2021– 

22 season migratory bird hunting 

regulations. On July 16, 2021, we 

published in the Federal Register (86 

FR 37854) the final frameworks for 

migratory game bird hunting 

regulations, from which State wildlife 

conservation agency officials selected 

seasons, hours, areas, and limits for 

hunting migratory birds during the 

2021–22 season. 

The final rule described here is the 

final in the series of proposed, 

supplemental, and final rulemaking 

documents for migratory game bird 

hunting regulations for the 2021–22 

season, and deals specifically with 

amending subpart K of 50 CFR part 20. 

It sets hunting seasons, hours, areas, and 

limits for migratory game bird species. 

This final rule is the culmination of the 

annual rulemaking process allowing 

migratory game bird hunting, which 

started with the October 9, 2020, 

proposed rule. As discussed elsewhere 

in this document, we supplemented that 

proposal on February 22, 2021, and 

published final season frameworks on 

July 16, 2021, that provided the season 

selection criteria from which the States 

selected these seasons. This final rule 

sets the migratory game bird hunting 

seasons based on that input from the 

States. We previously addressed all 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES