Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 41 / Thursday, March 4, 2021 / Proposed Rules 12563 

this auction because the revenue figure 

on which it is based does not include or 

aggregate revenues from affiliated 

companies. Moreover, the definition of 

small business also requires that an 

entity not be dominant in its field of 

operation and that the entity be 

independently owned and operated. 

The estimate of small businesses to 

which the proposed competitive 

bidding rules may apply does not 

exclude any radio station from the 

definition of a small business on these 

bases and is therefore over-inclusive to 

that extent. Furthermore, it is not 

possible at this time to define or 

quantify the criteria that would 

establish whether a specific radio 

station is dominant in its field of 

operation. In addition, it is difficult to 

assess these criteria in the context of 

media entities and therefore estimates of 

small businesses to which they apply 

may be over-inclusive to this extent. 

61. Further, it is not possible to 

accurately develop an estimate of how 

many of the entities in this auction 

would be small businesses based on the 

number of small entities that applied to 

participate in prior broadcast auctions, 

because that information is not collected 

from applicants for broadcast auctions 

in which bidding credits are not based 

on an applicant’s size (as is the case in 

auctions of licenses for wireless 

services). 

62. In 2013, the Commission 

estimated that 97% of radio 

broadcasters met the SBA’s prior 

definition of small business concern, 

based on annual revenues of $7 million. 

The SBA has since increased in NAICS 

code 515112 of 13 CFR 121.201 that 

revenue threshold to $41.5 million, 

which suggests that an even greater 

percentage of radio broadcasters would 

fall within the SBA’s definition. The 

Commission has estimated the number 

of licensed commercial AM radio 

stations to be 4,347 and the number of 

commercial FM radio stations to be 

6,699 for a total number of 11,046. As 

of January 2021, 4,347 AM stations and 

6,694 FM stations had revenues of $41.5 

million or less, according to 

Commission staff review of the BIA 

Database. Accordingly, based on this 

data, OEA and MB estimate that the 

majority of Auction 109 applicants 

would likely meet the SBA’s definition 

of a small business concern. 

63. Description of Projected 

Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 

Compliance Requirements for Small 

Entities. In the Auction 109 Comment 

Public Notice, no new reporting, 

recordkeeping, or other compliance 

requirements for small entities or other 

auction applicants are proposed. The 

Commission designed the auction 

application process itself to minimize 

reporting and compliance requirements 

for applicants, including small business 

applicants. To participate in this 

auction, parties will file streamlined, 

short-form applications in which they 

certify under penalty of perjury as to 

their qualifications. Eligibility to 

participate in bidding is based on an 

applicant’s short-form application and 

certifications, as well as its upfront 

payment. In the second phase of the 

auction process, there are additional 

compliance requirements for winning 

bidders. Thus, a small business that fails 

to become a winning bidder does not 

need to file a long-form application and 

provide the additional showings and 

more detailed demonstrations required 

of a winning bidder. 

64. Steps Taken to Minimize the 

Significant Economic Impact of Small 

Entities, and Significant Alternatives 

Considered. The RFA requires an 

agency to describe any significant, 

specifically small business, alternatives 

that it has considered in reaching its 

proposed approach, which may include 

the following four alternatives (among 

others): (1) The establishment of 

differing compliance or reporting 

requirements or timetables that take into 

account the resources available to small 

entities; (2) the clarification, 

consolidation, or simplification of 

compliance and reporting requirements 

under the rule for such small entities; 

(3) the use of performance rather than 

design standards; and (4) an exemption 

from coverage of the rule, or any part 

thereof, for such small entities. 5 U.S.C. 

603(c)(1)–(4). 

65. OEA and MB intend that the 

proposals of the Auction 109 Comment 

Public Notice to facilitate participation 

in Auction 109 will result in both 

operational and administrative cost 

savings for small entities and other 

auction participants. In light of the 

numerous resources that will be 

available from the Commission at no 

cost, the processes and procedures 

proposed in the Auction 109 Comment 

Public Notice should result in minimal 

economic impact on small entities. For 

example, prior to the start of bidding, 

the Commission will hold a mock 

auction to allow qualified bidders the 

opportunity to familiarize themselves 

with both the bidding processes and 

systems that will be used in Auction 

109. During the auction, participants 

will be able to access and participate in 

bidding via the internet using a webbased system, or telephonically, 

providing two cost-effective methods of 

participation and avoiding the cost of 

travel for in-person participation. 

Further, small entities as well as other 

auction participants will be able to avail 

themselves of a telephone hotline for 

assistance with auction processes and 

procedures as well as a telephone 

technical support hotline to assist with 

issues such as access to or navigation 

within the electronic FCC Form 175 and 

use of the FCC’s auction system. In 

addition, all auction participants, 

including small business entities, will 

have access to various other sources of 

information and databases through the 

Commission that will aid in both their 

understanding of and participation in 

the process. These mechanisms are 

made available to facilitate participation 

by all qualified bidders and may result 

in significant cost savings for small 

business entities that utilize these 

mechanisms. These steps, coupled with 

the advance description of the bidding 

procedures, should ensure that the 

auction will be administered efficiently 

and fairly, thus providing certainty for 

small entities, as well as other auction 

participants. 

66. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rules. None. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2021–04033 Filed 3–1–21; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2020–0130; 

FF09E21000 FXES11110900000 212] 

RIN 1018–BF21 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Endangered Species 

Status for Arizona Eryngo and 

Designation of Critical Habitat 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 

12-month finding on a petition to list 

the Arizona eryngo (Eryngium 

sparganophyllum), a plant species 

native to Arizona and New Mexico in 

the United States, and to Sonora and 

Chihuahua in Mexico, as an endangered 

species and to designate critical habitat 

in Arizona under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). 

After a review of the best available 

scientific and commercial information, 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
12564 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 41 / Thursday, March 4, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

we find that listing the species is 

warranted. Accordingly, we propose to 

list the Arizona eryngo as an 

endangered species under the Act. If we 

finalize this rule as proposed, it would 

add this species to the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Plants and 

extend the Act’s protections to the 

species. We also propose to designate 

critical habitat for the Arizona eryngo 

under the Act. In total, approximately 

13.0 acres (5.3 hectares) in Pima and 

Cochise Counties, Arizona, fall within 

the boundaries of the proposed critical 

habitat designation. We also announce 

the availability of a draft economic 

analysis (DEA) of the proposed 

designation of critical habitat for the 

Arizona eryngo. 

DATES: We will accept comments 

received or postmarked on or before 

May 3, 2021. Comments submitted 

electronically using the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, 

below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. 

