31830 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2018–0104; 

FF09E21000 FXES11110900000 212] 

RIN 1018–BD35 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Endangered Status for the 

Beardless Chinchweed and 

Designation of Critical Habitat 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), determine 

that the beardless chinchweed (Pectis 

imberbis) is an endangered species 

under the Endangered Species Act of 

1973 (Act), as amended, and designate 

critical habitat. In total, approximately 

10,604 acres (4,291 hectares) in Pima, 

Cochise, and Santa Cruz Counties, 

Arizona, fall within the boundaries of 

the critical habitat designation. 

DATES: This rule is effective July 15, 

2021. 

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available 

on the internet at http://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R2–ES–2018–0104 and at https:// 

www.fws.gov/southwest/. Comments 

and materials we received, as well as 

supporting documentation we used in 

preparing this rule, are available for 

public inspection at http://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R2–ES–2018–0104. 

The coordinates or plot points or both 

from which the maps are generated are 

included in the administrative record 

for this critical habitat designation and 

are available at http://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R2–ES–2018–0104, at https://

www.fws.gov/southwest/, and at the 

Arizona Ecological Services Field Office 

(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Any additional tools or supporting 

information that we developed for this 

critical habitat designation will also be 

available at the Service website and 

Field Office set out above, and may also 

be included in the preamble and/or at 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff 

Humphrey, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Arizona Ecological Services 

Field Office, 9828 North 31st Avenue, 

#C3, Phoenix, AZ 85051–2517. Persons 

who use a telecommunications device 

for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal 

Relay Service at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

Why we need to publish a rule. Under 

the Act, a species may be listed as 

endangered or threatened throughout all 

or a significant portion of its range. 

Listing a species as an endangered or 

threatened species can only be 

completed by issuing a rule. Further, 

under the Act, any species that is 

determined to be an endangered or 

threatened species requires critical 

habitat to be designated, to the 

maximum extent prudent and 

determinable. Designations and 

revisions of critical habitat can only be 

completed by issuing a rule. 

What this document does. This rule 

lists the beardless chinchweed (Pectis 

imberbis) as an endangered species and 

designates critical habitat for this 

species under the Act. 

The basis for our action. Under the 

Act, we may determine that a species is 

an endangered or threatened species 

based on any of five factors: (A) The 

present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range; (B) overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes; (C) disease or 

predation; (D) the inadequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) 

other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. We 

have determined that the beardless 

chinchweed faces the following threats: 

Competition from a nonnative grass 

species (Factors A and E); altered fire 

regime exacerbated by nonnative grass 

invasion (Factors A and E); altered 

precipitation, drought, and temperature 

(Factors A and E); erosion, 

sedimentation and burial from road and 

trail maintenance, mining, livestock 

trampling and soil disturbance, and 

post-wildfire runoff (Factors A and E); 

summer and fall grazing from wildlife 

and livestock (Factor C); and small 

population size exacerbating all other 

stressors (Factor E). The existing 

regulatory mechanisms are not adequate 

to address these threats such that the 

species does not meet the Act’s 

definition of an endangered or a 

threatened species (Factor D). 

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires the 

Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to 

designate critical habitat concurrent 

with listing to the maximum extent 

prudent and determinable. Section 

3(5)(A) of the Act defines critical habitat 

as (i) the specific areas within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species, at the time it is listed, on which 

are found those physical or biological 

features (I) essential to the conservation 

of the species and (II) which may 

require special management 

considerations or protections; and (ii) 

specific areas outside the geographical 

area occupied by the species at the time 

it is listed, upon a determination by the 

Secretary that such areas are essential 

for the conservation of the species. 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the 

Secretary shall designate and make 

revisions to critical habitat on the basis 

of the best available scientific data after 

taking into consideration the economic 

impact, the impact on national security, 

and any other relevant impacts of 

specifying any particular area as critical 

habitat. The Secretary may exclude an 

area from critical habitat if he 

determines that the benefits of such 

exclusion outweigh the benefits of 

specifying such area as part of the 

critical habitat, unless he determines, 

based on the best scientific data 

available, that the failure to designate 

such area as critical habitat will result 

in the extinction of the species. 

The critical habitat we are designating 

in this rule, in eight units comprising 

10,604 acres (4,291 hectares), 

constitutes our current best assessment 

of the areas that meet the definition of 

critical habitat for the beardless 

chinchweed. 

Economic analysis. In accordance 

with section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we 

prepared an economic analysis of the 

impacts of designating critical habitat. 

We made the draft economic analysis 

available for public comments on 

December 6, 2019 (84 FR 67060). 

Peer review and public comment. We 

sought the expert opinions of four 

independent and knowledgeable 

specialists regarding the species status 

assessment (SSA) report and received 

responses from two reviewers. These 

peer reviewers generally concurred with 

our methods and conclusions, and 

provided additional information, 

clarifications, and suggestions to 

improve the SSA. We also considered 

all comments and information we 

received from the public during the 

comment period for the proposed listing 

of, and the proposed designation of 

critical habitat for, the beardless 

chinchweed. 

Previous Federal Actions 

Supporting Documents 

A species status assessment (SSA) 

team prepared an SSA report for the 

beardless chinchweed. The SSA team 

was composed of Service biologists, in 

consultation with other species experts. 

The SSA report represents a 

compilation of the best scientific and 

commercial data available concerning 

the status of the species, including the 

impacts of past, present, and future 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 31831 

factors (both negative and beneficial) 

affecting the species. 

On December 6, 2019, we published 

in the Federal Register a proposed rule 

(84 FR 67060) to list the beardless 

chinchweed as an endangered species 

and to designate critical habitat for the 

species under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.). The December 6, 2019, rule also 

proposed to list Bartram’s stonecrop 

(Graptopetalum bartramii) as a 

threatened species with a rule under 

section 4(d) of the Act. We will address 

our proposal to list Bartram’s stonecrop 

(Graptopetalum bartramii) as a 

threatened species with a rule issued 

under section 4(d) of the Act in a 

separate, future Federal Register 

document. Please refer to that proposed 

rule for a detailed description of 

previous Federal actions concerning the 

beardless chinchweed that occurred 

prior to the proposal’s publication. 

Summary of Changes From the 

Proposed Rule 

In preparing this final rule, we 

reviewed and fully considered 

comments from the public on our 

December 6, 2019, proposed rule 

regarding beardless chinchweed. We 

updated the beardless chinchweed SSA 

report (to version 2.0) based on 

comments and additional information 

provided during the comment period, 

and those updates are reflected in this 

final rule, as follows: 

(1) We included updated survey 

information provided to the Service 

including the 2019 Coronado National 

Memorial indicating an increase in the 

Visitor Center population, and other 

reports of additional occurrences 

received. 

(2) We included additional 

information regarding critical habitat 

designation along the United States/ 

Mexico border and coordination with 

Customs and Border Protection. 

(3) We included additional 

information we received regarding the 

date of discovery of a population. 

(4) We made many small, 

nonsubstantive clarifications and 

corrections throughout the SSA report 

and this rule, including under Summary 

of Biological Status and Threats, in 

order to ensure better consistency, 

clarify some information, and update or 

add new references. 

However, the information we received 

during the comment period for the 

proposed rule did not change our 

determination that the beardless 

chinchweed is an endangered species. 

Summary of Comments and 

Recommendations 

In our December 6, 2019, proposed 

rule (84 FR 67060), we requested that all 

interested parties submit written 

comments on the proposal by February 

4, 2020. We also contacted appropriate 

Federal and State agencies, scientific 

experts and organizations, and other 

interested parties and invited them to 

comment on the proposed 

determination, proposed designation of 

critical habitat, and draft economic 

analysis. Newspaper notices inviting 

general public comment were published 

in the Arizona Daily Star on December 

9, 2019, and the Sierra Vista Herald on 

December 13, 2019. We did not receive 

any requests for a public hearing. All 

substantive information provided 

during the comment period either has 

been incorporated directly into the final 

rule or is addressed below. 

Peer Reviewer Comments 

In accordance with our joint policy on 

peer review published in the Federal 

Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), 

and our August 22, 2016, memorandum 

updating and clarifying the role of peer 

review of listing actions under the Act, 

we sought the expert opinions of four 

appropriate specialists regarding the 

SSA report. We received responses from 

two specialists, which informed the 

SSA report and this final rule. The 

purpose of peer review is to ensure that 

our listing determinations and critical 

habitat designations are based on 

scientifically sound data, conclusions, 

and analyses. The peer reviewers have 

expertise in the biology of, habitat of, 

and threats to the species. 

We reviewed all comments we 

received from the peer reviewers for 

substantive issues and new information 

regarding the beardless chinchweed and 

its critical habitat. The peer reviewers 

generally concurred with our methods 

and conclusions, and provided 

additional information, clarifications, 

and suggestions to improve the SSA 

report and final rule. Peer reviewer 

comments are incorporated into the SSA 

report and this final rule as appropriate. 

Public Comments 

We received 17 public comments in 

response to the proposed rule. We 

reviewed all comments we received 

during the public comment period for 

substantive issues and new information 

regarding the proposed rule. Nine 

comments provided substantive 

comments or new information 

concerning the proposed listing and 

designation of critical habitat for the 

beardless chinchweed. Below, we 

provide a summary of public comments 

we received; however, comments that 

we incorporated as changes into the 

final rule, comments outside the scope 

of the proposed rule, and those without 

supporting information did not warrant 

an explicit response and, thus, are not 

presented here. Identical or similar 

comments have been consolidated and a 

single response provided. 

(1) Comment: A commenter claimed 

that we did not notify the public of the 

imminent listing of the beardless 

chinchweed and the public needs more 

time to respond. 

Response: On August 8, 2012, we 

announced our 90-day finding that a 

petition to list beardless chinchweed as 

endangered or threatened under the Act 

presented substantial information 

indicating that listing of the species may 

be warranted (77 FR 47352). At that 

time, we requested data and information 

from the public regarding the species to 

inform our status review and 

determination if listing is warranted. In 

response to publication of the 90-day 

finding, increased interest in beardless 

chinchweed and its status led to 

additional surveys and research 

beginning in 2013. On October 23, 2017, 

we sent a letter to interested parties, 

landowners, and Tribes indicating that 

a species status assessment would be 

conducted for beardless chinchweed to 

inform our listing determination, and 

we again requested scientific and 

commercial data or other information on 

the species. 

In addition, the species has been 

included on our National Listing 

Workplan, which is publicly available 

on our website, since 2016. We updated 

the workplan in May 2019 and listed the 

12-month finding for beardless 

chinchweed as a FY 2018 carryover 

action. The court-ordered settlement 

agreement of October 11, 2019, that 

stipulates delivery of a 12-month 

finding to the Federal Register by 

November 29, 2019, is also publicly 

available. 

Finally, the December 6, 2019, 

proposed rule (84 FR 67060) opened a 

60-day public comment period on the 

proposed listing and critical habitat 

designation for the beardless 

chinchweed. 

As such, we complied with all 

requirements of the Act and conclude 

that the public was afforded adequate 

notice of the proposed listing of the 

beardless chinchweed. 

(2) Comment: Three commenters 

stated that relying on the conservation 

biology concepts of resiliency, 

redundancy, and representation to make 

the proposed listing determination is 

improper as they are not found in the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
31832 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

Act or the Service’s implementing 

regulations and their meanings are 

uncertain, creating confusion if criteria 

for listing are being followed. 

Response: The SSA framework is an 

analytical approach developed by the 

Service to deliver foundational science 

for informing decisions under the Act 

(Smith et al. 2018, entire). The SSA 

characterizes species viability (defined 

as the ability to sustain populations in 

the wild over time) based on the best 

scientific understanding of current and 

future abundance and distribution 

within the species’ ecological settings 

using the conservation biology 

principles of resiliency, redundancy, 

and representation (Shaffer and Stein 

2000, pp. 308–311). To sustain 

populations over time, a species must 

have the capacity to withstand: (1) 

Environmental and demographic 

stochasticity and disturbances 

(resiliency), (2) catastrophes 

(redundancy), and (3) novel changes in 

its biological and physical environment 

(representation). A species with a high 

degree of resiliency, representation, and 

redundancy is better able to adapt to 

novel changes and to tolerate 

environmental stochasticity and 

catastrophes. In general, species 

viability will increase and the risk of 

extinction will decrease with increases 

in resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation (Smith et al. 2018, p. 

306). The SSA provides decision-makers 

with a scientifically rigorous 

characterization of a species’ status and 

the likelihood that the species will 

sustain populations over time, along 

with key uncertainties in that 

characterization. The beardless 

chinchweed SSA provides the best 

available scientific information to guide 

a determination of whether or not the 

beardless chinchweed is in danger of 

extinction now or in the foreseeable 

future. 

Notwithstanding our use of resiliency, 

redundancy, and representation as 

scientific concepts helpful in assessing 

and describing a species’ viability and 

extinction risk, we adhere to all 

requirements of the Act in making our 

listing determinations. This includes 

applying the Act’s definitions of an 

endangered species and a threatened 

species, as well as an assessment of the 

5 listing factors (see Regulatory 

Framework, below). 

(3) Comment: A commenter noted 

that, in general, attempts to locate 

beardless chinchweed since 1983 have 

been uncommon and that more surveys 

are needed before a listing decision is 

made. The commenter suggested that 

more surveys for beardless chinchweed 

would result in occurrences discovered, 

as beardless chinchweed is often 

difficult to detect. 

Response: As required by the Act (16 

U.S.C. 1533(b)(1)), we based the listing 

decision on the best available scientific 

and commercial information. We have 

worked in partnership with numerous 

agencies and organizations to visit most 

of the known U.S. locations of beardless 

chinchweed at least once (with some 

long-term monitoring initiated), as well 

as a portion of the Mexico populations. 

Although information from 1983–2010 

is limited, we used the best available 

information regarding the status of the 

species to assess the species’ current 

and future conditions. The U.S. Forest 

Service (USFS), National Park Service 

(NPS), Service, industry surveyors, and 

other researchers gathering information 

on beardless chinchweed have 

increased survey efforts since 2010 in 

suitable habitat in Arizona and Mexico. 

At a minimum, recent surveys and 

research on beardless chinchweed have 

occurred each year from 2010 to 2017, 

in 2019, and in 2020. Despite the 

difficulty of detecting beardless 

chinchweed, trained botanists are 

conducting surveys during the bloom 

period, enhancing the probability of 

detection. 

(4) Comment: A commenter stated 

that the available data are insufficient to 

show a true decline in the species and 

that no statistically valid historical 

population data and minimal recent 

data were used in the analysis; 

therefore, there is no credible scientific 

way to compare beardless chinchweed 

population health over time. 

Response: When making a listing 

decision for a species, the Service must 

determine if the best available 

information indicates that a species is in 

danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range (an 

endangered species) or likely to become 

an endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range (a 

threatened species). Although species 

petitioned for listing or under 

assessment by the Service often show a 

decline in population abundance or 

distribution, such a decline is not 

required for the determination of 

endangered or threatened status for the 

species. 

The best available information for 

beardless chinchweed indicates 21 

separate historical populations across 

the range of the species. Of these, nine 

populations have been extirpated, and 

six populations are extant in southern 

Arizona. Of the remaining populations 

in southern Arizona, several 

populations with historical counts are 

now reduced in number. For example, 

89 individuals occurred along Ruby 

Road in 1985, and after four separate 

surveys, 10 individuals were found 

along this road in 2015. Similarly, the 

Scotia Canyon population contained 

122 individuals in 1993, 35 in 2017, and 

40 in 2020. Other populations could not 

be relocated at all, despite numerous 

species-specific surveys, and they are 

presumed extirpated. The condition of 

six additional populations in Mexico is 

unknown, but we have concluded the 

populations in Mexico are extant for the 

purposes of our analyses. Because of the 

current low numbers of the species, its 

limited distribution, and the past, 

current, and ongoing threats to its 

existence, we determine that the species 

is in danger of extinction. 

(5) Comment: A commenter claimed 

the Service suppresses location 

information to bolster the appearance of 

larger than actual numbers of 

extirpations and predicts additional 

populations occur on the west flank of 

the Huachuca Mountains. The 

commenter also identified Coronado 

Cave Trail, Joe’s Canyon Trail, and an 

area west of the State of Texas Mine 

populations as extant patches. The 

commenter noted observations of 

beardless chinchweed in Box Canyon 

(Westland Resources 2010) and near 

Washington Camp by NPS in 2015 and 

recommended we describe the two 

populations as extant. 

Response: The Service has 

incorporated the best available 

information regarding beardless 

chinchweed distribution and 

abundance, including all historical and 

current populations. Explicit and 

precise location information is not 

included in the SSA in order to reduce 

or avoid potential risk to the species 

from plant collection or trampling due 

to additional foot traffic. The examples 

mentioned (Coronado Cave Trail, Joe’s 

Canyon Trail, State of Texas Mine, 

Washington Camp, and Box Canyon 

Road) are addressed in the SSA and 

December 6, 2019, proposed rule (84 FR 

67060), and the number of extirpated 

populations remains the same. We have 

incorporated the additional occurrence 

information for Joe’s Canyon Trail, State 

of Texas Mine, and Washington Camp 

into the SSA report. The occurrence 

information for the Coronado Cave Trail 

was included in two other reports cited 

in the SSA (Westland 2016, p. 4; Sebesta 

per. comm. 2017). 

The Joe’s Canyon Trail subpopulation 

was noted in 1992 but was not observed 

on three surveys since 2014 (USFWS 

2014a, p. 4; Westland 2016, p.4). The 

commenter notes he observed 30 

vigorous plants (at least 53 individuals) 

at the site in 2012. However, there is no 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 31833 

official report, note, photograph, or 

herbarium documentation of this 2012 

sighting. Based on the species’ lack of 

occurrence during three surveys since 

2014, we continue to categorize the Joe’s 

Canyon Trail subpopulation as 

extirpated. We note the Joe’s Canyon 

area is included in the critical habitat 

designation and look forward to 

conservation efforts and additional 

surveys of the site. 

The commenter notes he has 

information regarding a 2015 beardless 

chinchweed observation by NPS staff 

near the Washington Camp population. 

We are aware of, and include in the 

SSA, a notification of beardless 

chinchweed possibly being located in 

2014 along a road near the historical 

location of the Washington Camp 

population (Buckley 2020, pers. comm.). 

However, there is no written report, 

communication to a natural resource 

agency or database, field notes, 

photograph, or herbarium 

documentation of the possible 2015 

sighting referenced by the commenter. 

Other surveys at the Washington Camp 

site in the Patagonia Mountains were 

unsuccessful in locating beardless 

chinchweed (Service 2014a, pp. 1–2; 

Haskins and Murray 2017, pp. 2–3). 

Therefore, the additional information 

does not alter our conclusion, that the 

Washington Camp population is 

extirpated. 

We have visited the Box Canyon site 

on numerous occasions, and no 

beardless chinchweed plants have been 

relocated. The Westland 2010 Box 

Canyon survey report noted in the 

comment refers to 20 individuals of 

another species, Graptopetalum 

bartramii (Bartram’s stonecrop), but 

does not note beardless chinchweed 

occurrence. A 2012 report by Westland 

notes that in 49 person-days of survey 

for beardless chinchweed in suitable 

habitat, no plants were located except 

within the McCleary Canyon area. 

(6) Comment: A commenter claimed 

the granite substrate is incorrectly 

identified habitat for beardless 

chinchweed but additional substrates, 

such as mudstones and rhyolite, likely 

play a role in the species’ habitat. The 

commenter predicted there might be 

more beardless chinchweed on the west 

flank of the Huachuca Mountains. 

Response: Beardless chinchweed’s 

known occurrences have been found on 

sunny to partly shaded southern 

exposures, on eroding limestone or 

granite soils and rock outcrops. The 

NPS is currently working on a beardless 

chinchweed and associated geology 

map, including additional substrates of 

mudstones and rhyolite. We expect this 

map, and the commenter’s observations, 

will be very useful in determining 

where to conduct future surveys. 

Between 1990 and 1994, Bowers and 

McLaughlin took 41 botanical trips into 

the Huachuca Mountains, including the 

west flank, adding to the long history of 

botanical collection there (Bowers and 

McLaughlin 1996, p. 70). Beardless 

chinchweed has not been reported from 

this area at any time historically. 

(7) Comment: A commenter 

mentioned that the assumptions 

regarding the beardless chinchweed’s 

population size and habitat degradation 

in Mexico might be inaccurate as the 

areas are remote and relatively 

undisturbed. 

Response: We relied on the best 

available data regarding population size 

and habitat conditions in Mexico. The 

last report of beardless chinchweed in 

Mexico was from 1940. There are 

numerous botanical collection trips in 

Mexico annually, and no beardless 

chinchweed occurrences have been 

reported. We sent inquiries regarding 

this species to 11 researchers familiar 

with the flora of Chihuahua and Sonora 

in 2017 and received no information on 

the status of the species in Mexico. 

Surveys in the 1990s and in 2017 and 

2018 at historical and potential 

beardless chinchweed locations in 

Sonora, Mexico, revealed no beardless 

chinchweed. The lack of beardless 

chinchweed in Sonora may be 

associated with severe overgrazing 

(Sanchez-Escalante 2019, p. 17). 

Five of the six populations in Arizona 

contain fewer than 50 individuals. 

Therefore, we concluded that the 

populations in Mexico, if extant, 

contain fewer than 50 individuals. In 

Mexico, rapid expansion of nonnative, 

invasive plant species and degradation 

of native plant communities have 

potential to invade large areas of 

northern Mexico, including beardless 

chinchweed sites. We made these 

conclusions based on the best available 

science and welcome additional 

information to inform future Service 

actions regarding the beardless 

chinchweed. 

(8) Comment: A commenter stated 

that much is unknown about beardless 

chinchweed and near-future additional 

surveys in Arizona and Mexico are 

required to ensure the need for listing 

and possible resultant economic loss. 

Response: We are required by the Act 

to make our determination solely on the 

basis of the best commercial and 

scientific information available at the 

time, but we do conduct an economic 

analysis of the impacts of critical habitat 

designation. The screening memo 

outlining the results of that analysis is 

available as a supporting document (IEc 

2018, entire). We used the best available 

information on the range of beardless 

chinchweed in the SSA report, the 

December 6, 2019, proposed rule (84 FR 

67060), and this final rule. Speciesspecific surveys have been conducted in 

the mountain ranges in the U.S. portion 

of the beardless chinchweed’s range. We 

conclude it is unlikely that large 

populations remain unaccounted for 

therein. If we receive new information 

in the future as a result of additional 

surveys, we will analyze such 

information in the course of developing 

a recovery plan for the species or in 5- 

year reviews of its status. If we 

determine that the new information 

indicates that the species no longer 

meets the definition of an endangered 

species, we will promptly begin 

rulemaking to assign the correct status. 

(9) Comment: A commenter noted that 

hundreds of plants and animals are at 

the northern fringe of their range in 

southern Arizona and are common and 

safe in Mexico. 