Eastern Time on the closing date. We 

must receive requests for a public 

hearing, in writing, at the address 

shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT by April 19, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 

(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. In the 

Search box, enter FWS–R2–ES–2020– 

0130, which is the docket number for 

this rulemaking. Then, click on the 

Search button. On the resulting page, in 

the Search panel on the left side of the 

screen, under the Document Type 

heading, check the Proposed Rule box to 

locate this document. You may submit 

a comment by clicking on ‘‘Comment 

Now!’’ 

(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail 

to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: 

FWS–R2–ES–2020–0130, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, MS: PRB/3W, 5275 

Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041– 

3803. 

We request that you send comments 

only by the methods described above. 

We will post all comments on http://

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see 

Information Requested, below, for more 

information). 

Availability of supporting materials: 

For the critical habitat designation, the 

coordinates or plot points or both from 

which the maps are generated are 

included in the administrative record 

and are available at https://

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

http://www.regulations.gov under 

Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2020–0130. 

Any additional tools or supporting 

information that we may develop for the 

critical habitat designation will also be 

available at the Service website set out 

above and may also be included in the 

preamble and/or at http://

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff 

Humphrey, Arizona Ecological Services 

Field Office, 9828 North 31st Ave. C3, 

Phoenix, AZ 85051–2517; telephone 

602–242–0210. 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, if we determine that a species 

is an endangered or threatened species 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range, we are required to promptly 

publish a proposal in the Federal 

Register and make a determination on 

our proposal within 1 year. To the 

maximum extent prudent and 

determinable, we must designate critical 

habitat for any species that we 

determine to be an endangered or 

threatened species under the Act. 

Listing a species as an endangered or 

threatened species and designation of 

critical habitat can only be completed 

by issuing a rule. 

What this document does. We 

propose to list the Arizona eryngo as an 

endangered species under the Act, and 

we propose the designation of critical 

habitat for the species. 

The basis for our action. Under the 

Act, we may determine that a species is 

an endangered or threatened species 

because of 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 Arizona 

eryngo is primarily at risk of extinction 

due to habitat changes: Physical 

alteration of cienegas, water loss, and 

changes in co-occurring vegetation, all 

of which are exacerbated by the effects 

of climate change. 

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 must make the designation on 

the basis of the best scientific data 

available and 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. 

Peer review. 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 eight appropriate specialists 

regarding the species status assessment 

report used to inform this proposed 

rule. We received responses from four 

specialists, which informed this 

proposed rule. The purpose of peer 

review is to ensure that our listing 

determinations and critical habitat 

designations are based on scientifically 

sound data, assumptions, and analyses. 

The peer reviewers have expertise in the 

biology, habitat, and threats to the 

species. 

Information Requested 

We intend that any final action 

resulting from this proposed rule will be 

based on the best scientific and 

commercial data available and be as 

accurate and as effective as possible. 

Therefore, we request comments or 

information from other concerned 

governmental agencies, Native 

American tribes, the scientific 

community, industry, or any other 

interested parties concerning this 

proposed rule. 

We particularly seek comments 

concerning: 

(1) The species’ biology, range, and 

population trends, including: 

(a) Biological or ecological 

requirements of the species, including 

habitat requirements for nutrition, 

reproduction, or pollination; 

(b) Genetics and taxonomy; 

(c) Historical and current range, 

including distribution patterns; 

(d) Historical and current population 

levels, and current and projected trends; 

and 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 41 / Thursday, March 4, 2021 / Proposed Rules 12565 

(e) Past and ongoing conservation 

measures for the species, its habitat, or 

both. 

(2) Factors that may affect the 

continued existence of the species, 

which may include habitat modification 

or destruction, overutilization, disease, 

predation, the inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms, or other natural 

or manmade factors. 

(3) Biological, commercial trade, or 

other relevant data concerning any 

threats (or lack thereof) to this species 

and existing regulations that may be 

addressing those threats. 

(4) Additional information concerning 

the historical and current status, range, 

distribution, and population size of this 

species, including the locations of any 

additional populations of this species. 

(5) The reasons why we should or 

should not designate habitat as ‘‘critical 

habitat’’ under section 4 of the Act (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), including 

information to inform the following 

factors that the regulations identify as 

reasons why designation of critical 

habitat may be not prudent: 

(a) The species is threatened by taking 

or other human activity and 

identification of critical habitat can be 

expected to increase the degree of such 

threat to the species; 

(b) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of a species’ habitat or range 

is not a threat to the species, or threats 

to the species’ habitat stem solely from 

causes that cannot be addressed through 

management actions resulting from 

consultations under section 7(a)(2) of 

the Act; 

(c) Areas within the jurisdiction of the 

United States provide no more than 

negligible conservation value, if any, for 

a species occurring primarily outside 

the jurisdiction of the United States; or 

(d) No areas meet the definition of 

critical habitat. 

(6) Specific information on: 

(a) The amount and distribution of 

Arizona eryngo habitat; 

(b) What areas, that were occupied at 

the time of listing and that contain the 

physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the species, 

should be included in the designation 

and why; 

(c) Special management 

considerations or protection that may be 

needed in critical habitat areas we are 

proposing, including managing for the 

potential effects of climate change; and 

(d) What areas not occupied at the 

time of listing are essential for the 

conservation of the species. We 

particularly seek comments: 

(i) Regarding whether occupied areas 

are adequate for the conservation of the 

species; and 

(ii) Providing specific information 

regarding whether or not unoccupied 

areas would, with reasonable certainty, 

contribute to the conservation of the 

species and contain at least one physical 

or biological feature essential to the 

conservation of the species. 

(7) Land use designations and current 

or planned activities in the subject areas 

and their possible impacts on proposed 

critical habitat. 

(8) Any probable economic, national 

security, or other relevant impacts of 

designating any area that may be 

included in the final designation, and 

the related benefits of including or 

excluding specific areas. 

(9) Information on the extent to which 

the description of probable economic 

impacts in the draft economic analysis 

is a reasonable estimate of the likely 

economic impacts. 

(10) Whether any specific areas we are 

proposing for critical habitat 

designation should be considered for 

exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act, and whether the benefits of 

potentially excluding any specific area 

outweigh the benefits of including that 

area under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. 

(11) Whether we could improve or 

modify our approach to designating 

critical habitat in any way to provide for 

greater public participation and 

understanding, or to better 

accommodate public concerns and 

comments. 

Please include sufficient information 

with your submission (such as scientific 

journal articles or other publications) to 

allow us to verify any scientific or 

commercial information you include. 