Response: Historical distributions of 

beardless chinchweed are focused in 

southern Arizona, with some disjunct 

populations in northern Mexico. There 

have been surveys for this species in 

Mexico, and numerous biologists from 

Mexico have been consulted regarding 

its presence in the country. Habitat has 

been altered extensively in Mexico, and 

no populations of the beardless 

chinchweed have been located there; 

therefore, we do not find the species to 

be common or safe in Mexico. 

(10) Comment: A commenter claimed 

that surveys by Sanchez-Escalante in 

Mexico were rushed and occurred in the 

wrong habitat and at the wrong time of 

year. 

Response: The researcher 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. No beardless chinchweed 

plants were located in 10 separate 

suitable habitats searched, including all 

historical locations in Sonora. These 

surveys were conducted during the 

flowering season in late September 

when the plants are most visible. 

Therefore, we conclude the SanchezEscalante surveys were conducted using 

appropriate methods. Thus, we base our 

current understanding of the beardless 

chinchweed occurrences in Sonora and 

Chihuahua on the best available 

scientific information. 

(11) Comment: A commenter 

mentioned regular visitation is 

necessary to attain information on 

bloom period, seed production, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
31834 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

reproduction method, pollinators, 

precipitation and growth relationships, 

and genetic diversity. 

Response: We are aware of limited 

information regarding the life history 

and species characteristics the 

commenter mentioned. We are 

supporting current research into the 

pollination, breeding systems, 

demographics, responses to fire and 

nonnative grass removal and we are in 

regular contact with the researchers 

working with beardless chinchweed. 

Further studies will inform conservation 

and recovery efforts for the species. 

(12) Comment: A commenter 

indicated that beardless chinchweed 

colonization of unoccupied habitat 

patches from known subpopulations has 

been documented repeatedly since 

1993. The commenter opined that 

population losses are caused by 

metapopulation dynamics, and the 

species readily occupies newly 

disturbed habitat. 

Response: The beardless chinchweed 

has been located in plains, great basin, 

semi-desert grasslands, oak savanna, 

and Madrean evergreen woodland, and 

along disturbed roads, trails, and mining 

sites within these vegetation 

communities. Beardless chinchweed 

groups occurring in these habitats have 

collectively been counted as single 

subpopulations or populations since 

their discoveries, and fluctuations of the 

number of individuals found have been 

noted. We have no information on the 

detection of colonization of unoccupied 

habitat; we welcome these data from the 

commenter to inform subsequent 

Service actions. 

(13) Comment: A commenter claimed 

the Service lacks basic knowledge about 

the biology and habitat requirements of 

the beardless chinchweed and is not 

following the mandate to base listing 

decisions on the best scientific and 

commercial data available. 

Response: We based this final listing 

determination on the best available 

scientific and commercial information, 

and the commenter did not provide any 

new information for us to consider. The 

best available information on beardless 

chinchweed habitat indicates the 

species does best on eroding soils in 

native-dominated grasslands. 

Additional beardless chinchweed 

biology and habitat research is ongoing, 

and results will inform future Service 

actions. In assessing the viability of the 

beardless chinchweed, the best available 

scientific and commercial data provide 

information about some aspects of 

species’ biology and habitat 

requirements, but may not represent a 

full and complete knowledge of the 

species. We drew reasonable 

conclusions about other aspects of the 

species’ biology and requirements based 

on similar species, similar habitats, and 

best available information. 

(14) Comment: A commenter stated 

that the Service provides a misleading 

discussion of the current status of the 

beardless chinchweed and fails to 

recognize its life history as a 

disturbance-dependent and extremely 

difficult species to detect. 

Response: As described in the SSA 

report, beardless chinchweeed is, and 

has historically been, found in open, 

native-dominated desert grasslands, oak 

savannas, and oak woodlands. This 

species is also often associated with 

active disturbances from frequent, low 

severity wildfire; grazing and browsing 

of native animals during seed 

production; and natural erosion of 

unstable substrates, thus reducing 

competition. Many historical locations 

are now dominated by nonnative 

grasses, have an altered wildfire regime, 

and no longer support the species. 

Native-dominated habitats have diverse 

assemblages of vegetation, each with a 

different-shaped and -sized canopy and 

root system, which creates heterogeneity 

of form, height, and patchiness, and 

provides openness. This is in contrast to 

nonnative-dominated habitats, which 

are unnaturally dense, are evenly 

spaced, and have an even understory 

height; burn with regularity; and 

contain species that compete with 

beardless chinchweed for space, water, 

light, and nutrients. The documented 

invasion of nonnative grasses 

throughout most of the beardless 

chinchweed’s range has greatly 

increased competition and altered fire 

regimes in these areas. Historical 

populations currently with nonnative 

grass dominance no longer support 

beardless chinchweed due to this 

alteration of habitat. There are currently 

no extant populations of beardless 

chinchweed without at least some level 

of nonnative grass invasion. We 

acknowledge that the species is difficult 

to detect. Despite the difficulty of 

detection, trained botanists are 

conducting surveys during the bloom 

period, enhancing the probability of 

detection. 

(15) Comment: A commenter claimed 

the Service did not do due diligence to 

list threats or make determinations but 

used the petitioner’s list of threats. The 

commenter also suggested the Service’s 

analysis of stressors is speculative and 

not based on hard data. 

Response: The Service’s 

determination to list the species is based 

on a thorough review of the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information and was subject to 

appropriate peer review. The petition 

identifies livestock grazing as the 

primary threat to the beardless 

chinchweed. Our analysis determined 

nonnative invasion and high-severity 

fire are the primary threats to the 

species, with livestock disturbance 

potentially benefitting the plants at 

certain times of the year and potentially 

harming it at other times (summer and 

fall). We used the best available 

scientific and commercial information 

in our analyses. 

(16) Comment: Three commenters 

claimed the Service’s assumption that 

nonnative grasses decrease habitat 

suitability and alter the fire regime is 

not supported by the data and the 

method of assessment for the effect of 

competition with nonnative grasses is 

unclear. The species persists in 

nonnative grasslands and has positive 

population growth following the 

Monument Fire. 

Response: Beardless chinchweed 

typically occurs on steep, south-facing, 

sunny to partially shaded hillslopes, 

with eroding bedrock and open areas 

with little competition from other 

plants. Since 2012, many surveys of 

historically documented beardless 

chinchweed population areas detected 

no beardless chinchweed plants. The 

change in habitat in these areas, with 

drastic increases in nonnative, invasive 

grasses that provide limited bare soil 

needed by beardless chinchweed, 

indicates that the areas are no longer 

suitable habitat for this species. Even in 

areas that support the beardless 

chinchweed, such as at Coronado 

National Memorial, biologists report 

that the beardless chinchweed has not 

been found in any location dominated 

by nonnative grasses. In all but a small 

number of historical populations, 

nonnative grasses have increased to an 

extent that they exclude most native 

species, including beardless 

chinchweed. Numerous surveys and 

studies indicate that the beardless 

chinchweed does not occur in sites 

heavily impacted by nonnative plants. 

Surveys for the beardless chinchweed 

note habitat conditions, including the 

extent of nonnative grasses. 

Historical frequent, low-severity fires 

in southern Arizona grasslands have 

been replaced with more frequent and 

more severe fires due, in part, to the 

invasion of nonnative plants. Beardless 

chinchweed grassland habitats have 

been altered to include nonnative 

grasses and hotter fires. The area where 

the beardless chinchweed occurs at 

Coronado National Memorial 

experienced low to moderate severity 

fire in the Monument Fire in 2011, and 

in 2019, low severity prescription fire 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 31835 

was used as a tool to benefit the 

beardless chinchweed (BAER 2017, 

entire; Fitting 2020, pers. comm). 

We assessed the effects of competition 

with nonnative grasses based on habitat 

conditions reported in surveys of 

beardless chinchweed populations. The 

extent of nonnative grasses in the area 

is negatively associated with beardless 

chinchweed occurrence. Beardless 

chinchweed occurs in areas with little 

natural competition and nonnative 

grasses are strong competitors for 

required resources of sunlight, water, 

and space. Several instances have been 

reported where surveys of more densely 

vegetated habitat resulted in no 

beardless chinchweed found, 

supporting this species’ requirement for 

little competition (USFWS 2014a, p. 4; 

USFWS 2014b, p. 1; USFWS 2014c, p. 

4; USFWS 2014d, p. 2; Haskins and 

Murray 2017, p. 2). In addition, 

beardless chinchweed has not been 

found in any location dominated by 

nonnative grasses on National Park 

Service lands (National Park Service 

2014, p. 4; Janway 2017, pers. comm.). 

(17) Comment: A commenter 

indicated that managed livestock and 

wild ungulate grazing are proven to 

reduce fuels for fires and requested all 

language relating to domestic livestock 

threatening beardless chinchweed be 

removed from the SSA report and the 

rule. 

Response: Livestock grazing is not 

noted in the SSA report or the rule as 

a major threat to the beardless 

chinchweed. While grazing is not a 

major threat to the species, the activity 

does act as a stressor to the beardless 

chinchweed in some circumstances, and 

the effect of grazing is analyzed in the 

SSA report. 

Wild ungulate grazing is noted in 

beardless chinchweed populations. 

Coues white tail deer (Odocoileus 

virginianus ssp. couesi) and javelina 

(Pecari tajacu) were observed in the 

vicinity of browsed beardless 

chinchweed plants (USFWS 2015, pp. 

1–2). In a 2019 study, researchers 

reported 75 percent of 785 individuals 

studied in the population at Coronado 

National Memorial showed signs of deer 

browse (Souther, 2020, p. 1). The loss of 

flowers in any year equates to a loss of 

seed production and seed bank storage, 

and reduction in genetic diversity. 

Livestock grazing is expected to have 

a similar impact. Beardless chinchweed 

does not flower until it reaches a height 

of over 1.6 ft tall. Without time and 

resources to regrow, browsed plants 

may be unable to attain adequate size 

for reproduction and are susceptible to 

impacts from grazing (Phillips et al. 

1982, p. 8; Falk and Warren 1994, p. 

157). Grazing pressure may have 

contributed to species’ rareness due to 

reduced reproduction and alteration in 

habitat (Keil 1982, pers. comm.). 

Overgrazing is considered a stronger 

influence on beardless chinchweed 

habitat in Mexico (Fishbein and Warren 

1984, p. 20; Sanchez-Escalante 2019, p. 

17). 

The beardless chinchweed SSA report 

concludes that grazing in winter or 

spring when the plant is dormant would 

increase disturbance and open habitat 

needed by the beardless chinchweed, 

while grazing in summer or fall when 

the plant is growing and flowering 

could damage plants or reduce seed 

production. 

(18) Comment: A commenter 

recommended using past climate data at 

a local level rather than modelling 

projections when discussing climate as 

a threat. 

Response: In the beardless 

chinchweed SSA report, figure 4.8a–c 

shows both the past and projected mean 

daily maximum temperatures in 

Cochise, Pima, and Santa Cruz Counties, 

Arizona. The data for past mean daily 

maximum temperatures also indicate 

increases in temperature in all three 

counties. Modeling projections based on 

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change Fifth Assessment report (IPCC 

2014, entire) and future climate 

projections from the National Climate 

Explorer Tool (USGS 2017a, entire) 

downscaled to county level were used 

to discuss climate change and the effects 

of current and future changes on 

beardless chinchweed. Section 4.2 of 

the SSA (USFWS 2020, pp. 29–42) 

describes these modelling projections in 

greater detail. 

(19) Comment: A commenter noted 

the degree of disturbance that is harmful 

versus helpful to the beardless 

chinchweed needs to be determined 

through research. 

Response: Additional research into 

the amounts and types of disturbance 

compatible with the beardless 

chinchweed would assist with further 

actions related to the species. Three 

extant populations occur along 

roadcuts, and another occurs along a 

maintained trail. Routine vegetation 

maintenance along the roads and trails 

reduces competition from other plants 

for sunlight and nutrients. However, 

roadside maintenance could also 

damage or remove plants. In addition, 

nonnative plant introduction and spread 

often occur in areas of disturbance, such 

as along roadways, along trails, in 

mining sites, and in areas of recreational 

use (Gelbard and Belnap 2003, p. 421; 

Brooks 2007, pp. 153–154; Anderson et 

al. 2015, p. 1). Nonnative grasses 

compete with beardless chinchweed for 

space, water, light, and nutrients, and 

alter wildfire regimes. Many of these 

historical locations no longer support 

the beardless chinchweed due to 

alteration of habitat by nonnative 

grasses (NPS 2014, pp. 3–4; Service 

2014a, pp. 1–2; Service 2014b, entire; 

Service 2014c, pp. 1–2). Therefore, for 

the purposes of our analysis, we 

conclude that the presence of 

nonnatives following a disturbance is 

not helpful to the beardless 

chinchweed. 

(20) Comment: A commenter stated 

that demographic and environmental 

stochasticity are naturally occurring 

phenomena for which beardless 

chinchweed plants are very welladapted. 

Response: Demographic and 

environmental stochasticity are 

naturally occurring phenomena (Shaffer 

1981, p. 131). However, beardless 

chinchweed populations adapted to 

naturally occurring phenomena now 

experience the additional stressors of 

nonnative grass (competition and 

altered fire regime) and the effects of a 

changing climate beyond the scope of 

normal occurrence. For example, effects 

due to a changing climate, coupled with 

other stressors, can have a cumulative 

impact resulting in greater than 

anticipated decline in rare species 

(Souther and McGraw 2014, pp. 1471– 

1472). In addition, populations that 

experience variability in abundance 

must maintain a minimum viable 

population to be able to repopulate after 

a demographic or environmental 

stochastic event or catastrophe 

(Holsinger and Falk 1991, p. 45). 

Rangewide (including Mexico), 11 of the 

12 beardless chinchweed populations 

(83 percent) are small (fewer than 50 

individuals). When the effect of small 

population size exacerbates other 

stressors beyond those naturally 

occurring phenomena that beardless 

chinchweed has adapted to, population 

abundance may be reduced to the extent 

that repopulation does not occur. 

(21) Comment: A commenter stated 

disturbance (including high intensity 

grazing, post-wildfire runoff, trail and 

road maintenance, and mining 

activities) are not threats to the 

beardless chinchweed. In addition, one 

commenter stated that road graders will 

be banned, yet they create habitat for the 

species. 

Response: The beardless chinchweed 

likely requires low to moderate intensity 

disturbance to maintain open habitat. 

This disturbance includes localized 

natural erosion of unstable substrates 

following precipitation events. Grazing 

could impact beardless chinchweed in 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
31836 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

small populations with fewer than 50 

individuals as flowers removed equate 

to reduction in genetic diversity and 

seed production. Many beardless 

chinchweed plants are precarious in 

their steep, sunny, erodible habitat, and 

heavy post-fire flooding and erosion 

could easily remove or bury plants. The 

beardless chinchweed is a species 

negatively affected by competition from 

other plants, particularly nonnative 

grasses. Activities that remove soils, 

increase nonnative plant spread, or 

reduce habitat for the beardless 

chinchweed negatively affect the 

species. Further, under this rule, the use 

of road graders will not be banned. The 

use of road graders in activities 

conducted, funded, permitted, or 

authorized by Federal agencies and the 

consequent effects to the beardless 

chinchweed would be evaluated in a 

section 7 consultation to ensure that 

their use is compatible with beardless 

chinchweed conservation. 

(22) Comment: Three commenters 

indicated that the Service’s conclusion 

that small and isolated populations 

make recolonization of extirpated 

beardless chinchweed populations 

unlikely is unsupported. 

Response: The current distribution of 

beardless chinchweed consists of 

populations widely separated on the 

landscape, and the plant’s seeds are not 

expected to travel long distances as 

typical of desert plants in a specialized 

environment (Van Oudtshoorn and Van 

Rooyen 2013, p.2). In addition, much of 

the grassland habitat surrounding 

known populations has been altered by 

nonnative plant invasion and no longer 

supports beardless chinchweed 

(National Park Service 2014, pp. 3–4; 

USFWS 2014b, pp. 1–2; USFWS 2014c, 

entire; USFWS 2014d, pp. 1–2). 

Throughout the range of the species, 

beardless chinchweed populations are 

naturally fragmented between mountain 

ranges that are many miles away from 

other mountain ranges, so natural reestablishment is unlikely. 

(23) Comment: Three commenters 

were concerned that critical habitat 

units will be closed off to grazing and 

livestock will be removed during the 

growing season on occupied allotments, 

which may have significant impacts on 

cattle ranchers, or that the designation 

of critical habitat will force the U.S. 

Forest Service to build cattle exclosures. 

These allotments are dominated by 

nonnative species with the exception of 

where the beardless chinchweed occurs. 

One commenter recommended sitespecific analysis to determine the level 

of management considerations needed. 

Response: The largest population of 

beardless chinchweed occurs on NPS 

lands and is not grazed by cattle. The 

USFS currently implements site-specific 

management for the extant beardless 

chinchweed sites, and we anticipate 

they will continue to do so in the future. 

Of 8 beardless chinchweed populations 

on USFS lands or portions of USFS 

lands, 4 populations currently 

experience some level of grazing. Two 

populations occur in areas grazed only 

during March, which is outside of the 

growing season for the beardless 

chinchweed (Heitholt 2017a, pers. 

comm.). Another population is on an 

allotment that is grazed by cattle in 

winter and spring, also outside of the 

flowering period for the beardless 

chinchweed (Heitholt 2017b, pers. 

comm.). A fourth population is in a 

yearlong, deferred rest rotational grazing 

regime, meaning any growing season 

use is mitigated with growing season 

rest the following year; in general, this 

area receives less than 25 percent 

utilization due to topography and 

distance from water (Heitholt 2018, 

pers. comm.). Cattle have not grazed 

another population that occurs partially 

on USFS lands since 1968 (Wilcox 2017, 

pers. comm.). 

The overlap of grazing allotments 

with critical habitat units is fairly 

limited. Within occupied units, two 

allotments overlap with critical habitat 

by less than 5 percent of the allotments’ 

land area (IEc 2018, p. 15). Within 

unoccupied units, one allotment 

overlaps critical habitat by 

approximately 7 percent and two 

allotments overlap by less than 3 

percent of the allotments’ land area (IEc 

2018, p. 15). The USFS will conduct 

section 7 consultation on the effects of 

grazing to the beardless chinchweed and 

designated critical habitat following the 

listing of the species (see DATES, above). 

Any site-specific adjustments to grazing 

on allotments will be considered in the 

consultation process. 

(24) Comment: A commenter claimed 

the City of Sierra Vista, Fort Huachuca, 

and other affected parties were not 

consulted during the economic analysis 

process, which was performed too 

quickly. 

Response: For the economic analysis, 

we considered affected parties to be 

those that overlap with occurrences of, 

or are within immediate proximity to, 

the species (e.g., USFS, NPS, Federal 

agencies conducting border patrol 

activities). The City of Sierra Vista and 

Fort Huachuca are more than 18 miles 

from any known population of the 

beardless chinchweed; therefore, we did 

not seek input from those parties. 

(25) Comment: A commenter 

requested the opportunity to verify that 

their economic analysis comments were 

incorporated into the final economic 

analysis. 

Response: During the open public 

comment period on the December 6, 

2019, proposed rule (84 FR 67060), we 

accepted comments on the draft 

economic analysis for the critical habitat 

designation for the beardless 

chinchweed. We considered comments 

we received on the draft economic 

analysis. To view the economic 

analysis, go to http://

www.regulations.gov and search for 

Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2018–0104. 

(26) Comment: A commenter noted 

that proposed critical habitat units 1, 2, 

6, 7, and 8 were visited during the 

2019–2020 winter and that the proposed 

essential physical and biological 

features were present within discrete 

areas within a matrix of high canopy 

cover grassland primarily dominated by 

nonnative grasses. They recommended a 

wording change to indicate special 

management only in areas where all 

essential physical and biological 

features co-occur, as not all of these 

areas include all proposed essential 

physical and biological features. 

Response: Not all critical habitat units 

contain all of the essential physical and 

biological features; in fact, it is unlikely 

that any beardless chinchweed 

populations are free of nonnative 

grasses entirely. The critical habitat 

units are focused largely on areas that 

are currently dominated by native 

species or have a mix of native and 

nonnative plants (USFS 2017). One goal 

to conserve the beardless chinchweed is 

to work toward the reduction of 

nonnative plants in critical habitat 

units. If only units with no nonnative 

species were designated as critical 

habitat, there would be insufficient 

habitat to conserve the species. 

(27) Comment: One commenter is 

concerned that nonnatives are too 

extensive to treat outside of small areas. 

Response: We understand the 

challenges of controlling nonnative 

plants and restoring native grasses to a 

site. We note that treatment of 

nonnatives near beardless chinchweed 

populations is an initial step in 

conserving the species. 

(28) Comment: Two commenters 

stated that we failed to properly identify 

and use the species’ physical and 

biological features to designate critical 

habitat. Another commenter stated that 

the physical and biological features 

identified in the proposed rule for the 

beardless chinchweed are general in 

nature and do not distinguish proposed 

critical habitat units from vast areas of 

potential habitat, suggesting there are 

hundreds of thousands (or more) acres 

of potential habitat for the species. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 31837 

Response: The physical and biological 

features identified for the beardless 

chinchweed are based on the species’ 

known biology, ecology, and habitat 

requirements. These include the habitat 

required to maintain pollinators, space 

for expansion and colonization of 

beardless chinchweed populations, and 

the need of the species to have open 

spaces without excessive nonnative 

grass competition. In unoccupied 

critical habitat units, not all physical 

and biological features may be present, 

but these areas are essential for the 

conservation of the beardless 

chinchweed. Southern Arizona 

grasslands, oak savannas, and evergreen 

woodlands have been invaded by 

nonnative plant species to an extensive 

degree, rendering much of the potential 

habitat less suitable. 

I. Final Listing Determination 

Background 

Please refer to the December 6, 2019, 

proposed rule to list and designate 

critical habitat for the beardless 

chinchweed (84 FR 67060) and the SSA 

report for a full summary of species 

information. Both are available on our 

Southwest Region website at https://

www.fws.gov/southwest/ and at http://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R2–ES–2018–0104. 

Regulatory and Analytical Framework 

Regulatory Framework 

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) 

and its implementing regulations (50 

CFR part 424) set forth the procedures 

for determining whether a species is an 

‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened 

species.’’ The Act defines an 

endangered species as a species that is 

‘‘in danger of extinction throughout all 

or a significant portion of its range,’’ and 

a threatened species as a species that is 

‘‘likely to become an endangered 

species within the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range.’’ The Act requires that we 

determine whether any species is an 

‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened 

species’’ because of any of the following 

factors: 

(A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; 

(B) Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; 

(C) Disease or predation; 

(D) The inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; or 

(E) Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. 

These factors represent broad 

categories of natural or human-caused 

actions or conditions that could have an 

effect on a species’ continued existence. 

In evaluating these actions and 

conditions, we look for those that may 

have a negative effect on individuals of 

the species, as well as other actions or 

conditions that may ameliorate any 

negative effects or may have positive 

effects. 

We use the term ‘‘threat’’ to refer in 

general to actions or conditions that are 

known to or are reasonably likely to 

negatively affect individuals of a 

species. The term ‘‘threat’’ includes 

actions or conditions that have a direct 

impact on individuals (direct impacts), 

as well as those that affect individuals 

through alteration of their habitat or 

required resources (stressors). The term 

‘‘threat’’ may encompass—either 

together or separately—the source of the 

action or condition or the action or 

condition itself. 

However, the mere identification of 

any threat(s) does not necessarily mean 

that the species meets the statutory 

definition of an ‘‘endangered species’’ or 

a ‘‘threatened species.’’ In determining 

whether a species meets either 

definition, we must evaluate all 

identified threats by considering the 

expected response by the species, and 

the effects of the threats—in light of 

those actions and conditions that will 

ameliorate the threats—on an 

individual, population, and species 

level. We evaluate each threat and its 

expected effects on the species, then 

analyze the cumulative effect of all of 

the threats on the species as a whole. 

We also consider the cumulative effect 

of the threats in light of those actions 

and conditions that will have positive 

effects on the species, such as any 

existing regulatory mechanisms or 

conservation efforts. The Secretary 

determines whether the species meets 

the definition of an ‘‘endangered 

species’’ or a ‘‘threatened species’’ only 

after conducting this cumulative 

analysis and describing the expected 

effect on the species now and in the 

foreseeable future. 

Analytical Framework 

The SSA report documents the results 

of our comprehensive biological status 

review for the species, including an 

assessment of the potential threats to the 

species. The SSA report does not 

represent a decision by the Service on 

whether the species should be listed as 

an endangered or threatened species 

under the Act. It does, however, provide 

the scientific basis that informs our 

regulatory decisions, which involve the 

further application of standards within 

the Act and its implementing 

regulations and policies. The following 

is a summary of the key results and 

conclusions from the SSA report; the 

full SSA report can be found at Docket 

No. FWS–R2–ES–2018–0104 on http://

www.regulations.gov and at https://

www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/ 

Docs_Species.htm. 

To assess beardless chinchweed’s 

viability, we used the three conservation 

biology principles of resiliency, 

redundancy, and representation (Shaffer 

and Stein 2000, pp. 306–310). Briefly, 

resiliency supports the ability of the 

species to withstand environmental and 

demographic stochasticity (for example, 

wet or dry, warm or cold years), 

redundancy supports the ability of the 

species to withstand catastrophic events 

(for example, droughts, large pollution 

events), and representation supports the 

ability of the species to adapt over time 

to long-term changes in the environment 

(for example, climate changes). In 

general, the more resilient and 

redundant a species is and the more 

representation it has, the more likely it 

is to sustain populations over time, even 

under changing environmental 

conditions. Using these principles, we 

identified the species’ ecological 

requirements for survival and 

reproduction at the individual, 

population, and species levels, and 

described the beneficial and risk factors 

influencing the species’ viability. 

The SSA process can be categorized 

into three sequential stages. During the 

first stage, we evaluated the individual 

species’ life-history needs. The next 

stage involved an assessment of the 

historical and current condition of the 

species’ demographics and habitat 

characteristics, including an 

explanation of how the species arrived 

at its current condition. The final stage 

of the SSA involved making predictions 

about the species’ responses to positive 

and negative environmental and 

anthropogenic influences. This process 

used the best available information to 

characterize viability as the ability of a 

species to sustain populations in the 

wild over time. We use this information 

to inform our regulatory decision. 

Summary of Biological Status and 

Threats 

In this discussion, we review the 

biological condition of the species and 

its resources, and the threats that 

influence the species’ current and future 

condition, in order to assess the species’ 

overall viability and the risks to that 

viability. 

The beardless chinchweed is an erect, 

many-branched perennial of the 

Asteraceae (sunflower) family. It occurs 

on sunny, south-facing slopes in nativedominated grasslands, oak savannas, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
31838 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

and oak woodlands in southern Arizona 

and northern Mexico. The species is 

particularly susceptible to competition 

from other plants and is impacted by 

nonnative, invasive grasses, which 

outcompete this species for light, water, 

nutrients, and space, and exacerbate 

unnatural high-severity fires. Nine 

populations have been extirpated since 

1962, leaving 12 extant populations in 

Arizona and Mexico. The extirpated 

sites have high levels of invasion by 

nonnative grasses. Most populations are 

very small, with 92 percent of 

populations throughout the range of the 

species supporting fewer than 50 

individuals. These small populations 

are particularly vulnerable to 

extirpation. 

The beardless chinchweed occurs 

between elevations of 3,799 to 5,699 ft. 

It requires steep, south-facing, sunny to 

partially shaded hillslopes with open 

areas and little competition from other 

plants. To maintain species’ viability, 

populations with multiple 

subpopulations and overall high 

abundance must be distributed across 

the species range and represent a range 

of environmental conditions. These 

populations must experience 

recruitment that exceeds mortality. 

Beardless chinchweed requires habitat 

consisting of native-dominated plant 

communities on eroding limestone or 

granite bedrock substrate with 

precipitation adequate for germination, 

growth and reproduction. The nativedominated plant communities include 

plains, great basin, and semi-desert 

grasslands, oak savanna, or Madrean 

evergreen woodlands and communities 

dominated by bunchgrasses with open 

spacing and little competition from 

other plants. In addition, these 

communities must support sufficient 

beardless chinchweed pollinators (e.g., 

flies, bees, and butterflies) including 

plants for pollinator foraging and 

nesting within pollinator flight distance 

of beardless chinchweed populations. 

Several stressors influence whether 

beardless chinchweed populations will 

grow to maximize habitat occupancy, 

which increases the resiliency of a 

population to stochastic events. We 

evaluated the past, current, and future 

stressors (i.e., negative changes in the 

resources needed by beardless 

chinchweed) that influence the viability 

of the species. These stressors are 

described in detail in chapter 4 of the 

SSA report (Service 2020). Stressors that 

have the potential to affect beardless 

chinchweed population resiliency 

include: 

• Loss of habitat due to invasion by 

nonnative species; 

• Altered fire regime exacerbated by 

invasion by nonnative species; 

• Altered precipitation, drought, and 

temperature; 

• Erosion, sedimentation, and burial 

from road and trail maintenance, 

mining, livestock trampling and soil 

disturbance, and post-wildfire runoff; 

• Grazing from wildlife and livestock; 

and 

• Small population size exacerbating 

all other stressors. 

The largest risk to viability of the 

species is caused by the loss of habitat 

from the invasion of nonnative grasses 

that compete for space, water, light, and 

nutrients and that alter wildfire regimes. 

This combination of stressors has 

resulted in many populations having 

fewer than 50 individuals remaining, 

which puts them at risk of extirpation 

from the primary stressor as well as 

additional stressors that would not have 

been a concern under natural 

conditions. Much of the historical range 

of the beardless chinchweed in both the 

United States and Mexico has been 

altered by an invasion of nonnative 

grasses and herbaceous plants. Although 

there are many nonnative plant species 

growing in historical beardless 

chinchweed habitats in both the United 

States and Mexico, two species in 

particular are most problematic to the 

beardless chinchweed at this time: 

Lehmann’s lovegrass (Eragrostis 

lehmanniana) and rose natal (Melinis 

repens). Both of these species are strong 

competitors on southern exposures 

where the beardless chinchweed occurs. 

Habitat Loss Caused by Nonnative 

Grasses 

Lehmann’s lovegrass, a nonnative 

grass from South Africa, has numerous 

competitive advantages over native 

grasses in southern Arizona. Lehmann’s 

lovegrass resprouts from roots and tiller 

nodes not killed by hot fire, is 

unhampered by the reduction in 

mycorrhizae associated with fire and 

erosion, responds to winter 

precipitation when natives grasses are 

dormant, produces copious seed earlier 

than native grasses, maintains larger 

seed banks than native grasses, and has 

higher seedling survival and 

establishment than native grasses during 

periods of drought (Anable 1990, p. 49; 

Anable et al. 1992, p. 182; Robinett 

1992, p. 101; Fernandez and Reynolds 

2000, pp. 94–95; Crimmins and Comrie 

2004, p. 464; Geiger and McPherson 

2005, p. 896; Schussman et al. 2006, p. 

589; O’Dea 2007, p. 149; Archer and 

Predick 2008, p. 26; Mathias et al. 2013, 

entire). This species outcompetes native 

grasses for water, light, and nutrients, 

forming nonnative-dominated 

grasslands that reduce structural, 

species, and spatial diversity and that 

produce two to four times the biomass 

of native grasslands (D’Antonio and 

Vitousek 1992, p. 70; McPherson 1995, 

pp. 136–137; VanDevender et al. 1997, 

p. 4; Huang et al. 2009, pp. 903–904). 

This change in vegetation structure 

results in a higher fuel load that is longlasting through slow decomposition and 

results in more frequent fires that have 

longer flames, faster rates of spread, and 

higher severity and frequency than 

historical low-intensity burns of native 

desert grasslands (Anable et al. 1992, p. 

186; Dennet et al. 2000, pp. 22–23; 

Williams and Baruch 2000, p. 128; 

Crimmins and Comrie 2004, p. 464). In 

addition, Lehmann’s lovegrassdominated grasslands recover quickly 

from fire, as fires scarify the ample 

seeds and remove canopy, allowing for 

high seedling emergence (Cable 1965, p. 

328; Anable 1990, p. 15; Roundy et al. 

1992, p. 81; McPherson 1995, p. 137; 

Biedenbender and Roundy 1996, p. 

160). 

Rose natal, a native of Africa and 

Madagascar, is invasive in many 

locations, including southern Arizona 

and northern Mexico (Stevens and 

Fehmi 2009, p. 379; Romo et al. 2012, 

p. 34). Similar to Lehmann’s lovegrass, 

rose natal is capable of growing in low 

moisture situations and has many 

advantages to outcompete native grasses 

of southern Arizona, such as prolific 

seed production and culms that root 

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

527). This aggressive grass displaces 

native vegetation in shrublands and oak 

stands, and increases fire frequency 

(Romo et al. 2012, p. 35; Center for 

Agriculture and Biosciences 

International 2020, entire). 

In addition, several other invasive 

African grasses and an invasive Asian 

grass have been documented in 

southern Arizona and northern Mexico 

(Van Devender and Reina 2005, p. 160; 

NatureServe 2020, entire; Fire Effects 

Information System 2020, entire; 

SEINet, entire). Other nonnative grasses 

in Mexico show rapid expansion and 

degradation of native communities, with 

the potential to invade large areas of 

northern Mexico (Arriaga et al. 2004, p. 

1504). No beardless chinchweed 

populations in the United States are 

more than 1 kilometer (km) (0.6 mile 

(mi)), and no beardless chinchweed 

populations in Mexico are more than 27 

km (16.8 mi), away from documented 

nonnative grasses (SEINet, entire; 

Heitholt 2017b, pers. comm.). Because 

we have documented nonnative 

infestations in the field in locations not 

shown in SEINet, we conclude only a 

small portion of nonnative plants are 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 31839 

reported into the SEINet system in 

either country. Based on the above 

information, it is unlikely any beardless 

chinchweed population is free of 

nonnative plants. This encroachment of 

nonnatives has reduced beardless 

chinchweed population numbers and 

habitat, and as nonnatives continue to 

encroach on beardless chinchweed 

populations, the number of individuals 

and available habitat will continue to 

decrease. 

Altered Fire Regime 

The desert grasslands, oak savannas, 

and oak woodlands of southern Arizona 

historically had large-scale, low-severity 

fire roughly every 10 to 20 years and 

following periods of adequate moisture 

(McPherson and Weltzin 2000, p. 5; 

Brooks and Pyke 2002, p. 6; McDonald 

and McPherson 2011, p. 385; Fryer and 

Leunsmann 2012, entire). This lowseverity disturbance likely benefited 

beardless chinchweed by maintaining 

open microhabitats and reducing 

competition. Fires are now more 

frequent and intense due to the 

unnaturally dense and evenly spaced 

canopies of nonnative-dominated 

communities (as compared to more 

open and heterogeneous nativedominated grasslands), coupled with 

more frequent fire starts from 

recreationists and cross-border violators 

(Anable et al. 1992, p. 186; D’Antonio 

and Vitousek 1992, p. 75; Dennet et al. 

2000, pp. 22–23; Williams and Baruch 

2000, p. 128; Crimmins and Comrie 

2004, p. 464; Emerson 2010, pp. 15, 17; 

United States Government 

Accountability Office 2011, p. 1; 

Wildland Fire Lessons Learned Center 

2011, entire). Nonnative grasses have 

higher seed output and large seed banks, 

earlier green-up in the spring, and 

greater biomass production than native 

grasses; all of these characteristics help 

to perpetuate a grass-fire cycle 

(D’Antonio and Vitousek 1992, p. 73; 

Zouhar et al. 2008, pp. 17, 21; Steidl et 

al. 2013, p. 529). 

In many locations in southern 

Arizona in recent decades, repeat fires 

have occurred within short periods of 

time, aided by the dominance of 

nonnative grasses in the landscape. For 

example, in the Pajarito and Atascosa 

Mountains area, multiple fires burned 

the landscape between 2008 and 2016 

(figure 4.4 in Service 2020). This 

landscape is now dominated by both 

nonnative Lehmann’s lovegrass and rose 

natal (Service 2014b, entire; Heitholt 

2017b, pers. comm.), and many 

historically documented locations that 

supported beardless chinchweed have 

not been found again (Service 2014b, 

entire; Fernandez 2017, pers. comm.; 

Haskins and Murray 2017, p. 4). Highseverity wildfires burn hotter than fires 

that beardless chinchweed evolved 

with; consequently, we conclude the 

plant is not capable of surviving highseverity fires. 

Altered Precipitation, Drought, and 

Temperature 

The southwestern United States is 

warming and experiencing severe 

droughts of extended duration, changes 

in amount of snowpack and timing of 

snow melt, and changes in timing and 

severity of precipitation and flooding 

(Garfin et al. 2014, entire). The effects of 

a changing climate are important 

considerations in the analysis of the 

stressors to the beardless chinchweed, 

including increased nonnative 

competition (described above) during 

times of low precipitation and drought 

(Anable 1990, p. 49; Robinett 1992, p. 

101; Fernandez and Reynolds 2000, pp. 

94–95; Geiger and McPherson 2005, p. 

896; Schussman et al. 2006, p. 589; 

Archer and Predick 2008, p. 26; Mathias 

et al. 2013, entire). Low precipitation 

and drought will also impact moisture 

availability for beardless chinchweed 

germination, growth, and flowering. To 

analyze the effects of a changing climate 

on beardless chinchweed, we relied on 

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change’s (IPCC) Fifth Assessment (IPCC 

2014, entire) and IPCC Climate Change 

2013—The Physical Science Basis (IPCC 

2013, entire). Four emission scenarios, 

referred to as Representative 

Concentration Pathways (RCPs) were 

developed for the latest IPCC report 

(IPCC 2014, p. 57). We evaluated the 

effects of climate change on the 

beardless chinchweed using RCP 4.5 

and RCP 8.5 to bracket the range of 

environmental variability. The IPCC 

report (2014) expresses confidence that 

emissions will fall within the RCP 4.5 

and 8.5 range. 

Altered precipitation timing and form 

(snow versus rain), as well as reduced 

winter and spring precipitation and 

prolonged drought, are currently 

occurring and projected to increase or 

be altered from normal in the Southwest 

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

there has been a decrease in the amount 

of snowpack, earlier snowmelt, and 

increased drought severity in the 

Southwest (Garfin et al. 2013, entire; 

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

wintertime precipitation is falling as 

rain rather than snow in the western 

United States (IPCC 2013, p. 204; Garfin 

2013, p. 465). This means that the 

amount of runoff in the spring when 

snow melts is reduced, as is soil 

moisture. Precipitation is bimodal 

within the mountain ranges where the 

beardless chinchweed occurs, with 

dormant season snow and rain, and 

growing season monsoon rains. 

Precipitation during October through 

March is important for beardless 

chinchweed germination and growth. In 

addition, the beardless chinchweed 

does not flower until it reaches a height 

of more than 0.5 meter (m) (1.6 feet (ft)) 

tall; without sufficient precipitation, 

beardless chinchweed may be unable to 

attain adequate size for reproduction 

(Phillips et al. 1982, p. 8). Further, 

reduced precipitation, change in the 

timing and type of precipitation, and 

prolonged drought impact soil and 

ambient moisture availability for 

beardless chinchweed germination, 

seedling survival, plant growth, and 

flowering. In addition, due to increased 

nonnative competition during times of 

reduced precipitation and drought, 

impacts from these stressors to the 

beardless chinchweed would be 

exacerbated (Anable 1990, p. 49; 

Robinett 1992, p. 101; Fernandez and 

Reynolds 2000, pp. 94–95; Geiger and 

McPherson 2005, p. 896; Schussman et 

al. 2006, p. 589; Archer and Predick 

2008, p. 26; Mathias et al. 2013, entire). 

Projections of precipitation changes 

are less certain than those for 

temperature (Garfin et al. 2014, p. 465). 

Downscaled models project average 

precipitation will decrease in the 

southern Southwest where beardless 

chinchweed occurs, with seasonal 

changes in precipitation predicted. 

Projections of change in the mean 

annual precipitation from 2021 to 2099 

range from a decrease of 20 percent to 

an increase of 8 percent (RCP 8.5 (major 

effects scenario in the SSA)) and a 

decrease of 10 percent to an increase of 

10 percent (RCP 4.5 (moderate effects 

scenario in the SSA)), with most models 

predicted a decline. (Garfin et al. 2013, 

p. 113). Under emissions scenarios of 

RCP 4.5 and 8.5, reduced winter and 

spring precipitation is consistently 

projected for the southern part of the 

Southwest by 2100, as part of the 

general global precipitation reduction in 

subtropical areas (Garfin et al. 2014, p. 

465). Late winter-spring mountain 

snowpack in the Southwest is predicted 

to continue to decline over the 21st 

century under RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5 

scenarios because of increased 

temperature (Garfin et al. 2013, pp. 118– 

119). Reduced rain and snow, earlier 

snowmelt, and drying tendencies cause 

a reduction in late-spring and summer 

runoff. Together, these effects, along 

with increases in evaporation, result in 

lower soil moisture by early summer 

(Garfin 2013, p. 117). 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
31840 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

Grazing 

There are two different perspectives 

on the influence of grazing on the 

beardless chinchweed: 

(1) Wildfire historically maintained 

native open habitat where the beardless 

chinchweed occurred, but with fire 

suppression, overgrazing may have 

alternatively provided native open 

habitats for this species to expand its 

range in the early 1900s, even without 

frequent fire (Schmalzel 2015, pers. 

comm.), due to open space being created 

and maintained by cattle; or 

(2) Grazing pressure may have 

contributed to the species’ rareness (Keil 

1982, entire) due to reduced 

reproduction and alteration in habitat. 

Regardless, grazing that occurs in 

small populations (fewer than 50 

individuals) of beardless chinchweed 

would have a negative population-level 

impact through the reduction of flowers 

and seeds, and possibly individuals. 

Beardless chinchweed does not flower 

until it reaches a height of more than 0.5 

m (1.6 ft) tall, indicating that grazing in 

summer or fall when the plant is 

growing and flowering could reduce 

seed production and recruitment. 

Approximately 75 percent of 

individuals studied in a population at 

Coronado National Memorial showed 

signs of deer browse (Souther 2019, 

pers. comm.). The effect on plant 

reproduction was variable, with 

browsing appearing at times to stimulate 

floral production (early season) and at 

other times appearing to inhibit it 

(immediately prior to seed set). 

Small Populations 

Small population size affects 

beardless chinchweed population 

resiliency, as all stressors are 

exacerbated in populations with only a 

small number of individuals (fewer than 

50). Small populations are less able to 

recover from losses caused by random 

environmental changes (Shaffer and 

Stein 2000, pp. 308–310), such as 

fluctuations in reproduction 

(demographic stochasticity), variations 

in rainfall (environmental stochasticity), 

or changes in the frequency or severity 

of disturbances, such as wildfires. Five 

of the six extant beardless chinchweed 

populations in the United States contain 

fewer than 50 individuals. We expect 

that the six populations in Mexico are 

of similar size but may be in worse 

condition, because of limited native 

habitat management, similar climate 

change impacts, equally frequent 

wildfires, and likely more impacts from 

grazing. Losses due to mining, erosion, 

road and trail maintenance, trampling, 

grazing, or other stressors mentioned 

above are exacerbated in small 

populations and have the potential to 

seriously damage or completely remove 

these small populations. Synergistic 

interactions among wildfire, nonnative 

grasses, decreased precipitation, and 

increased temperatures cumulatively 

and cyclically impact the beardless 

chinchweed, and all stressors are 

exacerbated in small populations. 

Current Condition of Beardless 

Chinchweed 

Since 1962, we are aware of nine 

extirpated populations and one 

extirpated subpopulation of the 

beardless chinchweed in the United 

States. Currently, six extant beardless 

chinchweed populations occur across 

four mountain ranges in southern 

Arizona: The Atascosa-Pajarito, 

Huachuca, and Santa Rita Mountains 

and the Canelo Hills. These six 

populations consist of 992 individuals 

spread across less than 2 hectares (ha) 

(5 acres (ac)). Additionally, six 

populations have been reported from 

northern Mexico, but this information is 

from 1940 or earlier. In addition, we are 

aware of preliminary results of the fall 

2020 survey efforts of the Coronado 

National Forest and the NPS including 

the discovery of as many as 225 

additional individuals near and within 

known populations in the Coronado 

National Memorial and Coronado 

National Forest. Prior to the discovery, 

the Coronado National Memorial 

population was the largest known with 

846 beardless chinchweed individuals. 

The increased abundance and potential 

increased distribution improves the 

resiliency of the Coronado National 

Memorial population, but does not 

change the overall determination for the 

species. We will continue to incorporate 

the best scientific information from 

these and future survey efforts in 

revisions of the SSA and Service 

decisions. 

Population Resiliency of Beardless 

Chinchweed 

To determine current condition, we 

assessed each population in terms of its 

resiliency. Our analysis of the past, 

current, and future stressors on the 

resources that the beardless chinchweed 

needs for long-term viability revealed 

that there are a number of stressors 

influencing this species. All beardless 

chinchweed populations likely contain 

nonnative grasses with a competitive 

advantage over native grasses during 

periods of drought. Further, altered fire 

regime has the potential to affect all 

populations. This altered fire regime 

enhances the spread of nonnatives, and 

all populations of beardless chinchweed 

contain nonnatives. Consequently, fire 

will aid in the spread of nonnatives, is 

currently a risk to all populations of the 

beardless chinchweed, and will be 

further exacerbated by nonnative grasses 

in the near future (approximately 10 

years). Altered precipitation, increased 

temperatures, increased 

evapotranspiration, decreased soil 

moisture, and decreased winter and 

spring precipitation are current and 

ongoing environmental conditions 

impacting all populations of the 

beardless chinchweed and exacerbating 

an altered fire regime. 