Please note that submissions merely 

stating support for, or opposition to, the 

action under consideration without 

providing supporting information, 

although noted, will not be considered 

in making a determination, as section 

4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that 

determinations as to whether any 

species is an endangered or a threatened 

species must be made ‘‘solely on the 

basis of the best scientific and 

commercial data available.’’ 

You may submit your comments and 

materials concerning this proposed rule 

by one of the methods listed in 

ADDRESSES. We request that you send 

comments only by the methods 

described in ADDRESSES. 

If you submit information via http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your entire 

submission—including any personal 

identifying information—will be posted 

on the website. If your submission is 

made via a hardcopy that includes 

personal identifying information, you 

may request at the top of your document 

that we withhold this information from 

public review. However, we cannot 

guarantee that we will be able to do so. 

We will post all hardcopy submissions 

on http://www.regulations.gov. 

Comments and materials we receive, 

as well as supporting documentation we 

used in preparing this proposed rule, 

will be available for public inspection 

on http://www.regulations.gov. 

Because we will consider all 

comments and information we receive 

during the comment period, our final 

determinations may differ from this 

proposal. Based on the new information 

we receive (and any comments on that 

new information), we may conclude that 

the species is threatened instead of 

endangered, or we may conclude that 

the species does not warrant listing as 

either an endangered species or a 

threatened species. For critical habitat, 

our final designation may not include 

all areas proposed, may include some 

additional areas that meet the definition 

of critical habitat, and may exclude 

some areas if we find the benefits of 

exclusion outweigh the benefits of 

inclusion. 

Public Hearing 

Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for 

a public hearing on this proposal, if 

requested. Requests must be received by 

the date specified in DATES. Such 

requests must be sent to the address 

shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. We will schedule a public 

hearing on this proposal, if requested, 

and announce the date, time, and place 

of the hearing, as well as how to obtain 

reasonable accommodations, in the 

Federal Register and local newspapers 

at least 15 days before the hearing. For 

the immediate future, we will provide 

these public hearings using webinars 

that will be announced on the Service’s 

website, in addition to the Federal 

Register. The use of these virtual public 

hearings is consistent with our 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3). 

Previous Federal Actions 

On April 9, 2018, we received a 

petition from the Center for Biological 

Diversity, requesting that the Arizona 

eryngo be listed as endangered or 

threatened and critical habitat be 

designated for this species under the 

Act. On April 26, 2019, we published 

our 90-day finding that the petition 

presented substantial scientific 

information indicating that listing the 

Arizona eryngo under the Act may be 

warranted (84 FR 17768). This 

document constitutes our 12-month 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
12566 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 41 / Thursday, March 4, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

warranted petition finding for the 

Arizona eryngo. 

Supporting Documents 

A species status assessment (SSA) 

team prepared an SSA report for the 

Arizona eryngo. The SSA team was 

composed of Service biologists, in 

consultation with other species experts. 

The SSA report represents a 

compilation of the best scientific and 

commercial data available concerning 

the status of the species, including the 

impacts of past, present, and future 

factors (both negative and beneficial) 

affecting the species. The Service sent 

the SSA report to eight independent 

peer reviewers and received four 

responses. The Service also sent the 

SSA report to 16 partners, including 

scientists with expertise in wetland 

management and conservation and plant 

ecology, for review. We received review 

from eight partners (Federal, State, and 

County governments, and universities). 

I. Proposed Listing Determination 

Background 

A thorough review of the taxonomy, 

life history, and ecology of the Arizona 

eryngo (Eryngium sparganophyllum) is 

presented in the SSA report (Service 

2020). The Arizona eryngo is an 

herbaceous perennial flowering plant in 

the Apiaceae (carrot) family that is 

native to Arizona and New Mexico in 

the United States, and to Sonora and 

Chihuahua in Mexico. The species 

requires moist, organic alkali soils 

found in spring-fed cienegas (aridland 

wetlands) supported by adequate 

groundwater. 

Arizona eryngo grows to a height of 

about 1.5 meters (m) (∼5 feet (ft)) with 

long, linear, parallel-veined leaves that 

emerge from a basal rosette. The plant 

is conspicuous when flowering in June 

through September (Stromberg et al. 

2019, p. 8; New Mexico Rare Plants 

2013, p. 1). The flowers are creamcolored and clustered in dense heads. 

Dry fruits ripen in September and 

October. The species is believed to live 

well over 10 years, and many 

pollinators have been documented 

interacting with the species. Arizona 

eryngo reproduces through pollination, 

creating genetically unique individuals, 

as well as vegetatively via rhizomes 

(underground stems) producing clones, 

which are genetically identical 

(Stromberg et al. 2019, p. 8). 

The Arizona eryngo only occurs in 

spring-fed cienega wetlands and grows 

best in full sun in areas with few 

nonnative plant species, limited woody 

vegetation, or other vegetation that may 

shade or otherwise outcompete them. 

The species has been found in 

conditions from standing water up to 2 

centimeters (cm) (0.8 inches (in)) deep 

to soil that is dry at the surface but is 

moist to saturated several cm into the 

soil (Stromberg et al. 2019, pp. 6, 8). It 

is hypothesized that flowering is 

determined, in part, by soil moisture 

availability (i.e., plants do not flower in 

drier conditions when the plants are 

more stressed) and that ramets (clones) 

are produced during drier periods (Li 

2019, p. 8; Stromberg et al. 2019, p. 8). 

Spatial distribution of Arizona eryngo 

within cienegas appears to be associated 

with water availability; drier conditions 

favor the growth of trees that 

outcompete the species, and very wet 

conditions (i.e., perennially standing 

water) favor the growth of bulrush 

(Schoenoplectus americanus) that 

similarly outcompetes Arizona eryngo 

(Li 2019, p. 4). Soils inhabited by 

Arizona eryngo are high in organic 

matter, saline, alkaline, and have salts 

on soil surfaces in the seasonally dry 

periphery (Stromberg et al. 2019, pp. 6, 

14). 

The Arizona eryngo is known 

historically from six sites: Three sites in 

Arizona and one in New Mexico in the 

United States, and one site in Sonora 

and one site in Chihuahua in Mexico 

(Sa ́nchez Escalante et al. 2019, pp. 16– 

17; Stromberg et al. 2019, pp. 3–8). 

Given the historical distribution of 

functional aridland cienegas (greater 

than 95 percent of the historical area of 

cienegas is now dry (Cole and Cole 

2015, p. 36)), it is likely that Arizona 

eryngo populations were historically 

more abundant, occurred closer to one 

another, and were more connected 

(through pollination) than they are 

currently. The species has been 

extirpated from one site in Arizona and 

one site in New Mexico but remains 

extant at the other four sites (two in 

Arizona; one in Sonora, Mexico; and 

one in Chihuahua, Mexico). 

Additionally, efforts are underway to 

reintroduce the species to the historical 

site in Arizona from which it was 

extirpated (Agua Caliente) and to 

introduce the species to a new site 

(Historic Canoa Ranch in Pima County, 

Arizona) within its general historical 

range. A handful of plants now exist at 

these reintroduction sites, but these 

efforts have not yet been successful at 

establishing viable populations. With 

the exception of the reintroduced plants 

at Agua Caliente, which is about 6 

kilometers (km) (3.7 miles (mi)) from the 

La Cebadilla population, other 

populations are about 90 to 335 km (56 

to 208 mi) apart from one another. 

Reports of the species farther south in 

the Mexican states of Durango, Jalisco, 

Nayarit, Zacatecas, Michoaca ́n, and 

Guerrero are likely not valid because the 

herbarium specimen from Durango, 

Mexico, is morphologically different 

from northern specimens (Stomberg et 

al. 2019, p. 7). Additionally, a report of 

the species occurring in Zacatecas, 

Nayarit, and Jalisco lacks supporting 

herbaria records (Stromberg et al. 2019, 

p. 7), and specimens collected from 

Michoaca ́n and Guerrero appear to be a 

distinct taxon due to differences in 

flower color, habitat, elevation, and 

flowering time (Stromberg et al. 2019, p. 

8). Because the species is obvious (tall 

with conspicuous flowers and locally 

abundant) and most cienegas, 

particularly ones still extant in Arizona 

and New Mexico, have been surveyed 

(AGFD 2019, p. 7), it is unlikely that 

new populations will be found. The six 

historical and current populations are 

discussed in greater detail below: 

Las Playas, New Mexico, United 

States (Extirpated)—The species 

historically occurred at Playas or Las 

Playas Springs in the Playas Basin, east 

of the Animas Mountains in Hidalgo 

County, but it has not been found since 

1851 and is believed to be extirpated 

(Sivinski 2018, p. 21; Stromberg et al. 

2019, p. 4). The springs were 

diminished and Las Playas was found 

primarily dry by the mid to late 1950s 

(Sivinski 2018, p. 27; Stromberg et al. 

2019, p. 5). The cienega at Las Playas is 

now considered dead (Sivinski 2018, p. 

8) due to agricultural and industrial (i.e., 

copper mining) dewatering (Stromberg 

et al. 2019, p. 5). ‘‘Dead cienegas’’ are 

historical cienegas that no longer have 

groundwater at or near the ground 

surface and likely have water tables so 

severely depleted that restoration, given 

today’s techniques and economics, is 

not feasible (Sivinksi 2019, p. 14). 

Agua Caliente, Arizona, United States 

(Extirpated)—Arizona eryngo 

historically occurred at the Agua 

Caliente Ranch east of Tucson in Pima 

County, Arizona, within the Santa Cruz 

River Basin (Stromberg et al. 2019, p. 5). 

This population was extirpated likely 

due to multiple manipulations of the 

site, including spring modification 

(Stromberg et al., p. 5; SWCA 2002, pp. 

1–2) and pond impoundment. Two 

springs (a hot spring and a cold spring) 

were blasted with explosives in the 

1930s, and again in the 1960s, to 

increase water flow for resort 

development. Instead, the blasting 

significantly reduced water flow 

(Friends of Agua Caliente 2020, entire). 

The flow rate from the springs has 

varied from as high as 500 gallons per 

minute historically, to an immeasurable 

seep in recent years (Pima County 2020, 

entire). 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 41 / Thursday, March 4, 2021 / Proposed Rules 12567 

The property is now owned by Pima 

County Natural Resources, Parks and 

Recreation and is managed as a regional 

park (Friends of Agua Caliente 2020, 

entire). Restoration of one of the ponds 

(Pond 1) began in 2019, and was 

completed in 2020 (Pima County 2020, 

entire). This pond is maintained by 

pumped groundwater, but soil sealant 

was used to reduce seepage and 

conserve water. As part of the 

restoration, select palm trees (Phoenix 

spp.) and invasive cattails (Typha spp.) 

were removed to encourage growth of 

native species, and a small wetland on 

the northwest side of Pond 1 was 

created (Pima County 2020, entire). 

Experimental reintroductions of 

Arizona eryngo began in 2017, using 

plants grown in a nursery with seeds 

collected from La Cebadilla (Fonseca 

2018, entire; Stromberg et al. 2019, pp. 

5, 10). The initial reintroduction effort 

in 2017 of 20 plants had limited success 

due to javelina (Tayassu tajacu) damage, 

as well as placement of the plants at 

sites where they experienced water 

stress (Fonseca 2018, entire). The 

second effort in 2018 of 15 plants had 

improved success, but a number of 

plants were eaten by gophers 

(Thomomys bottae) (Li 2019, p. 6) or 

died of other causes. More recent 

reintroductions have resulted in the 

establishment of additional plants, 

including in the small wetland and 

wildlife island of Pond 1; however, 

efforts have not yet resulted in the 

establishment of a self-sustaining 

Arizona eryngo population. 

La Cebadilla, Arizona, United States 

(Extant)—Arizona eryngo occurs in the 

La Cebadilla Cienega adjacent to the 

Tanque Verde Wash east of Tucson in 

Pima County, Arizona, within the Santa 

Cruz River basin (Stromberg et al. 2019, 

p. 5). The cienega is located on lands 

owned by La Cebadilla Estates and the 

Pima County Regional Flood Control 

District; the majority of plants occur on 

the privately owned portion of the 

cienega. In 2019, Arizona eryngo was 

documented in a number of colonies 

with a total spatial extent of 0.4 hectares 

(1.11 acres) (Li 2020a, p. 1). Some 

colony boundaries are defined by the 

presence of bulrush and tree canopy (Li 

2019, p. 1). 

The Arizona eryngo population at La 

Cebadilla is estimated to be about 

30,000 aggregates—groups of clones, 

which are genetically identical 

individuals that result from vegetative 

reproduction (Li 2020b, p. 1). Each 

clone has a unique basal stem, and 

multiple clones can form a clustered 

aggregate that resembles an individual 

plant (Li 2020a, p. 2). While this is the 

largest of the four extant populations, 

the plants occur in a very confined 

space. 