Road maintenance is likely resulting 

in the loss of individuals in three 

populations (Ruby Road, Scotia Canyon, 

and Coronado National Memorial). In 

addition, all individuals in these three 

populations are currently being 

impacted by dust from the road. The 

Ruby Road and Scotia Canyon 

populations exhibit low resiliency, and 

the Coronado National Memorial 

population exhibits moderate resiliency. 

Two additional populations (McCleary 

Canyon-Gunsight Pass and McCleary 

Canyon-Wasp Canyon) will be impacted 

by Rosemont mining operations and 

dust in the near future (approximately 

10 years; Westland 2010, p. iv). One of 

these populations currently exhibits low 

resiliency, and the other exhibits 

moderate resiliency. Rangewide 

(including Mexico), 11 of the 12 

populations (83 percent) are small 

(fewer than 50 individuals). Synergistic 

interactions among wildfire, nonnative 

grasses, decreased precipitation, and 

increased temperatures cumulatively 

and cyclically impact the beardless 

chinchweed, and all stressors are 

exacerbated in small populations. Of the 

six extant populations in the United 

States, two exhibit moderate resiliency 

and four exhibit low resiliency (see 

table 1, below). A population with 

moderate resilience is one in which 

abundance ranges from 100–300 

individuals the population contains 2 

subpopulations, and spatial distribution 

is limited with few groupings; seed 

production is moderate; recruitment and 

mortality are equal such that the 

population does not grow; the ability to 

withstand stochastic events or recover 

from stochastic events is limited due to 

low abundance and recruitment and to 

a reduced seed bank; and there is some 

suitable habitat. A population with low 

resilience is one in which abundance is 

less than 100 individuals, the 

population contains a single 

subpopulation, and spatial distribution 

is limited; seed production is low; 

mortality exceeds recruitment such that 

the population is declining; the ability 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 31841 

to withstand stochastic events or 

recover from stochastic events is 

unlikely due to low abundance and 

recruitment and to a limited seed bank; 

and there is limited suitable habitat. The 

categories of conditions used to 

determine population resiliency are 

further described in the SSA report 

(Service 2020, Table 5.10) and the 

proposed listing rule (84 FR 67060, 

December 6, 2019, p. 84 FR 67065). 

TABLE 1—BEARDLESS CHINCHWEED CURRENT POPULATION CONDITION

Mountain range/country Population Subpopulation Number of individuals 

Current condition 

Atascosa-Pajarito Mountains, USA Pena Blanca Lake .......................... ........................................................ 0 Extirpated. 

Ruby Road ..................................... 10 ................................................... Low. 

Summit Motorway .......................... ........................................................ 0 Extirpated. 

Canelo Hills, USA .......................... Audubon Research Ranch ............. Post Canyon ..................................

Tributary of O’Donnell Canyon ......

0 

37 

Low. 

Copper Mountain ........................... ........................................................ 0 Extirpated. 

Harshaw Creek .............................. ........................................................ 0 Extirpated. 

Lampshire Well .............................. ........................................................ 0 Extirpated. 

Huachuca Mountains, USA ............ Scotia Canyon ................................ ........................................................ 40 Low. 

Coronado National Memorial ......... Visitor Center .................................

State of Texas Mine .......................

785 

61 

Moderate. 

Joe’s Canyon Trail ......................... ........................................................ 0 Extirpated. 

Patagonia Mountains, USA ............ Flux Canyon ................................... ........................................................ 0 Extirpated. 

Washington Camp ......................... ........................................................ 0 Extirpated. 

Santa Rita Mountains, USA ........... Box Canyon ................................... ........................................................ 0 Extirpated. 

McCleary Canyon-Gunsight Pass .. ........................................................ 32 Moderate. 

McCleary Canyon-Wasp Canyon .. ........................................................ 32 Low. 

Chihuahua, Mexico ........................ Batopililas, Rio Mayo ..................... ........................................................ ∼10 Low. 

Guasaremos, Rio Mayo ................. ........................................................ ∼10 Low. 

Sonora, Mexico .............................. Canon de la Petaquilla .................. ........................................................ ∼10 Low. 

North of Horconcitos ...................... ........................................................ ∼10 Low. 

Canyon Estrella, Sierra de los 

Cendros; southeast of Tesopaco.

........................................................ ∼10 Low. 

Los Conejos, Rio Mayo ................. ........................................................ ∼10 Low. 

Beardless Chinchweed Representation 

No genetic studies have been 

conducted within or among the 21 

historical populations of the beardless 

chinchweed in southern Arizona and 

Mexico. Mountain ranges that have only 

one or two populations, or have only 

have one subpopulation per population, 

or low numbers of individuals per 

population with several miles between 

mountain ranges, may not be as 

genetically diverse because pollination 

or transport of seeds between 

populations may be very limited or 

nonexistent. Five of the six extant U.S. 

populations do not have multiple 

subpopulations. The Coronado National 

Memorial population has two 

subpopulations. The six extant U.S. 

populations are separated 

geographically into four ranges 

separated by 16 to 61 km (9.9 to 37.9 

mi). There is likely genetic diversity 

among mountain ranges, but reduced 

genetic diversity within populations. 

Further, overall genetic diversity is 

likely reduced given that some 

populations are extirpated. 

Extant U.S. populations of the 

beardless chinchweed range in elevation 

from 1,158 m (3,799 ft) to 1,737 m 

(5,699 ft). Of the 15 historical U.S. 

populations, 8 (approximately 53 

percent) fall below 1,457 m (1,500 ft) 

elevation. Of these eight, six have been 

extirpated in recent decades. This loss 

of lower elevation populations may 

mean the loss of some local adaptation 

to warmer or drier environments and 

genetic differentiation among 

populations. 

In the Ruby Road, Scotia Canyon, and 

Coronado National Memorial 

populations, and the Tributary of 

O’Donnell subpopulations, plants have 

been reported over many decades, 

indicating that these populations may 

have the genetic and environmental 

diversity needed to adapt to changing 

conditions. However, both the Ruby 

Road and Scotia Canyon populations 

have been reduced in size in the past 30 

years, and we have no previous count 

data at Coronado National Memorial for 

comparison. 

Beardless Chinchweed Redundancy 

The beardless chinchweed 

populations in the United States and 

Mexico are naturally fragmented 

between mountain ranges. Currently, six 

extant U.S. populations of the beardless 

chinchweed are spread across the 

Atascosa-Pajarito, Huachuca, and Santa 

Rita Mountains and the Canelo Hills. 

The Atascosa-Pajarito Mountains and 

the Canelo Hills have only one extant 

population each, while the Santa Rita 

and Huachuca Mountains have two 

extant populations each. Range 

separation makes natural gene exchange 

or re-establishment following 

extirpation very unlikely. In addition, 

six historical populations of the 

beardless chinchweed are distributed 

across two general areas in northern 

Chihuahua and Sonora, Mexico. Their 

status is unknown, but we expect they 

are small populations with poor habitat 

based on populations in the United 

States, which are small and dominated 

by nonnative species. Although this 

may imply some level of redundancy 

across the range of the beardless 

chinchweed, five of the six extant 

populations in the United States contain 

fewer than 50 individual plants. 

Further, nine populations and one 

subpopulation have been extirpated in 

recent decades, largely from the lower 

elevations of the species’ range, and 

several populations have been reduced 

in size in recent decades. 

We note that, by using the SSA 

framework to guide our analysis of the 

scientific information documented in 

the SSA report, we have not only 

analyzed individual effects on the 

species, but we have also analyzed their 

potential cumulative effects. We 

incorporate the cumulative effects into 

our SSA analysis when we characterize 

the current and future condition of the 

species. Our assessment of the current 

and future conditions encompasses and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
31842 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

incorporates the threats individually 

and cumulatively. Our current and 

future condition assessment is iterative 

because it accumulates and evaluates 

the effects of all the factors that may be 

influencing the species, including 

threats and conservation efforts. 

Because the SSA framework considers 

not just the presence of the factors, but 

to what degree they collectively 

influence risk to the entire species, our 

assessment integrates the cumulative 

effects of the factors and replaces a 

standalone cumulative effects analysis. 

Determination of Beardless 

Chinchweed’s Status 

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) 

and its implementing regulations (50 

CFR part 424) set forth the procedures 

for determining whether a species meets 

the definition of an endangered species 

or a threatened species. The Act defines 

‘‘endangered species’’ as a species in 

danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range, and 

‘‘threatened species’’ as a species likely 

to become an endangered species within 

the foreseeable future throughout all or 

a significant portion of its range. The 

Act requires that we determine whether 

a species meets the definition of 

‘‘endangered species’’ or ‘‘threatened 

species’’ because of any of the following 

factors: (A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) 

the inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; or (E) other natural or 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence. 

Status Throughout All of Its Range 

Historically, beardless chinchweed 

was known from 21 populations. Nine 

populations have been extirpated, 

leaving 12 extant populations (six in the 

United States and six in Mexico). The 

six populations in the United States 

consist of approximately 992 

individuals spread across less than 2 ha 

(5 ac). Six populations have been 

reported from northern Mexico, but this 

information is from 1940 or earlier. 

The proliferation of invasive, 

nonnative grasses throughout most of 

the beardless chinchweed’s range has 

greatly affected this species through 

increased competition and altered fire 

regimes. Many of the historical locations 

no longer support the beardless 

chinchweed due to this alteration of 

habitat (NPS 2014, pp. 3–4; Service 

2014a, pp. 1–2; Service 2014c, entire; 

Service 2014c, pp. 1–2). 

All beardless chinchweed populations 

likely contain nonnative grasses, 

resulting in habitat loss (Factor A). 

Further, an altered fire regime (Factors 

A and E) impacts all populations 

currently or in the near future and 

drives the spread of nonnatives (Factor 

A), exacerbating the encroachment of 

nonnative grasses. Consequently, all 

remaining populations of the beardless 

chinchweed are impacted by nonnative 

grasses now or will be in the near 

future. Altered precipitation (Factors A 

and E), increased temperatures (Factors 

A and E), and decreased annual 

precipitation (Factors A and E) are 

current and ongoing regional 

environmental conditions that are 

impacting all populations of the 

beardless chinchweed. These 

environmental conditions exacerbate an 

altered fire regime, driving the spread of 

nonnative grasses with competitive 

advantages over native grasses during 

periods of drought. Road and trail 

maintenance (Factors A and E) could 

damage or remove individuals in three 

populations with low resiliency (Ruby 

Road, Scotia Canyon, and Coronado 

National Memorial). In addition, all 

individuals in these three populations 

may be impacted by dust (Factor E) from 

the road. Two additional populations 

(McCleary Canyon-Gunsight Pass and 

McCleary Canyon-Wasp Canyon) will be 

impacted by roads (Factor A) related to 

mining operations in the near future 

(Westland 2010, p. iv). All individuals 

of these two populations will also be 

impacted by dust (Factor E). One of 

these populations is already of low 

resiliency and the other is of moderate 

resiliency. Eleven of 12 populations (92 

percent) are small (fewer than 50 

individuals). Synergistic interactions 

among wildfire, nonnative grasses, 

decreased precipitation, and increased 

temperatures cumulatively and 

cyclically impact the beardless 

chinchweed, and all stressors are 

exacerbated in small populations 

(Factor E). No conservation efforts have 

been implemented for this species. 

We find beardless chinchweed to 

have poor representation in the form of 

potential genetic diversity (Factor E). 

All but one population has fewer than 

50 individuals. Small populations are 

susceptible to the loss of genetic 

diversity, genetic drift, and inbreeding. 

There are currently six populations 

spread across four mountain ranges in 

the United States and six populations in 

northern Mexico that are presumed 

extant. Five of the six extant U.S. 

populations do not have multiple 

subpopulations (the Coronado National 

Memorial population has two 

subpopulations). Mountain ranges that 

have only one or two populations, have 

only one subpopulation per population, 

or have low numbers of individuals per 

population with several miles between 

mountain ranges, may not be genetically 

diverse because pollination or transport 

of seeds between populations may be 

very limited. This could mean that 

between-population genetic diversity 

may be greater than within-population 

diversity (Smith and Wayne 1996, p. 

333; Lindenmayer and Peakall 2000, p. 

200). Further, there may have been a 

loss of genetic diversity in the nine 

extirpated populations. 

Beardless chinchweed populations in 

the United States range in elevation 

from 1,158 m (3,799 ft) to 1,737 m 

(5,699 ft) in elevation. Of the 15 

historical U.S. populations, 8 

(approximately 53 percent) fall below 

1,457 m (4,780 ft) elevation. Of these 

eight, six have been extirpated in recent 

decades. The loss of lower elevation 

populations may mean a loss of local 

adaptation to warmer or drier 

environments and genetic 

differentiation among populations 

(Factor E). 

The beardless chinchweed needs to 

have multiple resilient populations 

distributed throughout its range to 

provide for redundancy. These multiple 

resilient populations should be spread 

over the range and distributed in such 

a way that a catastrophic event will not 

result in the loss of all populations. 

With the known extant populations 

separated by as much as 35 km (21.8 mi) 

in southern Arizona and even farther in 

northern Mexico, there is little 

connection potential between disjunct 

populations. Therefore, a localized 

stressor such as grazing during 

flowering would impact only those 

groups of plants near the activity. 

However, nonnative plant invasion, 

climatic changes, and repeated largescale, moderate- and high-severity fires 

occur across the region and could 

impact all populations now or in the 

near future. The distance among 

populations reduces connectivity, 

making it unlikely that another 

population naturally recolonizes a site 

after extirpation (Factor E). 

After evaluating threats to the species 

and assessing the cumulative effect of 

the threats under the Act’s section 

4(a)(1) factors, we find that the beardless 

chinchweed is presently in danger of 

extinction throughout its entire range 

based on the severity and immediacy of 

stressors currently impacting the 

species. The overall range has been 

significantly reduced (nine populations 

extirpated), and the remaining habitat 

and populations face a variety of factors 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 31843 

acting in combination to reduce the 

overall viability of the species. The risk 

of extinction is high because the 

remaining populations are small, are 

isolated, and have limited potential for 

natural recolonization. We find that a 

threatened species status is not 

appropriate for the beardless 

chinchweed because of the species’ 

current precarious condition due to its 

contracted range, because the stressors 

are severe and occurring rangewide, and 

because the stressors are ongoing and 

expected to continue into the future. 

Thus, after assessing the best available 

information, we determine that the 

beardless chinchweed is in danger of 

extinction throughout all of its range. 

Status Throughout a Significant Portion 

of Its Range 

Under the Act and our implementing 

regulations, a species may warrant 

listing if it is in danger of extinction or 

likely to become so in the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range. Because we have 

determined that beardless chinchweed 

is in danger of extinction throughout all 

of its range, we did not undertake an 

analysis of any significant portions of its 

range. Because the beardless 

chinchweed warrants listing as 

endangered throughout all of its range, 

our determination is consistent with the 

decision in Center for Biological 

Diversity v. Everson, 2020 WL 437289 

(D.D.C. Jan. 28, 2020), in which the 

court vacated the aspect of our Final 

Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase 

‘‘Significant Portion of Its Range’’ in the 

Endangered Species Act’s Definitions of 

‘‘Endangered Species’’ and ‘‘Threatened 

Species’’ (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014) 

that provided the Service and National 

Marine Fisheries Service do not 

undertake an analysis of significant 

portions of a species’ range if the 

species warrants listing as threatened 

throughout all of its range. 

Determination of Status 

Our review of the best available 

scientific and commercial information 

indicates that the beardless chinchweed 

meets the definition of an endangered 

species. Therefore, we are listing the 

beardless chinchweed as an endangered 

species in accordance with sections 3(6) 

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

Available Conservation Measures 

Conservation measures provided to 

species listed as endangered or 

threatened species under the Act 

include recognition, recovery actions, 

requirements for Federal protection, and 

prohibitions against certain practices. 

Recognition through listing results in 

public awareness, and conservation by 

Federal, State, Tribal, and local 

agencies; private organizations; and 

individuals. The Act encourages 

cooperation with the States and other 

countries and calls for recovery actions 

to be carried out for listed species. The 

protection required by Federal agencies 

and the prohibitions against certain 

activities are discussed, in part, below. 

The primary purpose of the Act is the 

conservation of endangered and 

threatened species and the ecosystems 

upon which they depend. The ultimate 

goal of such conservation efforts is the 

recovery of these listed species, so that 

they no longer need the protective 

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

Act calls for the Service to develop and 

implement recovery plans for the 

conservation of endangered and 

threatened species. The recovery 

planning process involves the 

identification of actions that are 

necessary to halt or reverse the species’ 

decline by addressing the stressors to its 

survival and recovery. The goal of this 

process is to restore listed species to a 

point where they are secure, 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 downlisting 

(reclassification from endangered to 

threatened) or delisting (removal from 

listed status), and methods for 

monitoring recovery progress. Recovery 

plans also establish a framework for 

agencies to coordinate their recovery 

efforts and provide estimates of the cost 

of implementing recovery tasks. 

Recovery teams (composed of species 

experts, Federal and State agencies, 

nongovernmental organizations, and 

stakeholders) are often established to 

develop recovery plans. When 

completed, the recovery outline, draft 

recovery plan, and the final recovery 

plan will be available on our website 

(http://www.fws.gov/endangered), or 

from our Arizona Ecological Services 

Field Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Implementation of recovery actions 

generally requires the participation of a 

broad range of partners, including other 

Federal agencies, States, Tribes, 

nongovernmental organizations, 

businesses, and private landowners. 

Examples of recovery actions include 

habitat restoration of native vegetation, 

research, captive propagation and 

reintroduction, and outreach and 

education. The recovery of many listed 

species cannot be accomplished solely 

on Federal lands because their range 

may occur primarily or solely on 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 

the beardless chinchweed. Information 

on our grant programs that are available 

to aid species recovery can be found at 

http://www.fws.gov/grants. 

Section 8(a) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 

1537(a)) authorizes the provision of 

limited financial assistance for the 

development and management of 

programs that the Secretary of the 

Interior determines to be necessary or 

useful for the conservation of 

endangered or threatened species in 

foreign countries. Sections 8(b) and 8(c) 

of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1537(b) and (c)) 

authorize the Secretary to encourage 

conservation programs for foreign listed 

species, and to provide assistance for 

such programs, in the form of personnel 

and the training of personnel. 

Please let us know if you are 

interested in participating in recovery 

efforts for the beardless chinchweed. 

Additionally, we invite you to submit 

any new information on this species 

whenever it becomes available and any 

information you may have for recovery 

planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Section 7(a) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies to evaluate their 

actions with respect to any species that 

is listed as an endangered or threatened 

species and with respect to its critical 

habitat, if any is designated. Regulations 

implementing this interagency 

cooperation provision of the Act are 

codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section 

7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal 

agencies to ensure that activities they 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
31844 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

authorize, fund, or carry out are not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any endangered or 

threatened species or destroy or 

adversely modify its critical habitat. If a 

Federal action may affect a listed 

species, the responsible Federal agency 

must enter into consultation with the 

Service. 

Federal agency actions within the 

species’ habitat that may require 

conference or consultation or both as 

described in the preceding paragraph 

include management and any other 

landscape-altering activities on Federal 

lands administered by the USFS 

(Coronado National Forest), Bureau of 

Land Management, U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection, and NPS (Coronado 

National Memorial). 

The Act and its implementing 

regulations set forth a series of general 

prohibitions and exceptions that apply 

to endangered plants. The prohibitions 

of section 9(a)(2) of the Act, codified at 

50 CFR 17.61, make it illegal for any 

person subject to the jurisdiction of the 

United States to: Import or export; 

remove and reduce to possession from 

areas under Federal jurisdiction; 

maliciously damage or destroy on any 

such area; remove, cut, dig up, or 

damage or destroy on any other area in 

knowing violation of any law or 

regulation of any State or in the course 

of any violation of a State criminal 

trespass law; deliver, receive, carry, 

transport, or ship in interstate or foreign 

commerce, by any means whatsoever 

and in the course of a commercial 

activity; or sell or offer for sale in 

interstate or foreign commerce an 

endangered plant. Certain exceptions 

apply to employees of the Service, the 

National Marine Fisheries Service, other 

Federal land management agencies, and 

State conservation agencies. 

We may issue permits to carry out 

otherwise prohibited activities 

involving endangered plants under 

certain circumstances. Regulations 

governing permits are codified at 50 

CFR 17.62. With regard to endangered 

plants, a permit may be issued for 

scientific purposes or for enhancing the 

propagation or survival of the species. 

There are also certain statutory 

exemptions from the prohibitions, 

which are found in sections 9 and 10 of 

the Act. 

It is our policy, as published in the 

Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 

34272), to identify to the maximum 

extent practicable at the time a species 

is listed, those activities that would or 

would not constitute a violation of 

section 9 of the Act. The intent of this 

policy is to increase public awareness of 

the effect of a listing on proposed and 

ongoing activities within the range of a 

listed species. Based on the best 

available information, the following 

actions are unlikely to result in a 

violation of section 9, if these activities 

are carried out in accordance with 

existing regulations and permit 

requirements; this list is not 

comprehensive: 

(1) Normal nonnative, invasive 

species control practices, such as 

herbicide use, that are carried out in 

accordance with any existing 

regulations, permit and label 

requirements, and best management 

practices; 

(2) Annual monitoring efforts; and 

(3) Additional surveys to understand 

the extent of occupied habitat. Based on 

the best available information, the 

following actions may potentially result 

in a violation of section 9 of the Act if 

they are not authorized in accordance 

with applicable law; this list is not 

comprehensive: 

(1) Unauthorized damage or collection 

of beardless chinchweed from lands 

under Federal jurisdiction; 

(2) Malicious destruction or 

degradation of the species or associated 

habitat on lands under Federal 

jurisdiction, including the intentional 

introduction of nonnative organisms 

that compete with or consume beardless 

chinchweed. 

Questions regarding whether specific 

activities would constitute a violation of 

section 9 of the Act should be directed 

to the Arizona Ecological Services Field 

Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT). 

II. Critical Habitat 

Background 

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 

of the Act as: 

(1) The specific areas within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species, at the time it is listed in 

accordance with the Act, on which are 

found those physical or biological 

features 

(a) Essential to the conservation of the 

species, and 

(b) Which may require special 

management considerations or 

protection; and 

(2) Specific areas outside the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time it is listed, upon a 

determination that such areas are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. 

Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 

define the geographical area occupied 

by the species as an area that may 

generally be delineated around species’ 

occurrences, as determined by the 

Secretary (i.e., range). Such areas may 

include those areas used throughout all 

or part of the species’ life cycle, even if 

not used on a regular basis (e.g., 

migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, 

and habitats used periodically, but not 

solely by vagrant individuals). 

Conservation, as defined under 

section 3 of the Act, means to use and 

the use of all methods and procedures 

that are necessary to bring an 

endangered or threatened species to the 

point at which the measures provided 

pursuant to the Act are no longer 

necessary. Such methods and 

procedures include, but are not limited 

to, all activities associated with 

scientific resources management such as 

research, census, law enforcement, 

habitat acquisition and maintenance, 

propagation, live trapping, and 

transplantation, and, in the 

extraordinary case where population 

pressures within a given ecosystem 

cannot be otherwise relieved, may 

include regulated taking. 