The homeowners association of La 

Cebadilla Estates manages the cienega 

(the portion not owned by the Pima 

County Regional Flood Control District) 

and nearby La Cebadilla Lake (also 

referred to as a pond, to the west of the 

cienega). The homeowners association 

has enacted covenants that prevent 

development of the cienega or sale to 

private developers (La Cebadilla Estates 

2005, entire). The spring is located on 

the western edge of the cienega and a 

concrete spring box diverts some water 

to sustain the lake (Fonseca 2019, p. 2; 

Stromberg et al. 2019, p. 5). 

Lewis Springs, Arizona, United States 

(Extant)—Arizona eryngo occurs in the 

Lewis Springs Cienega just to the east of 

the San Pedro River in Cochise County, 

within the San Pedro River Basin 

(Stromberg et al. 2019, p. 5). The 

cienega is located within the San Pedro 

Riparian National Conservation Area 

(SPRNCA) managed by the Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM). The San 

Pedro riparian area, containing about 64 

km (40 mi) of the upper San Pedro 

River, was designated by Congress as a 

National Conservation Area in 1988. 

The primary purpose for the designation 

is to conserve, protect, and enhance the 

desert riparian ecosystem, a rare 

remnant of what was once an extensive 

network of similar riparian systems 

throughout the Southwest. 

The Lewis Springs Complex currently 

has five groundwater outflows and is 

comprised of multiple elongated 

wetlands generally oriented northwestsoutheast along a slope, totaling 1.2 

hectares (3 acres) (Radke 2013, entire; 

Simms 2019, entire; Stromberg et al. 

2019, p. 6; Li 2020a, p. 2). As of 

September 2019, four of the eight 

wetlands support Arizona eryngo 

(Simms 2019, entire). Within these four 

wetlands, Arizona eryngo occurs in six 

colonies with discrete boundaries, the 

spatial extent of which was about 0.04 

hectares (0.1 acres) in 2019 (Li 2020a, p. 

1). The population has had recent 

estimates of over 1,000 plants 

(Stromberg et al. 2019, p. 6; Li 2020a, p. 

1; Li 2020b, p. 1). 

BLM has conducted some removal of 

the nonnative Johnsongrass (Sorghum 

halepense) at Lewis Springs and is 

planning for additional removal of the 

species. BLM is also planning 

experimental removal of the native 

upland plant baccharis (Baccharis spp.) 

at Lewis Springs, as well as 

establishment of additional populations 

and/or subpopulations of Arizona 

eryngo at suitable sites within Lewis 

Springs and the SPRNCA. 

Rancho Agua Caliente, Sonora, 

Mexico (Extant)—Arizona eryngo occurs 

in the Agua Caliente Cienega on the 

privately owned Rancho Agua Caliente 

east of Esqueda in the municipality of 

Nacozari de Garcı ́a (Sa ́nchez Escalante 

et al. 2019, p. 16; Stromberg et al. 2019, 

p. 7). Rancho Agua Caliente is an active 

cattle ranch. Based on aerial 

photographs, the cienega appears to be 

about 5 hectares (12.3 acres) (Stromberg 

et al. 2019, p. 7); however, it may only 

be about 1.5 hectares (3.7 acres) 

(Sa ́nchez Escalante 2019, pers. comm.). 

This cienega is the only known site 

for Arizona eryngo in Sonora. In 2018, 

hundreds of Arizona eryngo, including 

juveniles, occurred along the marsh near 

the spring within a nearly 1-hectare 

(2.5-acres) area (Sa ́nchez Escalante et al. 

2019, p. 16; Sa ́nchez Escalante 2019, 

pers. comm.). The estimated area 

occupied by Arizona eryngo is larger 

than the other sites, while the 

population estimate is quite low, thus 

indicating the population is more sparse 

or patchy than La Cebadilla or Lewis 

Springs. Based on photography of the 

site, it appears that Rancho Agua 

Caliente currently supports areas with a 

range of soil moisture (from standing 

water to dry soils) and open sun 

conditions. 

Ojo Varelen ̃ o, Chihuahua, Mexico 

(Extant)—Arizona eryngo occurs at a 

privately owned hot springs spa, El Ojo 

Varelen ̃o, located northwest of the 

municipality of Casas Grandes in 

Chihuahua (Sa ́nchez Escalante et al. 

2019, p. 9; Stromberg et al. 2019, pp. 6– 

7). The site is within the San Miguel 

River Basin at the base of the Piedras 

Verdes Mountains (Stromberg et al. 

2019, p. 6). The extent of the cienega is 

currently about 1 hectare (2.5 acres) and 

supports about 56 adult plants (Sa ́nchez 

Escalante et al. 2019, p. 17) that occupy 

an area of about 0.075 hectares (0.2 

acres) (Sa ́nchez Escalante 2019, pers. 

comm.). No juveniles were documented. 

Based on photography of the site, it 

appears that Ojo Varelen ̃ o currently 

supports areas with a range of soil 

moisture (from standing water to dry 

soils) and sunlight conditions (from 

open sun to highly shaded). The 

nonnative giant reed (Arundo donax) 

invasion at the site is creating 

conditions with high amounts of shade 

and little to no space for other plants. 

Springflow is collected in concrete spa 

ponds (Sa ́nchez Escalante et al. 2019, p. 

28), which likely affects the natural 

hydrology of the site. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
12568 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 41 / Thursday, March 4, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

Regulatory and Analytical Framework 

Regulatory Framework 

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

and its implementing regulations (50 

CFR part 424) set forth the procedures 

for determining whether a species is an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species. The Act defines an endangered 

species as a species that is ‘‘in danger 

of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range,’’ and a 

threatened species as a species that is 

‘‘likely to become an endangered 

species within the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range.’’ The Act requires that we 

determine whether any species is an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species because of any of the following 

factors: 

(A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; 

(B) Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; 

(C) Disease or predation; 

(D) The inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; or 

(E) Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. 

These factors represent broad 

categories of natural or human-caused 

actions or conditions that could have an 

effect on a species’ continued existence. 

In evaluating these actions and 

conditions, we look for those that may 

have a negative effect on individuals of 

the species, as well as other actions or 

conditions that may ameliorate any 

negative effects or may have positive 

effects. 

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

general to actions or conditions that are 

known to or are reasonably likely to 

negatively affect individuals of a 

species. The term ‘‘threat’’ includes 

actions or conditions that have a direct 

impact on individuals (direct impacts), 

as well as those that affect individuals 

through alteration of their habitat or 

required resources (stressors). The term 

‘‘threat’’ may encompass—either 

together or separately—the source of the 

action or condition or the action or 

condition itself. 