Critical habitat receives protection 

under section 7 of the Act through the 

requirement that Federal agencies 

ensure, in consultation with the Service, 

that any action they authorize, fund, or 

carry out is not likely to result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. The designation of 

critical habitat does not affect land 

ownership or establish a refuge, 

wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other 

conservation area. Such designation 

does not allow the government or public 

to access private lands. Such 

designation does not require 

implementation of restoration, recovery, 

or enhancement measures by 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 31845 

species and (2) which may require 

special management considerations or 

protection. For these areas, critical 

habitat designations identify, to the 

extent known using the best scientific 

and commercial data available, those 

physical or biological features that are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species (such as space, food, cover, and 

protected habitat). In identifying those 

physical or biological features that occur 

in specific occupied areas, we focus on 

the specific features that are essential to 

support the life-history needs of the 

species, including, but not limited to, 

water characteristics, soil type, 

geological features, prey, vegetation, 

symbiotic species, or other features. A 

feature may be a single habitat 

characteristic, or a more complex 

combination of habitat characteristics. 

Features may include habitat 

characteristics that support ephemeral 

or dynamic habitat conditions. Features 

may also be expressed in terms relating 

to principles of conservation biology, 

such as patch size, distribution 

distances, and connectivity. 

Under the second prong of the Act’s 

definition of critical habitat, we can 

designate critical habitat in areas 

outside the geographical area occupied 

by the species at the time it is listed, 

upon a determination that such areas 

are essential for the conservation of the 

species. When designating critical 

habitat, the Secretary will first evaluate 

areas occupied by the species. The 

Secretary will only consider unoccupied 

areas to be essential where a critical 

habitat designation limited to 

geographical areas occupied by the 

species would be inadequate to ensure 

the conservation of the species. In 

addition, for an unoccupied area to be 

considered essential, the Secretary must 

determine that there is a reasonable 

certainty both that the area will 

contribute to the conservation of the 

species and that the area contains one 

or more of those physical or biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species. 

Section 4 of the Act requires that we 

designate critical habitat on the basis of 

the best scientific data available. 

Further, our Policy on Information 

Standards under the Endangered 

Species Act (published in the Federal 

Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), 

the Information Quality Act (section 515 

of the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act for 

Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106–554; H.R. 

5658)), and our associated Information 

Quality Guidelines, provide criteria, 

establish procedures, and provide 

guidance to ensure that our decisions 

are based on the best scientific data 

available. They require our biologists, to 

the extent consistent with the Act and 

with the use of the best scientific data 

available, to use primary and original 

sources of information as the basis for 

recommendations to designate critical 

habitat. 

When we are determining which areas 

should be designated as critical habitat, 

our primary source of information is 

generally the information from the SSA 

report and information developed 

during the listing process for the 

species. Additional information sources 

may include any generalized 

conservation strategy, criteria, or outline 

that may have been developed for the 

species; the recovery plan for the 

species; articles in peer-reviewed 

journals; conservation plans developed 

by States and counties; scientific status 

surveys and studies; biological 

assessments; other unpublished 

materials; or experts’ opinions or 

personal knowledge. 

Habitat is dynamic, and species may 

move from one area to another over 

time. We recognize that critical habitat 

designated at a particular point in time 

may not include all of the habitat areas 

that we may later determine are 

necessary for the recovery of the 

species. For these reasons, a critical 

habitat designation does not signal that 

habitat outside the designated area is 

unimportant or may not be needed for 

recovery of the species. Areas that are 

important to the conservation of the 

species, both inside and outside the 

critical habitat designation, will 

continue to be subject to: (1) 

Conservation actions implemented 

under section 7(a)(1) of the Act; (2) 

regulatory protections afforded by the 

requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act 

for Federal agencies to ensure their 

actions are not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of any endangered 

or threatened species; and (3) the 

prohibitions found in section 9 of the 

Act. Federally funded or permitted 

projects affecting listed species outside 

their designated critical habitat areas 

may still result in jeopardy findings in 

some cases. These protections and 

conservation tools will continue to 

contribute to recovery of this species. 

Similarly, critical habitat designations 

made on the basis of the best available 

information at the time of designation 

will not control the direction and 

substance of future recovery plans, 

habitat conservation plans, or other 

species conservation planning efforts if 

new information available at the time of 

these planning efforts calls for a 

different outcome. 

Physical or Biological Features 

In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) 

of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 

424.12(b), in determining which areas 

we will designate as critical habitat from 

within the geographical area occupied 

by the species at the time of listing, we 

consider the physical or biological 

features that are essential to the 

conservation of the species and which 

may require special management 

considerations or protection. The 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define 

‘‘physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the species’’ as 

the features that occur in specific areas 

and that are essential to support the lifehistory needs of the species, including, 

but not limited to, water characteristics, 

soil type, geological features, sites, prey, 

vegetation, symbiotic species, or other 

features. A feature may be a single 

habitat characteristic or a more complex 

combination of habitat characteristics. 

Features may include habitat 

characteristics that support ephemeral 

or dynamic habitat conditions. Features 

may also be expressed in terms relating 

to principles of conservation biology, 

such as patch size, distribution 

distances, and connectivity. For 

example, physical features essential to 

the conservation of the species might 

include gravel of a particular size 

required for spawning, alkaline soil for 

seed germination, protective cover for 

migration, or susceptibility to flooding 

or fire that maintains necessary earlysuccessional habitat characteristics. 

Biological features might include prey 

species, forage grasses, specific kinds or 

ages of trees for roosting or nesting, 

symbiotic fungi, or a particular level of 

nonnative species consistent with 

conservation needs of the listed species. 

The features may also be combinations 

of habitat characteristics and may 

encompass the relationship between 

characteristics or the necessary amount 

of a characteristic essential to support 

the life history of the species. 

In considering whether features are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species, the Service may consider an 

appropriate quality, quantity, and 

spatial and temporal arrangement of 

habitat characteristics in the context of 

the life-history needs, condition, and 

status of the species. These 

characteristics include, but are not 

limited to, space for individual and 

population growth and for normal 

behavior; food, water, air, light, 

minerals, or other nutritional or 

physiological requirements; cover or 

shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction, 

or rearing (or development) of offspring; 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
31846 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

and habitats that are protected from 

disturbance. 

The beardless chinchweed needs 

multiple populations distributed across 

its range that are large enough to 

withstand stochastic events, and 

connectivity to reestablish extirpated 

populations. Species that are widely 

distributed are less susceptible to 

extinction and more likely to be viable 

than species confined to small ranges 

(Carroll et al. 2010, entire). Historically, 

there were 21 populations across seven 

mountain ranges. Nine populations (and 

one subpopulation) have been 

extirpated in the United States, and all 

populations are extirpated from the 

Patagonia Mountains in the United 

States. This leaves six populations 

across four mountain ranges covering an 

occupied area of about 2 ha (5 ac) in the 

United States and six small populations 

in Mexico. Further, two mountain 

ranges only have one population each 

with fewer than 50 individuals. In 

addition, one mountain range has only 

two populations, both with fewer than 

50 individuals each. The current 

distribution of this species does not 

represent its historical geographical 

distribution. Additional populations are 

needed to increase the redundancy of 

the species to secure the species from 

catastrophic events like wildfire and 

nonnative grass encroachment. 

Increased representation in the form of 

ecological environments are needed to 

secure the species against 

environmental changes like increased 

temperatures, increased drought, and 

increased evapotranspiration. 

Specifically, populations at higher 

altitudes are likely needed to secure the 

species’ viability. 

All populations need protection from 

wildfires of high severity and of greater 

frequency than was known historically 

and from nonnative grass encroachment. 

Further, all populations need protection 

from stressors related to one or more of 

the following activities: Recreation, road 

and trail maintenance, grazing, 

trampling, and mining. As discussed 

above, these stressors are currently, or 

will in the near future, impact all 

populations. Protection is needed from 

these stressors to ensure the 

conservation of the species. 

The minimum viable population size 

for this species is unknown. General 

conservation biology indicates that at 

least 500 individual are needed for a 

minimum viable population. Currently, 

11 of the 12 populations have fewer 

than 50 individuals. In Arizona, there 

are currently approximately 992 

individual beardless chinchweed plants 

spread across less than 2 ha (5 ac) 

within six extant populations spread 

across four mountain ranges. Space, in 

the form of habitat described above, is 

needed for an increase in the number of 

populations and the number of 

individuals per population. 

Space for individual and population 

growth is needed for the beardless 

chinchweed, including sites for 

germination, pollination, reproduction, 

pollen and seed dispersal, and seed 

banks in the form of open, nativedominated plains, great basin, and semidesert grasslands, oak savannas, and 

Madrean evergreen or oak woodlands at 

1,158 to 1,737 m (3,799 to 5,699 ft) in 

elevation (SEINet, entire) representing 

the ecosystems where beardless 

chinchweed occurs. In addition, plants 

need space on steep, south-facing, 

sunny to partially shaded hillslopes, 

with eroding bedrock and open areas 

with little competition from other 

plants. Native-dominated habitats have 

diverse assemblages of vegetation, each 

with different-shaped and -sized canopy 

and root system, which creates 

heterogeneity of form, height, and 

patchiness and provides openness. The 

diverse vegetation is dominated by 

bunchgrasses with open spacing 

(adjacent to and within 10 m (33 ft) of 

beardless chinchweed plants), providing 

beardless chinchweed with the 

necessary open habitat with little 

competition. The beardless chinchweed 

is presumed to be a poor competitor due 

to its preference for this open habitat 

and the inability to find the species 

under dense vegetation conditions. 

Pollination is necessary for effective 

fertilization, out-crossing, and seed 

production in beardless chinchweed. 

Bees, flies, and butterflies most likely 

pollinate beardless chinchweed, like 

other yellow-flowered composites. 

Many bees and butterflies can travel a 

distance of 1 km (0.62 mi); 

consequently, adequate space for 

pollinators is needed around beardless 

chinchweed populations to support 

pollinators and, therefore, crosspollination within and among 

populations and subpopulations. In 

addition, open space is needed in the 

form of seedbanks for population 

growth. Further, beardless chinchweed 

populations need space with soil 

moisture and nutrients for individual 

and population growth. 

Specific details about the physical or 

biological features essential to this 

species are described earlier in this 

document and in the SSA report 

(Service 2020). 

Summary of Essential Physical or 

Biological Features 

We derived the specific physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the beardless 

chinchweed from studies of this species’ 

habitat, ecology, and life history, as 

described below. We have determined 

that the following physical or biological 

features of the areas in Cochise, Pima, 

and Santa Cruz Counties, Arizona, are 

essential to the conservation of 

beardless chinchweed: 

(1) Native-dominated plant 

communities, consisting of: 

(a) Plains, great basin, and semi-desert 

grasslands, oak savanna, or Madrean 

evergreen woodland; 

(b) Communities dominated by 

bunchgrasses with open spacing 

(adjacent to and within 10 m (33 ft) of 

individual beardless chinchweed) and 

with little competition from other 

plants; and 

(c) Communities with plants for 

pollinator foraging and nesting within 1 

km (0.62 mi) of beardless chinchweed 

populations. 

(2) Between elevation of 1,158 to 

1,737 m (3,799 to 5,699 ft) elevation. 

(3) Eroding limestone or granite 

bedrock substrate. 

(4) Steep, south-facing, sunny to 

partially shaded hillslopes. 

(5) The presence of pollinators (i.e., 

flies, bees, and butterflies). 

Special Management Considerations or 

Protection 

When designating critical habitat, we 

assess whether the specific areas within 

the geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time of listing contain 

features which are essential to the 

conservation of the species and which 

may require special management 

considerations or protection. The 

features essential to the conservation of 

this species may require special 

management considerations or 

protection to reduce the following 

stressors: Altered fire regime, nonnative 

grass encroachment, grazing, erosion, 

and burial (see table 2, below). Special 

management considerations or 

protection are required within critical 

habitat areas to address these stressors. 

Management activities that could 

ameliorate these stressors include (but 

are not limited to): Prescribed fire, fire 

breaks, reduction of nonnative grasses, 

promotion or introduction of native 

forbs and grasses, cleaning of vegetation 

management equipment between uses, 

exclosure fences, and protection from 

erosion and burial. These management 

activities will protect the physical or 

biological features for the species by 

reducing or avoiding the encroachment 

or expansion of nonnative grass species, 

promoting native vegetation, and 

preventing the succession of vegetation 

so that open space and sun exposure are 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 31847 

maintained in beardless chinchweed 

habitat. 

TABLE 2—FEATURES THAT MAY REQUIRE SPECIAL MANAGEMENT

Features that may 

require special 

management 

Stressors to features Special management or protection 

to address stressors Features protected by 

Native-dominated plant 

communities.

Altered fire regime; 

nonnative grasses; 

grazing; road and 

trail maintenance.

Fire breaks around populations; prescribed 

fires; reduction of nonnative grasses; clean 

equipment to limit the spread of nonnatives; promotion or introduction of native 

forbs and grasses.

Avoidance of encroachment of nonnatives 

from wildfires and drought; promotion of 

native species through natural fire regime 

or other tools; avoidance of introducing 

nonnative species. 

Plants for pollinators .... Altered fire regime; 

nonnative grasses.

Fire breaks around populations; prescribed 

fires; reduction of nonnative grasses; promotion or introduction of native forbs and 

grasses.

Avoidance of encroachment of nonnatives 

from wildfires and drought; promotion of 

native species through natural fire regime 

or other tools; avoidance of introducing 

nonnative species. 

Open, sunny sites ....... Altered fire regime; 

nonnative grasses.

Prescribed fires; reduction of nonnative 

grasses; promotion or introduction of native 

forbs and grasses.

Elimination or reduction of the loss of open 

space and sun exposure. 

Criteria Used To Identify Critical 

Habitat 

As required by section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act, we use the best scientific data 

available to designate critical habitat. In 

accordance with the Act and our 

implementing regulations at 50 CFR 

424.12(b), we review available 

information pertaining to the habitat 

requirements of the species and identify 

specific areas within the geographical 

area occupied by the species at the time 

of listing and any specific areas outside 

the geographical area occupied by the 

species to be considered for designation 

as critical habitat. 

Because of the vulnerability 

associated with small populations, 

limited distributions, or both, 

conservation of the beardless 

chinchweed requires protection of both 

existing occupied habitat and potential 

habitat (i.e., suitable for occupancy but 

currently unoccupied), and the 

establishment of new populations to 

reduce or eliminate such vulnerability. 

The current distribution of beardless 

chinchweed is reduced from its 

historical distribution to a level where 

the species is in danger of extinction. Of 

the six U.S. populations that occur in 

four mountain ranges, two populations 

are in moderate condition and four are 

in low condition. Conservation of the 

species will require populations with 

increased resiliency, abundance, and 

distribution to increase the redundancy 

and representation of beardless 

chinchweed. Due to current stressors 

and expected future stressors, remaining 

populations are small, are isolated, and 

have limited potential for natural 

recolonization. We anticipate that 

recovery will require continued 

protection of existing populations and 

habitat, as well as reestablishment of 

populations at a subset of previously 

occupied habitats throughout the 

species’ historical range in the United 

States. Reestablishment of additional 

populations will help to ensure that 

catastrophic events, such as wildfire, 

cannot simultaneously affect all known 

populations (i.e., increased 

redundancy). For these reasons, we 

conclude that a critical habitat 

designation limited to areas occupied at 

the time of listing would be inadequate 

to ensure the conservation of the 

species. 

We are designating critical habitat in 

areas within the geographical area 

currently occupied by the species (i.e., 

at the time of proposed listing). In this 

case, we determined that occupied areas 

are inadequate to ensure the 

conservation of the species. Thus, we 

looked at historically occupied areas 

that currently possess the physical and 

biological features to determine if any 

areas are suitable for beardless 

chinchweed recolonization and 

subsequent persistence. In addition to 

areas occupied by the species at the 

time of listing, we are designating 

specific areas outside the geographical 

area occupied by the species at the time 

of listing (Units 5, 6, and 7), which were 

historically occupied but are presently 

unoccupied, because those areas are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species and contain one or more of the 

physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the species. The 

Service is reasonably certain that the 

unoccupied areas will contribute to the 

conservation of the species as a result of 

ongoing conservation efforts for 

beardless chinchweed with USFS that 

are expected to continue, including 

habitat management and research. When 

we are determining which areas should 

be designated as critical habitat, our 

primary source of information is 

generally the information developed 

during the listing process for the 

species. Additional information sources 

may include the recovery plan for the 

species, articles in peer-reviewed 

journals, conservation plans developed 

by States and counties, scientific status 

surveys and studies, biological 

assessments, other unpublished 

materials, or experts’ opinions or 

personal knowledge. In this case, we 

used existing occurrence data for the 

beardless chinchweed and information 

on the habitat and ecosystems upon 

which it depends. These sources of 

information included, but were not 

limited to: 

(1) Data used to prepare the rule to list 

the species; 

(2) Information from biological 

surveys; 

(3) Various agency reports and 

databases; 

(4) Information from NPS and other 

cooperators; 

(5) Information from species experts; 

(6) Data and information presented in 

academic research theses; and 

(7) Regional Geographic Information 

System (GIS) data (such as species 

occurrence data, land use, topography, 

aerial imagery, soil data, and land 

ownership maps) for area calculations 

and mapping. 

Areas Occupied at the Time of Listing 

In accordance with the Act and our 

implementing regulations at 50 CFR 

424.12(b), we reviewed available 

information pertaining to the habitat 

requirements of the species, identified 

specific areas within the geographical 

area occupied by the species at the time 

of listing, and examined whether we 

could identify any specific areas outside 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
31848 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

the geographical area occupied by the 

species to be considered for designation 

as critical habitat. 

The critical habitat designation does 

not include all populations known to 

have been occupied by the species 

historically; instead, it includes all 

currently occupied areas within the 

historical range that have retained the 

necessary physical or biological features 

that will allow for the maintenance and 

expansion of these existing populations. 

The following populations meet the 

definition of areas occupied by the 

species at the time of listing: McCleary 

Canyon (2 populations), Audubon 

Research Ranch, Scotia Canyon, 

Coronado National Memorial, and Ruby 

Road. 

Areas Outside the Geographical Area 

Occupied at the Time of Listing 

Because we determined that a critical 

habitat designation limited to 

geographical areas occupied by the 

species would be inadequate to ensure 

the conservation of the species, we are 

also designating unoccupied areas. Pena 

Blanca Lake, Summit Motorway, Copper 

Mountain, Lampshire Well, Harshaw 

Creek, Flux Canyon, Washington Camp, 

Box Canyon, and Joe’s Canyon are 

within the historical range of the 

beardless chinchweed, but are not 

currently occupied by the species. We 

determined these sites to be extirpated. 

Areas not occupied by the species at the 

time of listing are only considered to be 

essential if they contain one or more of 

the physical and biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species and if we have a reasonable 

certainty that the area will contribute to 

the conservation of the species. To 

determine if these areas are essential for 

the conservation of beardless 

chinchweed, we considered the life 

history, status, and conservation needs 

of the species such as: (1) The 

importance of the site to the overall 

status of the species to prevent 

extinction and contribute to future 

recovery of the beardless chinchweed; 

(2) whether the area could be restored 

to support the beardless chinchweed; (3) 

whether the site provides connectivity 

between occupied sites for genetic 

exchange; and (4) whether a population 

of the species could be reestablished in 

the area. 

Of the unoccupied areas, Lampshire 

Well, Harshaw Creek, and Washington 

Camp on USFS lands contain a mixture 

of native and nonnative grasses that 

could be feasibly restored to native 

conditions, thus making them suitable 

for reestablishment of the species, and 

they are important to the overall status 

of the species. The reestablishment of 

the Washington Camp population 

would reintroduce the species into the 

Patagonia Mountains, where currently it 

is extirpated. The reestablishment of 

beardless chinchweed into the 

Patagonia Mountains would restore the 

historical range of the species in terms 

of occupied mountain ranges. This area 

would provide key representation and 

redundancy needed for conservation of 

the species. Further, the addition of two 

reestablished populations in the Canelo 

Hills would increase the redundancy of 

the species in this area and reduce the 

chance that a catastrophic event would 

eliminate all populations in this area. 

Currently, there is only one population 

with 37 individuals in the Canelo Hills. 

Of the remaining historical 

populations in the United States, Pena 

Blanca Lake, Summit Motorway, Copper 

Mountain, Box Canyon, Joe’s Canyon, 

and Flux Canyon are heavily infested 

with nonnative grasses to an extent 

where restoration of native vegetation is 

not likely feasible. Reestablishment of 

the species to these historical sites is not 

likely to be successful and, therefore, 

not likely to contribute to the recovery 

of the species. Therefore, these 

remaining historical sites are not 

included in the designation of critical 

habitat. 

In summary, for areas within the 

geographic area occupied by the species 

at the time of listing (i.e., currently 

occupied), we delineated critical habitat 

unit boundaries by evaluating the 

habitat suitability of areas within the 

geographic area occupied at the time of 

listing, and retaining those units that 

contain some or all of the physical or 

biological features to support lifehistory functions essential for 

conservation of the species. 

For areas outside the geographic area 

occupied by the species at the time of 

listing, we delineated critical habitat 

unit boundaries by evaluating areas not 

known to have been occupied at listing 

(i.e., that are not currently occupied) but 

that are within the historical range of 

the species to determine if they are 

essential to the survival and recovery of 

the species. Essential areas are those 

that: (1) Serve to extend an occupied 

unit; and (2) expand the geographic 

distribution within areas not occupied 

at the time of listing across the historical 

range of the species. 

We conclude that the areas we are 

designating as critical habitat provide 

for the conservation of the beardless 

chinchweed because they include 

habitat for all extant populations and 

include habitat for connectivity and 

dispersal opportunities within units. 

Such opportunities for dispersal assist 

in maintaining the population structure 

and distribution of the species. In 

addition, the unoccupied units each 

contain one or more of the physical or 

biological features and are likely to 

provide for the conservation of the 

species. Each of the unoccupied areas 

are on lands managed by the Coronado 

National Forest. The Forest Plan for the 

Coronado National Forest contains 

several important guidelines that will 

contribute to the conservation of the 

beardless chinchweed, including 

control of nonnative vegetation, 

promotion of native grasses, and 

protections for species listed under the 

Act (USFS 2018). Designation of critical 

habitat will facilitate the application of 

this guidance where it will do the most 

good for the beardless chinchweed. 

As a final step, we evaluated occupied 

units and refined the area by evaluating 

the presence or absence of appropriate 

physical or biological features. We 

selected the boundary of a unit to 

include 1 km (0.62 mi) of foraging and 

reproductive habitat for pollinators 

necessary for the beardless chinchweed. 

We then mapped critical habitat units 

using ArcMap version 10 

(Environmental Systems Research 

Institute, Inc.), a GIS program. 

The areas included in the critical 

habitat designation provide sufficient 

habitat for recruitment, pollinators, seed 

bank, and seed dispersal. In general, the 

physical or biological features of critical 

habitat are contained within 1 km (0.62 

mi) of beardless chinchweed plants 

within the population. 

When determining critical habitat 

boundaries within this final rule, we 

made every effort to avoid including 

developed areas such as lands covered 

by buildings, pavement, and other 

structures because such lands lack the 

physical or biological features necessary 

for the beardless chinchweed. The scale 

of the maps we prepared under the 

parameters for publication within the 

Code of Federal Regulations may not 

reflect the exclusion of such developed 

lands. Any such lands inadvertently left 

inside critical habitat boundaries shown 

on the maps of this rule have been 

excluded by text in the rule and are not 

designated as critical habitat. Therefore, 

a Federal action involving these lands 

will not trigger section 7 consultation 

with respect to critical habitat and the 

requirement of no adverse modification 

unless the specific action would affect 

the physical or biological features in the 

adjacent critical habitat. 

We are designating critical habitat in 

areas within the geographical area 

occupied by the species at the time of 

listing (i.e., currently occupied) and that 

contain one or more of the physical or 

biological features that are essential to 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 31849 

support the life-history processes of the 

species. Because of the species’ 

vulnerabilities related to small, isolated 

populations, current and ongoing 

stressors, and limited distribution, we 

have determined that occupied areas are 

inadequate to ensure the conservation of 

the species. We are also designating 

specific areas outside the geographical 

area occupied by the species at the time 

of listing, that were historically 

occupied but are presently unoccupied, 

because we have determined that such 

areas are essential for the conservation 

of the species. 

On December 16, 2020, we published 

a final rule in the Federal Register (85 

FR 81411) adding a definition of 

‘‘habitat’’ to our regulations for purposes 

of critical habitat designations under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). This rule became 

effective on January 15, 2021 and only 

applies to critical habitat rules for 

which a proposed rule was published 

after January 15, 2021. Consequently, 

this new regulation does not apply to 

this final rule. 

Units are designated based on one or 

more of the physical or biological 

features being present to support the 

beardless chinchweed’s life-history 

processes. Some units contain all of the 

identified physical or biological features 

and support multiple life-history 

processes. Some units contain only 

some of the physical or biological 

features necessary to support the 

beardless chinchweed’s particular use of 

that habitat. 

The critical habitat designation is 

defined by the map, as modified by any 

accompanying regulatory text, presented 

at the end of this document under 

Regulation Promulgation. We include 

more detailed information on the 

boundaries of the critical habitat 

designation in the preamble of this 

document. We will make the 

coordinates or plot points or both on 

which the map is based available to the 

public on http://www.regulations.gov at 

Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2018–0104, on 

our internet site at https://www.fws.gov/ 

southwest/es/arizona/Docs_

Species.htm, and at the field office 

responsible for the designation (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Final Critical Habitat Designation 

We are designating approximately 

10,604 ac (4,291 ha) in eight units as 

critical habitat for the beardless 

chinchweed. The critical habitat areas 

we describe below constitute our 

current best assessment of areas that 

meet the definition of critical habitat for 

the beardless chinchweed. Those eight 

units are: (1) McCleary Canyon, (2) 

Audubon Research Ranch, (3) Scotia 

Canyon, (4) Coronado National 

Memorial, (5) Lampshire Well, (6) 

Harshaw Creek, (7) Washington Camp, 

and (8) Ruby Road. Table 3 shows the 

name, occupancy of the unit, land 

ownership, and approximate area of the 

designated critical habitat for the 

beardless chinchweed. 

TABLE 3—CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS AND OCCUPANCY OF BEARDLESS CHINCHWEED

Critical habitat unit Occupied at the 

time of listing Ownership Size of unit in acres (hectares) 

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

2—Audubon Research Ranch ..... Yes ........................ Bureau of Land Management (BLM), USFS, Private (Audubon Research Ranch).1,170 ac (474 ha) BLM; 817 ac 

(331 ha) USFS; 300 ac (121 

ha) private. 

3—Scotia Canyon ........................ Yes ........................ USFS ....................................................................... 855 ac (346 ha). 

4—Coronado National Memorial .. Yes ........................ National Park Service ............................................. 2,109 ac (853 ha). 

5—Lampshire Well ....................... No ......................... USFS ....................................................................... 939 ac (380 ha). 

6—Harshaw Creek ....................... No ......................... USFS ....................................................................... 1,013 ac (410 ha). 

7—Washington Camp .................. No ......................... USFS ....................................................................... 939 ac (380 ha). 

8—Ruby Road .............................. Yes ........................ USFS ....................................................................... 776 ac (314 ha). 

Total ...................................... ............................... ................................................................................. 10,604 ac (4,291 ha) 

Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding. 

We present brief descriptions of all 

units, and reasons why they meet the 

definition of critical habitat for the 

beardless chinchweed, below. Each of 

the eight units contain at least one of the 

physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of beardless 

chinchweed (see Summary of Essential 

Physical or Biological Features, above). 

Unit 1: McCleary Canyon 

The McCleary Canyon unit occurs in 

the northeastern portion of the Santa 

Rita Mountains in Pima County, 

Arizona, and is managed by the USFS. 

This unit is 1,686 ac (682 ha) in size and 

is currently occupied. The unit contains 

two extant populations: Gunsight Pass 

and Wasp Canyon. Each population 

within the McCleary Canyon unit 

supports 32 individual beardless 

chinchweed plants. The proposed 

Rosemont Copper Mine occurs in this 

unit, and ongoing and historical mining 

activities occur throughout the Santa 

Rita Mountains. This unit also receives 

substantial recreational pressure and 

livestock grazing. The Gunsight Pass 

population is one of the few populations 

within the range of the beardless 

chinchweed where native grass species 

dominate the site. The Wasp Canyon 

population has a mixture of native and 

nonnative grass species. The McCleary 

Canyon unit provides all five of the 

physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the beardless 

chinchweed. The physical and 

biological features in this unit may 

require special management 

considerations, including reduction in 

nonnative grass presence, promotion of 

native forbs and grasses, removal of 

livestock between April and October, 

and the creation of exclosures. This unit 

includes habitat for species already 

listed under the Act, including the 

jaguar (Panthera onca), ocelot 

(Leopardus (=Felis) pardalis), Mexican 

spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida), 

yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus 

americanus), and Chiricahua leopard 

frog (Lithobates chiricahuensis, listed as 

Rana chiricahuensis). This unit overlaps 

with designated critical habitat for the 

jaguar. 

Unit 2: Audubon Research Ranch 

The Audubon Research Ranch unit 

occurs in the northern portion of the 

Canelo Hills in Santa Cruz County, 

Arizona, and is managed by the 

Audubon Society, and some plants 

occur on the Coronado National Forest. 

This unit is 2,287 ac (926 ha) in size and 

is currently occupied. The O’Donnell 

Canyon population is currently extant 

but there was one additional 

population, Post Canyon, that occurred 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
31850 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

here historically. The Audubon 

Research Ranch unit supports 37 

individual beardless chinchweed plants 

and is one of the few sites within the 

range of the beardless chinchweed 

where native grass species dominate the 

site. The Audubon Research Ranch unit 

provides all five of the physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the beardless 

chinchweed. Features in this unit may 

require special management 

considerations, including reduction in 

nonnative grass presence and promotion 

of native forbs and grasses. This unit 

includes habitat for species already 

listed under the Act: Jaguar, ocelot, 

Mexican spotted owl, yellow-billed 

cuckoo, Chiricahua leopard frog, Gila 

chub (Gila intermedia), northern 

Mexican gartersnake (Thamnophis 

eques megalops), and Huachuca waterumbel (Lilaeopsis schaffneriana var. 

recurva). In addition, this unit includes 

designated critical habitat for 

Chiricahua leopard frog, Gila chub, and 

Huachuca water-umbel, and proposed 

critical habitat for northern Mexican 

gartersnake. 

Unit 3: Scotia Canyon 

The Scotia Canyon unit occurs on the 

western slopes of the Huachuca 

Mountains in Cochise County, Arizona, 

and is managed by the USFS. This unit 

is 855 ac (346 ha) in size and is 

currently occupied by beardless 

chinchweed. This unit includes one 

extant population estimated to contain 

40 individual beardless chinchweed 

plants. This unit has been impacted by 

historical mining, grazing, and wildfire. 

High recreational use also occurs in this 

unit. The Scotia Canyon unit is one of 

the few sites within the range of 

beardless chinchweed where native 

grass species dominate the site. The 

Scotia Canyon unit provides all five of 

the physical or biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

beardless chinchweed. The physical and 

biological features in this unit may 

require special management 

considerations, including reduction in 

nonnative grass presence, promotion of 

native forbs and grasses, reduction in 

road maintenance activity, removal of 

livestock between April and October, 

and the creation of exclosures. This unit 

includes habitat for species already 

listed under the Act: Jaguar, ocelot, 

Mexican spotted owl, yellow-billed 

cuckoo, Chiricahua leopard frog, 

northern Mexican gartersnake, and 

Huachuca water-umbel. In addition, this 

unit includes designated critical habitat 

for jaguar and Huachuca water-umbel, 

and proposed critical habitat for 

northern Mexican gartersnake. 

Unit 4: Coronado National Memorial 

The Coronado National Memorial unit 

occurs in the southern portion of the 

Huachuca Mountains in Cochise 

County, Arizona, and is managed by the 

NPS. This unit is 2,109 ac (853 ha) in 

size and is occupied by beardless 

chinchweed. The unit contains two 

extant subpopulations: The Visitor 

Center and the State of Texas Mine. The 

area around the visitor center supports 

approximately 785 individual beardless 

chinchweed plants. Another 61 plants 

have been documented in the vicinity of 

the State of Texas mine. This unit 

includes lands within the 1 km buffer of 

foraging and reproductive habitat for 

pollinators necessary for the beardless 

chinchweed where the historical 

subpopulation, Joe’s Canyon Trail, 

occurred. As described in the response 

to public comments, beardless 

chinchweed may have been noted at 

Joe’s Canyon Trail in 2012; however, 

three surveys since 2014 have not 

detected the species. The lands in this 

unit have been affected by historical 

mining, support a high level of 

recreational use, and experience 

ongoing impacts from wildfire. Portions 

of the Coronado National Memorial unit 

are dominated by native grass species, 

while other areas are a mixture of native 

and nonnative grasses. The Coronado 

National Memorial unit provides all five 

of the physical or biological features 

essential to the conservation of 

beardless chinchweed. The physical and 

biological features in this unit may 

require special management 

considerations, including reduction in 

nonnative grass presence and promotion 

of native forbs and grasses. This unit 

includes habitat for species already 

listed under the Act: Jaguar, ocelot, 

Mexican spotted owl, yellow-billed 

cuckoo, Chiricahua leopard frog, 

northern Mexican gartersnake, and 

Huachuca water-umbel. In addition, this 

unit includes designated critical habitat 

for jaguar and Mexican spotted owl. 

Unit 5: Lampshire Well 

The Lampshire Well unit occurs in 

the Canelo Hills in Santa Cruz County, 

Arizona, and is managed by the USFS. 

This unit is 939 ac (380 ha) in size and 

is currently unoccupied. Historically, 

beardless chinchweed populations 

occurred on this unit. This unit is 

characterized by communities of mixed 

native and nonnative grasses, and is 

subject to impacts from cross-border 

activities (foot traffic and increased fire 

ignition) and wildfire. This unit 

includes habitat for species already 

listed under the Act: Jaguar, ocelot, 

Mexican spotted owl, yellow-billed 

cuckoo, Chiricahua leopard frog, 

northern Mexican gartersnake, 

Huachuca water-umbel, and Canelo 

Hills ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes 

delitescens). In addition, this unit 

includes designated critical habitat for 

jaguar and proposed critical habitat for 

northern Mexican gartersnake. 

Although it is currently unoccupied, 

this unit contains all five of the physical 

or biological features essential to the 

conservation of beardless chinchweed. 

This unit consists of a mix of native and 

nonnative grasses, with scattered oak 

and juniper, at an elevation of 1,646 m 

(5,400 ft), on granitic substrate with 

steep slopes facing the southwest. There 

are areas in this unit that contain more 

native grasses than nonnative grasses. 

The USFS is committed to managing for 

the recovery of listed species; reducing 

nonnative, invasive species; and 

managing fuel loads to reduce potential 

for high-intensity wildfire (USDA FS 

2018, pp. 18, 67, 212, 216). The 

Lampshire Well unit is essential to the 

conservation of the species because it 

provides for habitat and population 

restoration opportunities, as well as 

provides habitat connectivity for 

beardless chinchweed and its 

pollinators. Recovery of this species will 

require new and expanded populations, 

and this unit provides necessary habitat 

that will contribute to the species’ 

resiliency (larger and more 

populations), redundancy (more 

populations across the range), and 

representation (opportunities for 

increased genetic and environmental 

variation). We have determined that this 

unoccupied unit contains all five of the 

physical or biological features that are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species and that it is reasonably certain 

that it will contribute to the 

conservation of the species. 

Unit 6: Harshaw Creek 

The Harshaw Creek unit occurs in the 

Canelo Hills in Santa Cruz County, 

Arizona, and is managed by the U.S. 

Forest Service. This unit is 1,013 ac (410 

ha) in size and is currently unoccupied. 

Historically, beardless chinchweed 

populations occurred on this unit. This 

unit is characterized by communities of 

mixed native and nonnative grasses, and 

is subject to cross-border activities (foot 

traffic and increased fire ignition) and 

wildfire. This unit includes habitat for 

species already listed under the Act: 

Jaguar, ocelot, Mexican spotted owl, 

yellow-billed cuckoo, Chiricahua 

leopard frog, northern Mexican 

gartersnake, Huachuca water-umbel, 

and Canelo Hills ladies’-tresses. In 

addition, this unit includes designated 

critical habitat for jaguar and proposed 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 31851 

critical habitat for northern Mexican 

gartersnake. 

Although it is currently unoccupied, 

portions of this unit contain all five of 

the physical or biological features 

essential for the conservation of 

beardless chinchweed. This unit 

consists of a mix of native and 

nonnative grasses, with scattered oak 

and junipers, at an elevation of 1,494 m 

(4,900 ft), on granitic, rocky substrate 

with steep slopes facing the southwest. 

There are areas in this unit with more 

native grasses than nonnative grasses. 

The U.S. Forest Service is committed to 

managing for the recovery of listed 

species; reducing nonnative, invasive 

species; and managing fuel loads to 

reduce potential for high-intensity 

wildfire (USDA Forest Service 2018, pp. 

18, 67, 212, 216). The Harshaw Creek 

unit is essential to the conservation of 

the species because it provides for 

habitat and population restoration 

opportunities, as well as provides 

habitat connectivity for beardless 

chinchweed and its pollinators. 

Recovery of this species will require 

new and expanded populations, and 

this unit provides for this needed 

habitat that will contribute to the 

species’ resiliency (larger and more 

populations), redundancy (more 

populations across the range), and 

representation (opportunities for 

increased genetic and environmental 

variation). We have determined that this 

unoccupied unit contains all five of the 

physical or biological features that are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species and that it is reasonably certain 

to contribute to the conservation of the 

species. 

Unit 7: Washington Camp 

The Washington Camp unit occurs in 

the northeastern portion of the 

Patagonia Mountains in Santa Cruz 

County, Arizona, and is managed by the 

U.S. Forest Service. This unit is 939 ac 

(380 ha) in size and is currently 

unoccupied. A number of mining 

activities are proposed on lands within 

this unit, and this unit is also subject to 

cross-border activities (foot traffic and 

increased fire ignition), recreational use, 

and wildfire. This unit is characterized 

by a mixture of native and nonnative 

grass species. This unit includes habitat 

for species already listed under the Act: 

Jaguar, ocelot, Mexican spotted owl, 

yellow-billed cuckoo, Chiricahua 

leopard frog, and northern Mexican 

gartersnake. In addition, this unit 

includes designated critical habitat for 

jaguar and Mexican spotted owl, and 

proposed critical habitat for northern 

Mexican gartersnake. 

Although it is currently unoccupied, 

portions of this unit contain all five of 

the physical or biological features 

essential for the conservation of 

beardless chinchweed. This unit 

consists of a mix of native and 

nonnative grasses, with scattered oak 

and juniper at an elevation of 1,646 m 

(5,400 ft), on granitic substrate with 

steep slopes facing the southwest. There 

are areas in this unit that contain more 

native grasses than nonnative grasses. 

The U.S. Forest Service is committed to 

managing for the recovery of listed 

species; reducing nonnative, invasive 

species; and managing fuel loads to 

reduce potential for high-intensity 

wildfire (USDA Forest Service 2018, pp. 

18, 67, 212, 216). The Washington Camp 

unit is essential to the conservation of 

the species because it provides for 

habitat and population restoration 

opportunities, as well as provides 

habitat connectivity for beardless 

chinchweed and its pollinators. 

Recovery of this species will require 

new and expanded populations, and 

this unit provides for this needed 

habitat that will contribute to the 

species’ resiliency (larger and more 

populations), redundancy (more 

populations across the range), and 

representation (opportunities for 

increased genetic and environmental 

variation). We have determined that this 

unoccupied unit contains one or more 

of the physical or biological features 

that are essential to the conservation of 

the species and that it is reasonably 

certain that it will contribute to the 

conservation of the species. 

Unit 8: Ruby Road 

The Ruby Road unit occurs in the 

Atascosa-Pajarito Mountains in Santa 

Cruz County, Arizona, and is managed 

by the U.S. Forest Service. This unit is 

776 ac (314 ha) in size and is currently 

occupied. There is one extant 

population, Ruby Road, within this unit 

that supports approximately 10 

individual beardless chinchweed plants. 

Despite the fact that nonnative grasses 

dominate this unit, beardless 

chinchweed is able to overcome this 

competition by occurring in areas along 

a roadside that is regularly maintained, 

which removes much of the nonnative 

grass cover. This unit has been affected 

by past mining activities, and is subject 

to ongoing cross-border activities (foot 

traffic and increased fire ignition), 

recreational use, grazing, and wildfire. 

The Ruby Road unit currently provides 

four of the physical or biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

beardless chinchweed. The physical and 

biological features in this unit may 

require special management 

considerations, including reduction in 

nonnative grass presence, promotion of 

native forbs and grasses, reduction in 

road maintenance activity, removal of 

livestock between April and October, 

and creation of exclosures. This unit 

includes habitat for species already 

listed under the Act: Jaguar, ocelot, 

Mexican spotted owl, yellow-billed 

cuckoo, Chiricahua leopard frog, and 

northern Mexican gartersnake. In 

addition, this unit includes designated 

critical habitat for jaguar, Mexican 

spotted owl, and Chiricahua leopard 

frog. 

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation 

Section 7 Consultation 

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

Federal agencies, including the Service, 

to ensure that any action they fund, 

authorize, or carry out is not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

any endangered species or threatened 

species or result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of designated 

critical habitat of such species. In 

addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act 

requires Federal agencies to confer with 

the Service on any agency action which 

is likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any species proposed to be 

listed under the Act or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

proposed critical habitat. 

We published a final rule revising the 

definition of destruction or adverse 

modification on August 27, 2019 (84 FR 

44976). Destruction or adverse 

modification means a direct or indirect 

alteration that appreciably diminishes 

the value of critical habitat as a whole 

for the conservation of a listed species. 

If a Federal action may affect a listed 

species or its critical habitat, the 

responsible Federal agency (action 

agency) must enter into consultation 

with us. Examples of actions that are 

subject to the section 7 consultation 

process are actions on State, Tribal, 

local, or private lands that require a 

Federal permit (such as a permit from 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under 

section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 

U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the 

Service under section 10 of the Act) or 

that involve some other Federal action 

(such as funding from the Federal 

Highway Administration, Federal 

Aviation Administration, or the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency). 

Federal actions not affecting listed 

species or critical habitat, and actions 

on State, Tribal, local, or private lands 

that are not federally funded, 

authorized, or carried out by a Federal 

agency, do not require section 7 

consultation. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
31852 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

Compliance with the requirements of 

section 7(a)(2) is documented through 

our issuance of: 

(1) A concurrence letter for Federal 

actions that may affect, but are not 

likely to adversely affect, listed species 

or critical habitat; or 

(2) A biological opinion for Federal 

actions that may affect, and are likely to 

adversely affect, listed species or critical 

habitat. 

When we issue a biological opinion 

concluding that a project is likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of a 

listed species and/or destroy or 

adversely modify critical habitat, we 

provide reasonable and prudent 

alternatives to the project, if any are 

identifiable, that would avoid the 

likelihood of jeopardy and/or 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. We define ‘‘reasonable 

and prudent alternatives’’ (at 50 CFR 

402.02) as alternative actions identified 

during consultation that: 

(1) Can be implemented in a manner 

consistent with the intended purpose of 

the action, 

(2) Can be implemented consistent 

with the scope of the Federal agency’s 

legal authority and jurisdiction, 

(3) Are economically and 

technologically feasible, and 

(4) Would, in the Service Director’s 

opinion, avoid the likelihood of 

jeopardizing the continued existence of 

the listed species and/or avoid the 

likelihood of destroying or adversely 

modifying critical habitat. 

Reasonable and prudent alternatives 

can vary from slight project 

modifications to extensive redesign or 

relocation of the project. Costs 

associated with implementing a 

reasonable and prudent alternative are 

similarly variable. 

Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require 

Federal agencies to reinitiate formal 

consultation on previously reviewed 

actions. These requirements apply when 

the Federal agency has retained 

discretionary involvement or control 

over the action (or the agency’s 

discretionary involvement or control is 

authorized by law) and, subsequent to 

the previous consultation, we have 

listed a new species or designated 

critical habitat that may be affected by 

the Federal action, or the action has 

been modified in a manner that affects 

the species or critical habitat in a way 

not considered in the previous 

consultation. In such situations, Federal 

agencies sometimes may need to request 

reinitiation of consultation with us, but 

the regulations also specify some 

exceptions to the requirement to 

reinitiate consultation on specific land 

management plans after subsequently 

listing a new species or designating new 

critical habitat. See the regulations for a 

description of those exceptions. 

Application of the ‘‘Adverse 

Modification’’ Standard 

The key factor related to the 

destruction or adverse modification 

determination is whether 

implementation of the proposed Federal 

action directly or indirectly alters the 

designated critical habitat in a way that 

appreciably diminishes the value of the 

critical habitat as a whole for the 

conservation of the listed species. As 

discussed above, the role of critical 

habitat is to support physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of a listed species and 

provide for the conservation of the 

species. 

Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us 

to briefly evaluate and describe, in any 

proposed or final rule that designates 

critical habitat, activities involving a 

Federal action that may violate 7(a)(2) of 

the Act by destroying or adversely 

modifying such habitat, or that may be 

affected by such designation. 

Activities that the Services may, 

during a consultation under section 

7(a)(2) of the Act, find are likely to 

destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat include, but are not limited to: 

(1) Actions that would remove native 

bunchgrass communities. Such 

activities could include, but are not 

limited to, livestock grazing; fire 

management; trails construction and 

maintenance; infrastructure and road 

construction and maintenance; 

recreation management; minerals 

extraction and restoration; visitor use 

and management; and construction and 

maintenance of border roads, fences, 

barriers, and towers. These activities 

could eliminate or reduce open habitat 

necessary for growth, seed production, 

seedbank, and pollinators of beardless 

chinchweed. 