However, the mere identification of 

any threat(s) does not necessarily mean 

that the species meets the statutory 

definition of an ‘‘endangered species’’ or 

a ‘‘threatened species.’’ In determining 

whether a species meets either 

definition, we must evaluate all 

identified threats by considering the 

expected response by the species, and 

the effects of the threats—in light of 

those actions and conditions that will 

ameliorate the threats—on an 

individual, population, and species 

level. We evaluate each threat and its 

expected effects on the species, then 

analyze the cumulative effect of all of 

the threats on the species as a whole. 

We also consider the cumulative effect 

of the threats in light of those actions 

and conditions that will have positive 

effects on the species, such as any 

existing regulatory mechanisms or 

conservation efforts. The Secretary 

determines whether the species meets 

the definition of an ‘‘endangered 

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

after conducting this cumulative 

analysis and describing the expected 

effect on the species now and in the 

foreseeable future. 

The Act does not define the term 

‘‘foreseeable future,’’ which appears in 

the statutory definition of ‘‘threatened 

species.’’ Our implementing regulations 

at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a 

framework for evaluating the foreseeable 

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

‘‘foreseeable future’’ extends only so far 

into the future as the Services can 

reasonably determine that both the 

future threats and the species’ responses 

to those threats are likely. In other 

words, the foreseeable future is the 

period of time in which we can make 

reliable predictions. ‘‘Reliable’’ does not 

mean ‘‘certain’’; it means sufficient to 

provide a reasonable degree of 

confidence in the prediction. Thus, a 

prediction is reliable if it is reasonable 

to depend on it when making decisions. 

It is not always possible or necessary 

to define foreseeable future as a 

particular number of years. Analysis of 

the foreseeable future uses the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

and should consider the timeframes 

applicable to the relevant threats and to 

the species’ likely responses to those 

threats in view of its life-history 

characteristics. Data that are typically 

relevant to assessing the species’ 

biological response include speciesspecific factors such as lifespan, 

reproductive rates or productivity, 

certain behaviors, and other 

demographic factors. 

Analytical Framework 

The SSA report documents the results 

of our comprehensive biological review 

of the best scientific and commercial 

data regarding the status of 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 proposed for listing 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–2020– 

0130 on http://www.regulations.gov and 

at https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/ 

arizona/. 

To assess viability of the Arizona 

eryngo, 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. Throughout 

all of these stages, we 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. 

Using various timeframes and the 

current and projected future resiliency, 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 41 / Thursday, March 4, 2021 / Proposed Rules 12569 

redundancy, and representation, we 

describe the species’ levels of viability 

over time. For the Arizona eryngo to 

maintain viability, its populations or 

some portion thereof must be resilient. 

A number of factors influence the 

resiliency of Arizona eryngo 

populations, including occupied area, 

abundance, and recruitment. Elements 

of the species’ habitat that determine 

whether Arizona eryngo populations 

can grow to maximize habitat 

occupancy influence those factors, 

thereby influencing the resiliency of 

populations. These resiliency factors 

and habitat elements are discussed in 

detail in the SSA report and 

summarized here. 

Species Needs 

Abundance 

Larger plant populations have a lower 

risk of extinction than smaller 

populations (Menges 2000, p. 78). Small 

populations are less resilient and more 

vulnerable to the effects of 

demographic, environmental, and 

genetic stochasticity and have a higher 

risk of extinction than larger 

populations (Matthies et al. 2004, pp. 

481, 485). Small populations may 

experience increased inbreeding, loss of 

genetic variation, and ultimately a 

decreased potential to adapt to 

environmental change (Matthies et al. 

2004, p. 481). When rare plant 

populations are very small (fewer than 

100 individuals), they may suffer from 

inbreeding depression (Maschinski and 

Albrecht 2017, p. 392). Furthermore, 

fewer pollinators visit plants in small 

and isolated populations, which may 

lead to reduced pollination and lowered 

fecundity (Matthies et al. 2004, p. 482). 

For populations of Arizona eryngo to 

be resilient, abundance should be high 

enough that local stochastic events do 

not eliminate all individuals, allowing 

the overall population to recover from 

any one event. A greater number of 

individuals in a population increases 

the chance that a portion of the 

population will survive. The necessary 

abundance or minimum viable 

population (MVP) size for Arizona 

eryngo is unknown; however, 

estimations can be attained from 

literature. For example, Pavlik (1996, p. 

137) recommends MVP sizes ranging 

from 50 individuals to 2,500 individuals 

for the conservation of rare plants, 

depending on various life history 

characteristics of the taxon. Some of the 

Arizona eryngo’s life history 

characteristics indicate that an MVP 

may require higher abundance, while 

other characteristics indicate that lower 

abundances may be sufficient. For 

example, the species is a perennial and 

commonly produces ramets, which 

means that fewer individuals are needed 

to achieve an MVP. Conversely, it is an 

herbaceous plant, which means that an 

MVP may require higher abundance. 

The other characteristics are unknown 

for this species. Based on our current 

understanding of the species’ life 

history, we conclude that an initial MVP 

in the middle of the spectrum provided 

by Pavlik (1996, p. 137) is appropriate. 

Therefore, a population size of 1,225 

may be needed to achieve high 

resiliency for the Arizona eryngo. 

Determinations of MVP usually take 

into account the effective population 

size, rather than total number of 

individuals; 10 genetically identical 

individuals (for example, clones or 

ramets) would have an effective 

population size of one. In the case of the 

Arizona eryngo, we have estimates of 

abundance of individuals for each 

population, but we do not know the 

ratio of ramets to genetically unique 

individuals, although evidence 

indicates the species is highly clonal. In 

cases like this, Tependino (2012, p. 946) 

suggests adjusting the stem counts of 

rare clonal species to adjust for the 

inflated population size from the 

inclusion of ramets. Therefore, to 

account for the clonal nature of the 

Arizona eryngo, to estimate our final 

MVP we added 50 percent to the 

estimated MVP, which resulted in a 

total of about 1,840 plants needed to be 

a highly resilient population. 

Recruitment 

Arizona eryngo populations must also 

reproduce and produce sufficient 

amounts of seedlings and ramets such 

that recruitment equals or exceeds 

mortality. Ideally, we would know key 

demographic parameters of the plant 

(i.e., survival, life expectancy, lifespan, 

the ratio of ramets to genetically unique 

individuals) to estimate the percentage 

of juveniles required in a population to 

achieve population stability or growth. 