(2) Actions that would result in the 

introduction, spread, or augmentation of 

nonnative grass species. Such activities 

could include, but are not limited to, 

livestock grazing; fire management; 

trails construction and maintenance; 

infrastructure and road construction and 

maintenance; recreation management; 

minerals extraction and restoration; 

visitor use and management; and 

construction and maintenance of border 

roads, fences, barriers, and towers. 

These activities could increase the 

amount of nonnative grasses or 

introduce nonnative grasses, which 

eliminate or reduce open habitat 

necessary for growth, seed production, 

seedbank, and pollinators of beardless 

chinchweed. 

(3) Actions that would promote highseverity wildfires. Such activities could 

include, but are not limited to, 

recreation and encouraging the 

encroachment of nonnative grasses. 

These activities could eliminate or 

reduce open habitat necessary for 

growth, seed production, seedbank, and 

pollinators of beardless chinchweed. 

Exemptions 

Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act 

Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 

U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) provides that the 

Secretary shall not designate as critical 

habitat any lands or other geographical 

areas owned or controlled by the 

Department of Defense, or designated 

for its use, that are subject to an 

integrated natural resources 

management plan (INRMP) prepared 

under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 

U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary determines 

in writing that such plan provides a 

benefit to the species for which critical 

habitat is proposed for designation. 

There are no Department of Defense 

lands with a completed INRMP within 

the final critical habitat designation. 

Consideration of Impacts Under Section 

4(b)(2) of the Act 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that 

the Secretary shall designate and make 

revisions to critical habitat on the basis 

of the best available scientific data after 

taking into consideration the economic 

impact, national security impact, and 

any other relevant impact of specifying 

any particular area as critical habitat. 

The Secretary may exclude an area from 

critical habitat if he determines that the 

benefits of such exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of specifying such area as part 

of the critical habitat, unless he 

determines, based on the best scientific 

data available, that the failure to 

designate such area as critical habitat 

will result in the extinction of the 

species. In making that determination, 

the statute on its face, as well as the 

legislative history, are clear that the 

Secretary has broad discretion regarding 

which factor(s) to use and how much 

weight to give to any factor. On 

December 18, 2020, we published a final 

rule in the Federal Register (85 FR 

82376) revising portions of our 

regulations pertaining to exclusions of 

critical habitat. These final regulations 

became effective on January 19, 2021 

and apply to critical habitat rules for 

which a proposed rule was published 

after January 19, 2021. Consequently, 

these new regulations do not apply to 

this final rule. 

We describe below the process that 

we undertook for taking into 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 31853 

consideration each category of impacts 

and our analyses of the relevant 

impacts. 

Consideration of Economic Impacts 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and its 

implementing regulations require that 

we consider the economic impact that 

may result from a designation of critical 

habitat. To assess the probable 

economic impacts of a designation, we 

must first evaluate specific land uses or 

activities and projects that may occur in 

the area of the critical habitat. We then 

must evaluate the impacts that a specific 

critical habitat designation may have on 

restricting or modifying specific land 

uses or activities for the benefit of the 

species and its habitat within the areas 

proposed. We then identify which 

conservation efforts may be the result of 

the species being listed under the Act 

versus those attributed solely to the 

designation of critical habitat for this 

particular species. The probable 

economic impact of a critical habitat 

designation is analyzed by comparing 

scenarios both ‘‘with critical habitat’’ 

and ‘‘without critical habitat.’’ 

The ‘‘without critical habitat’’ 

scenario represents the baseline for the 

analysis, which includes the existing 

regulatory and socio-economic burden 

imposed on landowners, managers, or 

other resource users potentially affected 

by the designation of critical habitat 

(e.g., under the Federal listing as well as 

other Federal, State, and local 

regulations). The baseline, therefore, 

represents the costs of all efforts 

attributable to the listing of the species 

under the Act (i.e., conservation of the 

species and its habitat incurred 

regardless of whether critical habitat is 

designated). The ‘‘with critical habitat’’ 

scenario describes the incremental 

impacts associated specifically with the 

designation of critical habitat for the 

species. The incremental conservation 

efforts and associated impacts would 

not be expected without the designation 

of critical habitat for the species. In 

other words, the incremental costs are 

those attributable solely to the 

designation of critical habitat, above and 

beyond the baseline costs. These are the 

costs we use when evaluating the 

benefits of inclusion and exclusion of 

particular areas from the final 

designation of critical habitat when 

conducting a discretionary 4(b)(2) 

exclusion analysis. 

For this particular designation, we 

developed an incremental effects 

memorandum (IEM) considering the 

probable incremental economic impacts 

that may result from the designation of 

critical habitat. The information 

contained in our IEM was then used to 

develop a screening analysis of the 

probable effects of the designation of 

critical habitat for the beardless 

chinchweed (Industrial Economics, 

Incorporated (IEc) 2018, entire). We 

began by conducting a screening 

analysis of the designation of critical 

habitat in order to focus our analysis on 

the key factors that are likely to result 

in incremental economic impacts. The 

purpose of the screening analysis is to 

filter out particular geographic areas of 

critical habitat that are already subject 

to such protections and are, therefore, 

unlikely to incur incremental economic 

impacts. In particular, the screening 

analysis considers baseline costs (i.e., 

absent critical habitat designation) and 

includes probable economic impacts 

where land and water use may be 

subject to conservation plans, land 

management plans, best management 

practices, or regulations that protect the 

habitat area as a result of the Federal 

listing status of the species. Ultimately, 

the screening analysis allows us to focus 

our analysis on evaluating the specific 

areas or sectors that may incur probable 

incremental economic impacts as a 

result of the designation. If there are any 

unoccupied units in the critical habitat 

designation, the screening analysis 

assesses whether any additional 

management or conservation efforts may 

incur incremental economic impacts. 

This screening analysis, combined with 

the information contained in our IEM, is 

what we consider our economic analysis 

of the critical habitat designation for the 

beardless chinchweed and is 

summarized in the narrative below. 

Executive Orders (E.O.) 12866 and 

13563 direct Federal agencies to assess 

the costs and benefits of available 

regulatory alternatives in quantitative 

(to the extent feasible) and qualitative 

terms. Consistent with the E.O. 

regulatory analysis requirements, our 

effects analysis under the Act may take 

into consideration impacts to both 

directly and indirectly affected entities, 

where practicable and reasonable. If 

sufficient data are available, we assess 

to the extent practicable the probable 

impacts to both directly and indirectly 

affected entities. 

As part of our screening analysis, we 

considered the types of economic 

activities that are likely to occur within 

the areas likely affected by the critical 

habitat designation. In our evaluation of 

the probable incremental economic 

impacts that may result from the 

designation of critical habitat for 

beardless chinchweed, first we 

identified, in the IEM dated August 30, 

2018, probable incremental economic 

impacts associated with the following 

categories of activities: (1) Federal lands 

management (NPS, USFS, Bureau of 

Land Management); (2) grazing (USFS, 

Bureau of Land Management); (3) wild 

and prescribed fire (NPS, USFS, Bureau 

of Land Management); (4) groundwater 

pumping (USFS); (5) mining (USFS); (6) 

fuels management (NPS, USFS, Bureau 

of Land Management); (7) transportation 

(road construction and maintenance; 

NPS, USFS); and (8) trampling and dust 

creation from recreation and border 

protection activities (U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection, USFS, NPS). We 

considered each industry or category 

individually. Additionally, we 

considered whether their activities have 

any Federal involvement. Critical 

habitat designation generally will not 

affect activities that do not have any 

Federal involvement; under the Act, the 

designation of critical habitat only 

affects activities conducted, funded, 

permitted, or authorized by Federal 

agencies. In areas where beardless 

chinchweed is present, Federal agencies 

would already be required to consult 

with the Service under section 7 of the 

Act on activities they conduct, fund, 

permit, or authorize that may affect the 

species. When this rule becomes 

effective (see DATES, above), 

consultations to avoid the destruction or 

adverse modification of beardless 

chinchweed critical habitat will be 

incorporated into the existing 

consultation process. 

In our IEM, we clarified the 

distinction between the effects that 

would result from the species being 

listed and those attributable to the 

critical habitat designation (i.e., 

difference between the jeopardy and 

adverse modification standards) for 

beardless chinchweed. For species 

where the designation of critical habitat 

is finalized concurrently with the 

listing, like beardless chinchweed, it has 

been our experience that it is more 

difficult to discern which conservation 

efforts are attributable to the species 

being listed and those which will result 

solely from the designation of critical 

habitat. However, the following specific 

circumstances in this case help to 

inform our evaluation: (1) The essential 

physical or biological features identified 

for critical habitat are the same features 

essential for the life requisites of the 

species, and (2) any actions that would 

result in sufficient harm or harassment 

to constitute jeopardy to beardless 

chinchweed would also likely adversely 

affect the essential physical or biological 

features of critical habitat. The IEM 

outlines our rationale concerning this 

limited distinction between baseline 

conservation efforts and incremental 

impacts of the designation of critical 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
31854 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

habitat for this species. This evaluation 

of the incremental effects has been used 

as the basis to evaluate the probable 

incremental economic impacts of this 

designation of critical habitat. 

The critical habitat designation for 

beardless chinchweed totals 

approximately 7,713 ac (3,121 ha, or 73 

percent of the total critical habitat 

designation) of currently occupied 

habitat and 2,891 ac (1,170 ha, or 27 

percent of the total critical habitat 

designation) of unoccupied habitat (see 

Table 3, above). Every unit of critical 

habitat for the beardless chinchweed 

overlaps with the ranges of a number of 

currently listed species and designated 

critical habitats. Therefore, the actual 

number of section 7 consultations is not 

expected to increase; however, the 

analysis within these consultations 

would expand to consider effects to 

critical habitat for the beardless 

chinchweed. Consequently, there would 

likely be a small increase in the time 

needed to complete the consultation to 

include the assessment of beardless 

chinchweed critical habitat units (IEc 

2018, entire). Section 7 consultations 

involving third parties (State, Tribal, or 

private lands) are limited. 

Based on the locations of the critical 

habitat units and the types of projects 

we typically evaluate for the Coronado 

National Forest and the Coronado 

National Memorial, we estimate that 

there would likely be 4 to 6 

consultations annually that would 

include the beardless chinchweed. The 

entities that would incur incremental 

costs are Federal agencies, because 97 

percent of critical habitat is on Federal 

land. 

In the 7,713 ac (3,121 ha) of occupied 

critical habitat (Units 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8), 

any actions that may affect the species 

or its habitat would also affect 

designated critical habitat. 

Consequently, it is unlikely that any 

additional conservation efforts would be 

recommended to address the adverse 

modification standard over and above 

those recommended as necessary to 

avoid jeopardizing the continued 

existence of the beardless chinchweed. 

Therefore, only administrative costs are 

expected in these occupied units. While 

this additional analysis will require 

time and resources by the Federal action 

agency, the Service, and third parties, it 

is expected that, in most circumstances, 

these costs would predominantly be 

administrative in nature and would not 

be significant (IEc 2018, entire). In 

unoccupied areas, any conservation 

efforts or associated probable impacts 

would be considered incremental effects 

attributed to the critical habitat 

designation. In units occupied by the 

chinchweed, we determine the 

additional administrative cost to 

address chinchweed critical habitat in 

the consultation is minor, costing 

approximately $5,100 per consultation 

(2017 dollars). For the critical habitat 

units that are currently occupied by 

beardless chinchweed (Units 1, 2, 3, 4, 

and 8), we have not identified any 

ongoing or future projects or actions that 

would warrant additional 

recommendations or modifications to 

avoid adversely modifying critical 

habitat above those that we would 

recommend for avoiding jeopardy. 

Therefore, project modifications 

resulting from section 7 consultations in 

occupied units are unlikely to be 

affected by the designation of critical 

habitat. 

In unoccupied units (Units 5, 6, and 

7), we determined the incremental 

administrative effort will be greater on 

a per consultation basis. Thus, we 

concluded an incremental per 

consultation administrative cost of 

$15,000 in unoccupied units (2017 

dollars). 

In unoccupied units, incremental 

project modifications are possible. No 

known projects are currently scheduled 

to occur within the designated areas; 

however, U.S. Forest Service staff 

express there is always a possibility of 

future projects related to grazing, 

transportation, mining, and recreation 

activities in this region. We discuss 

potential costs resulting from these 

activities below. 

There are grazing allotments that 

overlap with unoccupied critical 

habitat. However, only one allotment 

overlaps with unoccupied critical 

habitat by more than 5 percent of the 

allotment’s land area and two 

allotments with less than 5 percent of 

unoccupied critical habitat. In 

unoccupied units, our recommendations 

regarding alterations in amount or 

timing of grazing activities are not 

required because the species is not 

present. However, U.S. Forest Service 

may undertake range improvements to 

reduce the loss of native plant 

communities (e.g., bunchgrass) in the 

unoccupied critical habitat overlapping 

with grazing allotment units. The 

economic analysis estimates that range 

improvement projects in a given year 

may cost the agency from $1,000 to 

$250,000. 

During the improvement project, 

electric fencing (included in the U.S. 

Forest Service cost estimate) would be 

installed temporarily to exclude cattle. 

During this period, there could be a loss 

of forage, depending on the extent of 

overlap with existing grazing 

allotments, resulting in a temporary 

reduction in the number of animal unit 

months (AUMs; a measure of the 

amount of forage consumed by one cow 

and calf during one month) associated 

with the relevant allotment. The value 

of grazing permits associated with 

allotments on Federal land can be used 

to estimate the potential loss to ranchers 

during an exclusion period. We 

estimated a range of potential costs 

related to grazing, based on two 

scenarios. In the low-end scenario, we 

determined that AUM reductions would 

only occur in allotments where critical 

habitat accounts for greater than 5 

percent of the total allotment area. 

Otherwise, ranchers are likely to be able 

to implement changes in practices that 

avoid the need to reduce the amount of 

cattle grazed on the allotment, and thus 

they avoid costs associated with lost 

AUMs. In the high-end scenario, we 

determined that ranchers are unable to 

change practices, and the loss in AUMs 

is proportional to the amount of overlap 

between designated critical habitat and 

the relevant allotment. 

To identify the allotments 

overlapping unoccupied units and the 

number of AUMs permitted in each 

allotment, data were obtained from U.S. 

Forest Service. Those data were then 

used to calculate potential AUM 

reduction for each allotment unit 

overlapping with unoccupied critical 

habitat. Only one allotment (San Rafael) 

overlaps with unoccupied critical 

habitat by more than 5 percent of the 

allotment’s land area. In this allotment, 

a temporary reduction of 402 AUMs is 

possible. For the remaining allotments, 

we determined no impact on permitted 

AUMs in the low-end scenario. In the 

high-end scenario, a temporary 

reduction of 747 AUMs is possible if all 

of the unoccupied units are fenced to 

exclude cattle during range 

improvement efforts. 

The cost of reducing AUMs from 

occupied critical habitat during range 

improvement activities is unlikely to 

exceed $41,000 in the low-end scenario 

or $76,000 in the high-end scenario 

(2017 dollars). Impacts associated with 

reduced AUMs could be greatest in Unit 

7 ($27,000), followed by Unit 6 

($25,000) and Unit 5 ($24,000). These 

estimates represent perpetuity values; 

thus, the single year loss would be a 

fraction of this amount. 

Other activities that could overlap 

with unoccupied critical habitat include 

mining and road and trail construction. 

To avoid adverse effects to critical 

habitat, U.S. Forest Service might 

recommend moving these projects, if 

feasible, to avoid the critical habitat 

units. This could result in the need to 

construct additional linear miles of 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 31855 

road. If projects can easily be moved to 

other areas, U.S. Forest Service 

estimates total, on-time costs to the 

agency, as well as the project 

proponents, in the range of $0 to 

$500,000. Where avoidance of critical 

habitat is prohibitively expensive, U.S. 

Forest Service states that it would 

instead recommend monitoring and 

subsequent treatment for the 

introduction or spread of invasive 

plants due to project activities. The 

costs to U.S. Forest Service and project 

proponents of these activities might 

range from $1,000 to $500,000. For 

projects that result in a significant 

amount of vegetation that would not 

regrow in a timely manner 

(approximately 2 years), U.S. Forest 

Service might require more all-inclusive 

restoration, reclamation, and 

revegetation of the disturbed project 

footprints. In these cases, costs to U.S. 

Forest Service and project proponents 

might range from $10,000 to $1,000,000. 

The Service estimates a total of four 

to six consultations are likely to occur 

in a given year in designated areas. As 

a conservative estimate (i.e., more likely 

to overestimate than underestimate 

costs), we concluded that six 

consultations will occur and all of the 

consultations will be formal. The total 

administrative cost of these 

consultations is estimated to be $48,000 

(IEc 2018, p. 16), including costs to the 

Service, the Federal action agency, and 

third parties. Incremental project 

modifications resulting solely from the 

designation of critical habitat are 

unlikely in occupied critical habitat. In 

unoccupied units, which are all 

managed by the U.S. Forest Service, 

projects associated with grazing, 

mining, road or trail construction and 

maintenance, and range improvements 

are possible. The costs per project, 

including costs to the U.S. Forest 

Service and State, local, or private 

project proponents, might range from $0 

(simply moving a project to avoid 

critical habitat where the overlap 

between the project and critical habitat 

is minor) to $1,000,000 (projects that 

result in a significant amount of surface 

disturbance, such as a new mining 

proposal in an unoccupied unit); 

however, it is very difficult to accurately 

predict these potential costs as often 

they are significantly reduced through 

the section 7 consultation process. 

When no more than six consultations, 

and therefore projects, are likely in a 

given year, the section 7 impacts of this 

critical habitat designation are unlikely 

to exceed $10 million in a given year 

(IEc 2018, p. 16). However, as stated 

above, no known projects are currently 

scheduled to occur within the 

designated unoccupied areas; thus, 

these estimated impacts are meant to 

capture a conservative high-end 

estimate of potential impacts. Therefore, 

our economic screening analysis 

indicates the incremental costs 

associated with critical habitat are 

unlikely to exceed $100 million in any 

single year, and, therefore, would not be 

significant. 

Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts 

We considered the economic impacts 

of the critical habitat designation and 

the Secretary is not exercising her 

discretion to exclude any areas from this 

designation of critical habitat for the 

beardless chinchweed based on 

economic impacts. A copy of the IEM 

and screening analysis with supporting 

documents may be obtained by 

contacting the Arizona Ecological 

Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT) or by 

downloading from the internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

Exclusions Based on Impacts on 

National Security and Homeland 

Security 

Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act may 

not cover all Department of Defense 

(DoD) lands or areas that pose potential 

national-security concerns (e.g., a DoD 

installation that is in the process of 

revising its INRMP for a newly listed 

species or a species previously not 

covered). If a particular area is not 

covered under section 4(a)(3)(B)(i), 

national-security or homeland-security 

concerns are not a factor in the process 

of determining what areas meet the 

definition of ‘‘critical habitat.’’ 

Nevertheless, when designating critical 

habitat under section 4(b)(2), the Service 

must consider impacts on national 

security, including homeland security, 

on lands or areas not covered by section 

4(a)(3)(B)(i). Accordingly, we will 

always consider for exclusion from the 

designation areas for which DoD, 

Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS), or another Federal agency has 

requested exclusion based on an 

assertion of national-security or 

homeland-security concerns. 

We cannot, however, automatically 

exclude requested areas. When DoD, 

DHS, or another Federal agency requests 

exclusion from critical habitat on the 

basis of national-security or homelandsecurity impacts, it must provide a 

reasonably specific justification of an 

incremental impact on national security 

that would result from the designation 

of that specific area as critical habitat. 

That justification could include 

demonstration of probable impacts, 

such as impacts to ongoing bordersecurity patrols and surveillance 

activities, or a delay in training or 

facility construction, as a result of 

compliance with section 7(a)(2) of the 

Act. If the agency requesting the 

exclusion does not provide us with a 

reasonably specific justification, we will 

contact the agency to recommend that it 

provide a specific justification or 

clarification of its concerns relative to 

the probable incremental impact that 

could result from the designation. If the 

agency provides a reasonably specific 

justification, we will defer to the expert 

judgment of DoD, DHS, or another 

Federal agency as to: (1) Whether 

activities on its lands or waters, or its 

activities on other lands or waters, have 

national-security or homeland-security 

implications; (2) the importance of those 

implications; and (3) the degree to 

which the cited implications would be 

adversely affected in the absence of an 

exclusion. In that circumstance, in 

conducting a discretionary section 

4(b)(2) exclusion analysis, we will give 

great weight to national-security and 

homeland-security concerns in 

analyzing the benefits of exclusion. 

No lands within the designation of 

critical habitat for beardless chinchweed 

are owned or managed by the DoD. The 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(Department of Homeland Security) 

conducts border security operations and 

enforcement activities within and 

outside the 60-foot Roosevelt 

Reservation along the United States/ 

Mexico border (Unit 4). 

This rule takes into account any 

relevant national security impacts of the 

designation of critical habitat for the 

beardless chinchweed. We coordinated 

with the Customs and Border Protection 

(Department of Homeland Security) on 

the proposed and final designations of 

critical habitat. The agency did not 

request an exclusion from critical 

habitat based on potential national 

security impacts. We note that Congress 

has provided to the Secretary of 

Homeland Security a number of 

authorities necessary to carry out the 

Department’s border security mission. 

One of those authorities is found at 

section 102 of the Illegal Immigration 

Reform and Immigrant Responsibility 

Act of 1996, as amended (‘‘IIRIRA’’). In 

section 102(a) of IIRIRA, Congress 

provided that the Secretary of 

Homeland Security shall take such 

actions as may be necessary to install 

additional physical barriers and roads 

(including the removal of obstacles to 

detection of illegal entrants) in the 

vicinity of the United States border to 

deter illegal crossings in areas of high 

illegal entry into the United States. In 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
31856 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

section 102(b) of IIRIRA, Congress 

mandated the installation of additional 

fencing, barriers, roads, lighting, 

cameras, and sensors on the southwest 

border. Finally, in section 102(c) of 

IIRIRA, Congress granted to the 

Secretary of Homeland Security the 

authority to waive all legal requirements 

that he determines are necessary to 

ensure the expeditious construction of 

barriers and roads authorized by section 

102 of IIRIRA. On May 15, 2019, the 

Secretary of Homeland Security issued 

waivers for legal requirements covering 

border barrier activities directly in the 

vicinity of the beardless chinchweed’s 

known range and proposed critical 

habitat (85 FR 9794). 

No impacts to national security or 

homeland security were presented to 

the Service, and we have no reason to 

expect such impacts from this 

designation of critical habitat. 

Consequently, the Secretary is not 

exercising her discretion to exclude any 

areas from the final designation based 

on impacts on national security. 