Because we currently do not know any 

of these parameters, we are using the 

presence of juveniles as an important 

demographic factor influencing 

resiliency. 

Current population size and 

abundance reflects previous influences 

on the population and habitat, while 

reproduction and recruitment reflect 

population trends that may be stable, 

increasing, or decreasing in the future. 

For example, a large, dense population 

of Arizona eryngo that contains mostly 

old individuals may be able to 

withstand a single stochastic event over 

the short term, but it is not likely to 

remain large and dense into the future, 

as there are few young individuals to 

sustain the population over time. A 

population that is less dense but has 

many young individuals may be likely 

to grow denser in the future, or such a 

population may be lost if a single 

stochastic event affects many seedlings 

at once. Therefore, the presence of 

young individuals is an important 

indicator of population resiliency into 

the future. 

Occupied Area 

Highly resilient Arizona eryngo 

populations must occupy cienegas large 

enough such that stochastic events and 

environmental fluctuations that affect 

individual plants or colonies do not 

eliminate the entire population. 

Repopulation through seed dispersal 

and germination and ramet production 

within the cienega can allow the 

population to recover from these events. 

Larger functional cienegas are likely 

to support larger populations of Arizona 

eryngo and are more likely to provide 

patches of suitable habitat when small 

stochastic events and environmental 

fluctuations occur. For example, during 

drought years, areas closer to spring 

seeps and possibly areas with natural 

depressions (i.e., topographic variation) 

may retain more moisture throughout 

the year than areas farther away from 

seeps and slightly higher in elevation. 

Conversely, during years with heavy 

rainfall, slightly higher elevation areas 

may retain moist soils that are not 

inundated year round, providing 

suitable habitat for the species. 

Areas currently occupied by Arizona 

eryngo range from about 0.04 hectares 

(0.1 acre) to 0.9 hectares (2.2 acres). 

Based on historical and current 

estimates of cienega size and area 

occupied by Arizona eryngo, we 

approximate that a resilient Arizona 

eryngo population should occupy 

greater than 1 hectare (2.5 acres) within 

a functional cienega. 

Soil Moisture 

Resilient Arizona eryngo populations 

need moist to saturated soils year round. 

Arizona eryngo has been documented in 

standing water up to two centimeters to 

soil that is dry at the surface but 

saturated several centimeters into the 

soil (Stromberg et al. 2019, pp. 6, 8). It 

is hypothesized that flowering is 

determined, in part, by soil moisture 

availability (i.e., plants do not flower in 

drier conditions when the plants are 

more stressed) and that ramets are 

produced during drier periods (Li 2019, 

p. 8; Stromberg et al. 2019, p. 8). 

Seedling recruitment may be episodic, 

with greater recruitment success in 

wetter years. Soils must remain 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
12570 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 41 / Thursday, March 4, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

sufficiently moist for successful 

seedling recruitment, particularly in the 

hottest/driest time of the year (normally 

May/June). If soils become too dry, other 

more drought-tolerant species are likely 

to encroach and outcompete the Arizona 

eryngo (Simms 2019, p. 6; Li 2019, p. 1), 

or if or if it becomes very dry such that 

the roots are not in moist soil, the plant 

is likely to die. If the soil is inundated 

with water (such that there is standing 

water on the surface) for too long, other 

species that grow more aggressively in 

mesic conditions are likely to 

outcompete the Arizona eryngo (Li 

2020, p. 2). 

Sunlight 

Highly resilient Arizona eryngo 

populations require full sun. Under 

canopy cover, the species grows less 

densely, and flowering is reduced. Tall 

native and nonnative vegetation appears 

to outcompete and suppress growth of 

the Arizona eryngo. While these species 

may compete for sunlight, water, and 

nutrients, lack of sunlight may be a 

primary factor driving the absence or 

decreased abundance of the Arizona 

eryngo. 

Risk Factors for the Arizona Eryngo 

We reviewed the potential risk factors 

(i.e., threats, stressors) that could be 

affecting the Arizona eryngo now and in 

the future. In this proposed rule, we will 

discuss only those factors in detail that 

could meaningfully impact the status of 

the species. Those risks that are not 

known to have effects on Arizona 

eryngo populations, such as 

overutilization for commercial and 

scientific purposes and disease, are not 

discussed here but are evaluated in the 

SSA report. The primary risk factors 

affecting the status of the Arizona 

eryngo are: (1) Physical alteration of 

cienegas (Factor A), (2) water loss 

(Factor A), and (3) changes in cooccurring vegetation (Factor A). These 

factors are exacerbated by the ongoing 

and expected effects of climate change. 

Direct harm or mortality due to 

herbivory or trampling (Factor C) may 

also affect individuals and the 

seedbank, but not at levels likely to 

affect species viability. 

Physical Loss and Alteration of Cienega 

Habitat 

Historically, cienegas were more 

common and larger than they are today. 

Greater than 95 percent of the historical 

area of cienegas in the southwestern 

United States and northwestern Mexico 

is now dry (Cole and Cole 2015, p. 36). 

Functional cienegas were much more 

common prior to the late 1800s, as 

evidenced by pollen and fire records, 

General Land Office survey notes, and 

early trapper and settler diaries 

(Hendrickson and Minckley 1985, p. 

131; Fonseca 1998, p. 111; Cole and 

Cole 2015, p. 36; Brunelle et al. 2018, 

p. 2). Estimates of cienega abundance in 

the International Four Corners Region of 

the Southwest (Arizona, Sonora, New 

Mexico, and Chihuahua) vary from 

hundreds to thousands (Cole and Cole 

2015, p. 36; Sivinski 2018, entire). Of 

the 155 cienegas that Cole and Cole 

(2015, p. 36) identified in the 

International Four Corners Region, 87 

(56 percent) are either dead or so 

severely compromised that there is no 

prospect for their restoration. In 

addition to the reduced abundance of 

cienegas in the International Four 

Corners Region, the remaining cienegas 

are greatly reduced in size, and due to 

many being severely incised, they are 

more similar to creeks than marshes 

(Cole and Cole 2015, p. 36). 

A number of complex factors, many of 

which are interrelated, led to the 

historical loss and degradation of 

cienegas and continue to contribute to 

this loss today. The primary factors 

include intensive grazing of domestic 

livestock, the removal of beavers (Castor 

canadensis) from regional streams and 

rivers, and agricultural recontouring 

(Minckley et al. 2013a, p. 214; Cole and 

Cole 2015, p. 32). Intensive overgrazing 

by sheep and cattle from the late 1500s 

to the late 1800s led to barren soil, 

erosion, headcutting (erosional feature 

in a stream that contributes to lowering 

the water table of the surrounding 

system), and increased frequency of or 

intensity of destructive floods, all 

leading to the alteration or complete 

destruction (complete loss of ecological 

function) of cienegas (Minckley et al. 