Exclusions Based on Other Relevant 

Impacts 

Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we 

consider any other relevant impacts, in 

addition to economic impacts and 

impacts on national security. We 

consider a number of factors including 

whether there are permitted 

conservation plans covering the species 

in the area, such as habitat conservation 

plans, safe harbor agreements, or 

candidate conservation agreements with 

assurances, or whether there are nonpermitted conservation agreements and 

partnerships that would be encouraged 

by designation of, or exclusion from, 

critical habitat. In addition, we look at 

the existence of Tribal conservation 

plans and partnerships and consider the 

government-to-government relationship 

of the United States with Tribal entities. 

We also consider any social impacts that 

might occur because of the designation. 

In preparing this final rule, we have 

determined that there are currently no 

permitted conservation plans or other 

non-permitted conservation agreements 

or partnerships for the beardless 

chinchweed, and the final critical 

habitat designation does not include any 

Tribal lands or trust resources. We 

anticipate no impact on Tribal lands, 

partnerships, or permitted or nonpermitted plans or agreements from this 

critical habitat designation. 

Accordingly, the Secretary is not 

exercising her discretion to exclude any 

areas from the final designation based 

on other relevant impacts. 

Required Determinations 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

(Executive Orders 12866 and 13563) 

Executive Order 12866 provides that 

the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs in the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) will review all significant 

rules. The Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs has determined that 

this rule is not significant. 

Executive Order (E.O.) 13563 

reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 

while calling for improvements in the 

nation’s regulatory system to promote 

predictability, to reduce uncertainty, 

and to use the best, most innovative, 

and least burdensome tools for 

achieving regulatory ends. The 

executive order directs agencies to 

consider regulatory approaches that 

reduce burdens and maintain flexibility 

and freedom of choice for the public 

where these approaches are relevant, 

feasible, and consistent with regulatory 

objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes 

further that regulations must be based 

on the best available science and that 

the rulemaking process must allow for 

public participation and an open 

exchange of ideas. We have developed 

this rule in a manner consistent with 

these requirements. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.) 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended 

by the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 

(SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), 

whenever an agency is required to 

publish a notice of rulemaking for any 

proposed or final rule, it must prepare 

and make available for public comment 

a regulatory flexibility analysis that 

describes the effects of the rule on small 

entities (i.e., small businesses, small 

organizations, and small government 

jurisdictions). However, no regulatory 

flexibility analysis is required if the 

head of the agency certifies the rule will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. The SBREFA amended the RFA 

to require Federal agencies to provide a 

certification statement of the factual 

basis for certifying that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

According to the Small Business 

Administration, small entities include 

small organizations such as 

independent nonprofit organizations; 

small governmental jurisdictions, 

including school boards and city and 

town governments that serve fewer than 

50,000 residents; and small businesses 

(13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses 

include manufacturing and mining 

concerns with fewer than 500 

employees, wholesale trade entities 

with fewer than 100 employees, retail 

and service businesses with less than $5 

million in annual sales, general and 

heavy construction businesses with less 

than $27.5 million in annual business, 

special trade contractors doing less than 

$11.5 million in annual business, and 

agricultural businesses with annual 

sales less than $750,000. To determine 

if potential economic impacts to these 

small entities are significant, we 

considered the types of activities that 

might trigger regulatory impacts under 

this designation as well as types of 

project modifications that may result. In 

general, the term ‘‘significant economic 

impact’’ is meant to apply to a typical 

small business firm’s business 

operations. 

Under the RFA, as amended, and as 

understood in the light of recent court 

decisions, Federal agencies are required 

to evaluate the potential incremental 

impacts of rulemaking on those entities 

directly regulated by the rulemaking 

itself; in other words, the RFA does not 

require agencies to evaluate the 

potential impacts to indirectly regulated 

entities. The regulatory mechanism 

through which critical habitat 

protections are realized is section 7 of 

the Act, which requires Federal 

agencies, in consultation with the 

Service, to ensure that any action 

authorized, funded, or carried out by the 

agency is not likely to destroy or 

adversely modify critical habitat. 

Therefore, under section 7, only Federal 

action agencies are directly subject to 

the specific regulatory requirement 

(avoiding destruction and adverse 

modification) imposed by critical 

habitat designation. Consequently, it is 

our position that only Federal action 

agencies will be directly regulated by 

this designation. There is no 

requirement under the RFA to evaluate 

the potential impacts to entities not 

directly regulated. Moreover, Federal 

agencies are not small entities. 

Therefore, because no small entities will 

be directly regulated by this rulemaking, 

the Service certifies that this critical 

habitat designation will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

During the development of this final 

rule, we reviewed and evaluated all 

information submitted during the 

comment period on the December 6, 

2019, proposed rule (84 FR 67060) that 

may pertain to our consideration of the 

probable incremental economic impacts 

of this critical habitat designation. 

Based on this information, we affirm our 

certification that this critical habitat 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 31857 

designation will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities, and a 

regulatory flexibility analysis is not 

required. 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use— 

Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211 (Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use) requires agencies 

to prepare Statements of Energy Effects 

when undertaking certain actions. OMB 

has provided guidance for 

implementing this Executive Order that 

outlines nine outcomes that may 

constitute ‘‘a significant adverse effect’’ 

when compared to not taking the 

regulatory action under consideration. 

The economic analysis finds that none 

of these criteria are relevant to this 

analysis. Thus, based on information in 

the economic analysis, energy-related 

impacts associated with beardless 

chinchweed conservation activities 

within critical habitat are not expected. 

As such, the designation of critical 

habitat is not expected to significantly 

affect energy supplies, distribution, or 

use. Therefore, this action is not a 

significant energy action, and no 

Statement of Energy Effects is required. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 

U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) 

In accordance with the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et 

seq.), we make the following findings: 

(1) This rule will not produce a 

Federal mandate. In general, a Federal 

mandate is a provision in legislation, 

statute, or regulation that would impose 

an enforceable duty upon State, local, or 

tribal governments, or the private sector, 

and includes both ‘‘Federal 

intergovernmental mandates’’ and 

‘‘Federal private sector mandates.’’ 

These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 

658(5)–(7). ‘‘Federal intergovernmental 

mandate’’ includes a regulation that 

‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 

upon State, local, or tribal governments’’ 

with two exceptions. It excludes ‘‘a 

condition of Federal assistance.’’ It also 

excludes ‘‘a duty arising from 

participation in a voluntary Federal 

program,’’ unless the regulation ‘‘relates 

to a then-existing Federal program 

under which $500,000,000 or more is 

provided annually to State, local, and 

tribal governments under entitlement 

authority,’’ if the provision would 

‘‘increase the stringency of conditions of 

assistance’’ or ‘‘place caps upon, or 

otherwise decrease, the Federal 

Government’s responsibility to provide 

funding,’’ and the State, local, or tribal 

governments ‘‘lack authority’’ to adjust 

accordingly. At the time of enactment, 

these entitlement programs were: 

Medicaid; Aid to Families with 

Dependent Children work programs; 

Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social 

Services Block Grants; Vocational 

Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, 

Adoption Assistance, and Independent 

Living; Family Support Welfare 

Services; and Child Support 

Enforcement. ‘‘Federal private sector 

mandate’’ includes a regulation that 

‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 

upon the private sector, except (i) a 

condition of Federal assistance or (ii) a 

duty arising from participation in a 

voluntary Federal program.’’ 

The designation of critical habitat 

does not impose a legally binding duty 

on non-Federal Government entities or 

private parties. Under the Act, the only 

regulatory effect is that Federal agencies 

must ensure that their actions do not 

destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat under section 7. While nonFederal entities that receive Federal 

funding, assistance, or permits, or that 

otherwise require approval or 

authorization from a Federal agency for 

an action, may be indirectly impacted 

by the designation of critical habitat, the 

legally binding duty to avoid 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat rests squarely on the 

Federal agency. Furthermore, to the 

extent that non-Federal entities are 

indirectly impacted because they 

receive Federal assistance or participate 

in a voluntary Federal aid program, the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would 

not apply, nor would critical habitat 

shift the costs of the large entitlement 

programs listed above onto State 

governments. 

(2) We do not believe that this rule 

will significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments because the area 

included in the critical habitat 

designation is largely owned by Federal 

agencies, with a small amount of private 

land (3 percent). Consequently, we do 

not believe that the critical habitat 

designation significantly or uniquely 

affects small government entities. 

Therefore, a Small Government Agency 

Plan is not required. 

Takings—Executive Order 12630 

In accordance with E.O. 12630 

(Government Actions and Interference 

with Constitutionally Protected Private 

Property Rights), we have analyzed the 

potential takings implications of 

designating critical habitat for the 

beardless chinchweed in a takings 

implications assessment. The Act does 

not authorize the Service to regulate 

private actions on private lands or 

confiscate private property as a result of 

critical habitat designation. Designation 

of critical habitat does not affect land 

ownership, or establish any closures, or 

restrictions on use of or access to the 

designated areas. Furthermore, the 

designation of critical habitat does not 

affect landowner actions that do not 

require Federal funding or permits, nor 

does it preclude development of habitat 

conservation programs or issuance of 

incidental take permits to permit actions 

that do require Federal funding or 

permits to go forward. However, Federal 

agencies are prohibited from carrying 

out, funding, or authorizing actions that 

would destroy or adversely modify 

critical habitat. A takings implications 

assessment has been completed and 

concludes that this designation of 

critical habitat for beardless chinchweed 

does not pose significant takings 

implications for lands within or affected 

by the designation. 

Federalism—Executive Order 13132 

In accordance with E.O. 13132 

(Federalism), this rule does not have 

significant Federalism effects. A 

federalism summary impact statement is 

not required. In keeping with 

Department of the Interior and 

Department of Commerce policy, we 

requested information from, and 

coordinated development of the critical 

habitat designation with, the 

appropriate State resource agencies in 

Arizona. From a federalism perspective, 

the designation of critical habitat 

directly affects only the responsibilities 

of Federal agencies. The Act imposes no 

other duties with respect to critical 

habitat, either for States and local 

governments, or for anyone else. As a 

result, the rule does not have substantial 

direct effects either on the State, or on 

the relationship between the national 

government and the State, or on the 

distribution of powers and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. The designation 

may have some benefit to these 

governments because the areas that 

contain the features essential to the 

conservation of the species are more 

clearly defined, and the physical or 

biological features of the habitat 

necessary to the conservation of the 

species are specifically identified. This 

information does not alter where and 

what federally sponsored activities may 

occur. However, it may assist these local 

governments in long-range planning 

because these local governments no 

longer have to wait for case-by-case 

section 7 consultations to occur. 

Where State and local governments 

require approval or authorization from a 

Federal agency for actions that may 

affect critical habitat, consultation 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
31858 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

under section 7(a)(2) would be required. 

While non-Federal entities that receive 

Federal funding, assistance, or permits, 

or that otherwise require approval or 

authorization from a Federal agency for 

an action, may be indirectly impacted 

by the designation of critical habitat, the 

legally binding duty to avoid 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat rests squarely on the 

Federal agency. 

Civil Justice Reform—Executive Order 

12988 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the Office 

of the Solicitor has determined that the 

rule does not unduly burden the judicial 

system and that it meets the 

requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) 

of the Order. We are designating critical 

habitat in accordance with the 

provisions of the Act. To assist the 

public in understanding the habitat 

needs of the species, this rule identifies 

the elements of physical or biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species. The designated areas of 

critical habitat are presented on a map, 

and the rule provides several options for 

the interested public to obtain more 

detailed location information, if desired. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) 

This rule does not contain 

information collection requirements, 

and a submission to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) is not required. 

We may not conduct or sponsor and you 

are not required to respond to a 

collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. 

National Environmental Policy Act (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 

It is our position that, outside the 

jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to 

prepare environmental analyses 

pursuant to the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et 

seq.) in connection with regulations 

adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the 

Act. We published a notice outlining 

our reasons for this determination in the 

Federal Register on October 25, 1983 

(48 FR 49244). This position was upheld 

by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. 

Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), 

cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)). 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994 

(Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive 

Order 13175 (Consultation and 

Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments), and the Department of 

the Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we 

readily acknowledge our responsibility 

to communicate meaningfully with 

recognized Federal Tribes on a 

government-to-government basis. In 

accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 

of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal 

Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust 

Responsibilities, and the Endangered 

Species Act), we readily acknowledge 

our responsibilities to work directly 

with Tribes in developing programs for 

healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that 

Tribal lands are not subject to the same 

controls as Federal public lands, to 

remain sensitive to Indian culture, and 

to make information available to Tribes. 

We determined that there are no 

Tribal lands occupied by the beardless 

chinchweed at the time of listing that 

contain the physical or biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species, and no Tribal lands 

unoccupied by the beardless 

chinchweed that are essential to the 

conservation of the species. Therefore, 

we are not designating critical habitat 

for the beardless chinchweed on Tribal 

lands, and no Tribal lands are affected 

by the designation. 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited in 

the SSA report and this rulemaking is 

available on the internet at http://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R2–ES–2018–0104 and upon 

request from the Arizona Ecological 

Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this final rule 

are the staff members of the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service’s Species 

Assessment Team and the Arizona 

Ecological Services Field Office. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we amend part 17, 

subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth 

below: 

PART 17—ENDANGERED AND 

THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

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

1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise 

noted. 

■ 2. Amend § 17.12(h), the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Plants, by 

adding an entry for ‘‘Pectis imberbis’’ in 

alphabetical order under FLOWERING 

PLANTS to read as set forth below: 

§ 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

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

FLOWERING PLANTS

* * * * * * * 

Pectis imberbis ................ Beardless chinchweed ... Wherever found .............. E 86 FR [INSERT Federal Register PAGE WHERE 

THE DOCUMENT BEGINS], June 15, 2021; 50 

CFR 17.96(a).CH

* * * * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 17.96(a) by adding an 

entry, in alphabetical order, for ‘‘Family 

Asteraceae: Pectis imberbis (beardless 

chinchweed)’’ to read as follows: 

§ 17.96 Critical habitat—plants. 

(a) Flowering plants. 

* * * * * 

Family Asteraceae: Pectis imberbis 

(Beardless Chinchweed) 

(1) Critical habitat units are depicted 

for Cochise, Pima, and Santa Cruz 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 31859 

Counties, Arizona, on the map in this 

entry. 

(2) Within these areas, the physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the beardless 

chinchweed consist of the following 

components: 

(i) Native-dominated plant 

communities, consisting of: 

(A) Plains, great basin, and semidesert grasslands, oak savanna, or 

Madrean evergreen woodland; 

(B) Communities dominated by 

bunchgrasses with open spacing 

(adjacent to and within 10 meters (33 

feet) of individual beardless 

chinchweed plants) and with little 

competition from other plants; and 

(C) Communities with plants for 

pollinator foraging and nesting within 1 

kilometer (0.62 miles) of beardless 

chinchweed populations. 

(ii) 1,158 to 1,737 meters (3,799 to 

5,699 feet) elevation. 

(iii) Eroding limestone or granite 

bedrock substrate. 

(iv) Steep, south-facing, sunny to 

partially shaded hillslopes. 

(v) The presence of pollinators (i.e., 

flies, bees, and butterflies). 

(3) Critical habitat does not include 

manmade structures (such as buildings, 

aqueducts, runways, roads, and other 

paved areas) and the land on which they 

are located existing within the legal 

boundaries on the effective date of the 

rule. 

(4) Data layers defining map units 

were created using ArcMap version 10 

(Environmental Systems Research 

Institute, Inc.), a geographic information 

systems program on a base of USA Topo 

Maps. Critical habitat units were then 

mapped using NAD 1983, Universal 

Transverse Mercator (UTM) Zone 12N 

coordinates. The maps in this entry, as 

modified by any accompanying 

regulatory text, establishes the 

boundaries of the critical habitat 

designation. The coordinates or plot 

points or both on which each map is 

based are available to the public at the 

Service’s internet site at https://

www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/ 

Docs_Species.htm and at http://

www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 

FWS–R2–ES–2018–0104, and at the 

field office responsible for this 

designation. You may obtain field office 

location information by contacting one 

of the Service regional offices, the 

addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR 

2.2. 

(5) Note: Index map follows: 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2ER15JN21.000</GPH>

Unit8 

• 

Beardless Chinchweed (Pectis imberbis) 

Critical Habitat Unit overview 

Pima 

County 

Santa Cruz 

County 

Arizona 

, _______ ,,,.~ 

Unit 7 

-----• 

UnitS 

• 

Unit6 • 

Unit2 

• 

UNITED STATES 

MEXICO 

(i} o:=====5=--~10 Mi 

0 5 10 Km 

nit3 

• 

90 

Cochise 

County 

\ I-~ 

\ 

I 

I, 

\ 

\ 

- Critical Habitat 

---- Rivers 

= Major Roads 

,-_~Slate Boundaries 

D County Boundanes 

\ 

\ 
31860 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

(6) Unit 1: McCleary Canyon, Pima 

County, Arizona. 

(i) Unit 1 consists of 682 hectares 

(1,686 acres) of U.S. Forest Service 

lands. 

(ii) Map of Unit 1 follows: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2ER15JN21.001</GPH>

Beardless Chinchweed (Pectis imberbis) 

Critical Habitat Unit 1: McCleary Canyon 

Arizona 

Pima 

County 

Unit 1: McCleary Canyon 

Santa Cruz 

County 

0 2 4Mi 

I I r I 

0 2 4Km 

/ 

\ 

I 

i 

/ 

i 

\ 

/ 

• Critical Habitat D County 

----Rivers 

= Major Roads 
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 31861 

(7) Unit 2: Audubon Research Ranch, 

Santa Cruz County, Arizona. 

(i) Unit 2 consists of 926 hectares 

(2,287 acres) of land, of which 331 

hectares (817 acres) are owned by the 

U.S. Forest Service, 474 hectares (1,170 

acres) by the Bureau of Land 

Management, and 121 hectares (300 

acres) by the Audubon Research Ranch. 

(ii) Map of Unit 2 follows: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2ER15JN21.002</GPH>

Beardless Chinchweed (Pectis imberbis) 

Critical Habitat Unit 2: Audubon Research Ranch 

Pima 

/ County \ 

( 

! 

\ 

Unit 5 

• 

Unit •6 

Unit 2: Audubon 

Research Ranch 

Santa Cruz 

County 

Cochise 

County 

90 

e • Critical Habitat D County 

---- Rivers 

0 2 4Mi 

I I r I = Major Roads 

0 2 4Km 
31862 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

(8) Unit 3: Scotia Canyon, Cochise 

County, Arizona. 

(i) Unit 3 consists of 346 hectares (855 

acres) of U.S. Forest Service lands. 

(ii) Map of Unit 3 follows: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2ER15JN21.003</GPH>

Beardless Chinchweed (Pectis imberbis) 

Critical Habitat Unit 3: Scotia Canyon 

Unit 5 

Unit 2 

Santa Cruz 

County 

UNITED STATES 

MEXICO 

Cochise 

County 

Arizona 

Unit 3: Scotia Canyon 

• 

Unit4 

0 

0 2 4Mi 

• Critical Habitat~ :-state 

---- Rivers D County 

I I I I = Major Roads 

0 2 4Km 
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 31863 

(9) Unit 4: Coronado National 

Memorial, Cochise County, Arizona. 

(i) Unit 4 consists of 853 hectares 

(2,109 acres) of National Park Service 

lands. 

(ii) Map of Unit 4 follows: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2ER15JN21.004</GPH>

Beardless Chinchweed (Pectis imberbis) 

Critical Habitat Unit 4: Coronado National Memorial 

Unit 3 

• 

Arizona 

Cochise 

County 

UNITED STATES 

MEXICO 

\ 

< ~---, ~ l Unit 4: Coronado===========!_)=/ ===1 

National Memorial / 

I 

/ --

0 

0 2 4Mi 

• Critical Habitat;=• state 

---- Rivers D County 

I I 

= Major Roads 

0 2 4Km 
31864 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

(10) Unit 5: Lampshire Well, Santa 

Cruz County, Arizona. 

(i) Unit 5 consists of 380 hectares (939 

acres) of U.S. Forest Service lands. 

(ii) Map of Unit 5 follows: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2ER15JN21.005</GPH>

Beardless Chinchweed (Pectis imberbis) 

Critical Habitat Unit 5: Lampshire Canyon 

Santa Cruz 

County 

Arizona 

Pima 

County 

I 

I 

Jt 

/J 

: q)' 

!§ 

;o 

Ii 

! 

i 

/ 

I 

i 

i 

I 

; 

I 

I 

Unit 2 

Unit 5: Lampshire Canyon 

0 

0 2 4Mi 

I I 

0 2 4Km 

• 

Unit& • 

• Critical Habitat D County 

---- Rivers 

= Major Roads 
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 31865 

(11) Unit 6: Harshaw Creek, Santa 

Cruz County, Arizona. 

(i) Unit 6 consists of 410 hectares 

(1,013 acres) of U.S. Forest Service 

lands. 

(ii) Map of Unit 6 follows: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2ER15JN21.006</GPH>

Beardless Chinchweed (Pectis imberbis) 

Critical Habitat Unit 6: Harshaw Camp 

Santa Cruz 

County 

Arizona 

Pima 

County 

! 

I 

i 

Unit5 

i 

I 

/ 

I 

I 

Unit2 

Unit 6: Harshaw Camp 

0 

0 2 4Mi 

I I I I 

0 2 4Km 

• Critical Habitat D County 

---- Rivers 

= Major Roads 
31866 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

(12) Unit 7: Washington Camp, Santa 

Cruz County, Arizona. 

(i) Unit 7 consists of 380 hectares (939 

acres) of U.S. Forest Service lands. 

(ii) Map of Unit 7 follows: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2ER15JN21.007</GPH>

,,,,,. 

/ 

-,_,/ 

,,--

Beardless Chinchweed (Pectis imberbis) 

Critical Habitat Unit 7: Washington Camp 

Arizona 

Santa Cruz 

County 

~~---.,--~-- -

! 

i 

Unit 5 

Unit& 

Unit 7: Washington Camp 

---. ,,---------• 

~--... ~""'~ 

Santa c~;R1;;--~' 

UNITED STATES 

MEXICO 

0 2 4Mi 

I I I I 

0 2 4Km 

• Critical Habitat D County 

---- Rivers 

= Major Roads 
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 31867 

(13) Unit 8: Ruby Road, Santa Cruz 

County, Arizona. 

(i) Unit 8 consists of 314 hectares (776 

acres) of U.S. Forest Service lands. 

(ii) Map of Unit 8 follows: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2ER15JN21.008</GPH>

Beardless Chinchweed (Pectis imberbis) 

Critical Habitat Unit 8: Ruby Road 

Santacruz 

County 

\ 

\ 

\ 

Pima 

County 

Arizona 

Unit 8: Ruby Road 

• 

UNITED STATES 

MEXICO 

0 

0 2 4Mi 

• Critical Habitat~,:. state 

---- Rivers D County 

I I = Major Roads 

0 2 4Km 
31868 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

* * * * * 

Martha Williams, 

Principal Deputy Director, Exercising the 

Delegated Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2021–12005 Filed 6–14–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–C 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2