2013a, p. 214; Cole and Cole 2015, p. 

32). Beaver dams, once numerous 

within the range of the Arizona eryngo, 

slowed water and created pools and 

wetlands along water courses, and 

enhanced groundwater recharge; 

however, high levels of beaver trapping 

in the 1800s resulted in increased 

erosion and channel cutting of these 

once complex, shallow wetlands 

(Gibson and Olden 2014, p. 395; Cole 

and Cole 2015, p. 32). Additionally, 

early settlers recontoured (e.g., diverted, 

dammed, channelized) cienegas for 

agricultural, mining, disease control, 

and other purposes; this resulted in 

further channelization and concentrated 

flow, greatly reducing the size of 

cienegas and further lowering the water 

table (Cole and Cole 2015, p. 32; 

Minckley et al. 2013b, p. 78). 

We expect that Arizona eryngo 

populations were more widespread and 

occurred at historical cienegas that have 

lost their ecological function due to 

physical alteration, such that 

populations were more abundant, 

occurred closer to one another, and 

were more connected (through 

pollination and seed dispersal) than 

they are currently. As a result of these 

lost cienegas, the four extant Arizona 

eryngo populations are now disjunct. 

Although grazing was one cause of the 

loss of historical cienega habitat, grazing 

and trampling by livestock occur only 

occasionally at Arizona eryngo 

populations. No grazing is authorized at 

Lewis Springs, and we are not aware of 

any grazing occurring at La Cebadilla 

and Ojo Varelen ̃o. Trespass livestock 

could enter Lewis Springs and affect 

habitat in the cienega; although there 

was no evidence of cattle in 2018 or 

2019, there was evidence (i.e., scat and 

light trailing) of a trespass horse in the 

area when Service biologists visited the 

site in 2019. Cattle are present at 

Rancho Agua Caliente, Sonora, and the 

habitat is somewhat disturbed by cattle 

(Sa ́nchez Escalante et al. 2019, p. 16). 

Livestock (e.g., livestock trailing and 

gathering) can trample vegetation and 

expose and compact soil, resulting in 

habitat erosion and altered hydrological 

function, but the effects of livestock are 

dependent on many factors such as the 

intensity, duration, and timing of 

grazing. In the absence of other forms of 

disturbance (e.g., fire), it is possible that 

selective, well-managed livestock 

grazing in the winter or spring could 

create habitat disturbance and open sun 

conditions favoring Arizona eryngo 

seedling establishment. 

Other physical alterations that 

occurred in the past likely continue to 

affect extant populations of Arizona 

eryngo through changes in the natural 

hydrology of cienegas supporting the 

species. For example, a berm that has 

been present at La Cebadilla since at 

least 1941, as well as various houses 

and roads adjacent and near the cienega, 

all affect the natural hydrology of the 

site. Similarly, the railroad that runs 

parallel to Lewis Springs likely affects 

the hydrology of the cienega. Unlike the 

historical physical alterations that 

severely degraded cienegas, these 

alterations (berm, railroad, houses, etc.) 

have not destroyed cienega function. 

Water Loss 

Water loss in cienegas poses a 

significant threat to the Arizona eryngo. 

Causes of water loss are complex, but 

the primary causes at cienegas 

historically or currently supporting 

Arizona eryngo are: (1) Groundwater 

pumping/withdrawal, (2) spring 

modification, (3) water diversion, and 

(4) drought. These stressors are all 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 41 / Thursday, March 4, 2021 / Proposed Rules 12571 

exacerbated by climate change. 

Groundwater pumping or withdrawal 

leads to aquifer depletion and no or 

reduced outflow from springheads. 

Modification of springheads reduces or 

eliminates springflow. Water diverted 

from springheads reduces or eliminates 

the amount of water supporting the 

cienega. Drought and warming also 

reduce springflow and the amount of 

water in cienegas. Reduction in winter 

rain particularly leads to reduced 

aquifer recharge. Climate change is 

expected to exacerbate drought 

conditions, increase surface 

temperatures and evapotranspiration, 

and reduce winter precipitation, all of 

which may lead to a reduction in 

aquifer recharge and increased cienega 

drying. 

Water loss in cienegas reduces the 

quantity and quality of habitat for the 

Arizona eryngo. The species requires 

very moist to saturated soils and 

possibly some standing water for seed 

germination. As water is lost from 

cienegas, soils become drier, reducing 

habitat quality and allowing woody 

and/or invasive vegetation to establish, 

further reducing available habitat. 

Water loss from cienegas caused the 

extirpation of the species at two of the 

six cienegas known to historically 

support the Arizona eryngo (Las Playas 

in New Mexico, and Agua Caliente in 

Arizona), and all populations continue 

to be exposed to water loss. The sources 

of water loss are discussed further 

below. 

Groundwater withdrawal—The 

population at Las Playas was extirpated 

primarily due to groundwater pumping 

for agriculture and the Playas Smelter 

that caused the desiccation of the spring 

(Sivinski 2018, p. 27; Stromberg et al. 

2019, p. 5). Groundwater withdrawal is 

also occurring near Lewis Springs, La 

Cebadilla, and Agua Caliente. The use of 

groundwater for agriculture, industry, 

and urban and rural development has 

enabled significant human population 

growth in the arid Southwest. Increased 

groundwater withdrawal can reduce or 

eliminate springflow, thereby 

eliminating wetlands altogether 

(Johnson et al. 2016, p. 52). 

The largest municipalities in the 

Sierra Vista subwatershed, within 

which Lewis Springs occurs, are Sierra 

Vista, Bisbee, Tombstone, and 

Huachuca City. Within these areas, the 

human population is increasing, as is 

development distributed in rural parts 

of the subwatershed (Leake et al. 2008, 

p. 1). This growing population is 

dependent on groundwater to meet its 

water consumption needs. Water 

outflow from the subwatershed, 

including water withdrawn by 

pumping, exceeds natural inflow to the 

regional aquifer within the 

subwatershed (Leake et al. 2008, p. 2). 

As a result, groundwater levels in parts 

of the subwatershed are declining, and 

groundwater storage is being depleted 

(i.e., a negative water budget). 

Groundwater pumping in the area of 

Lewis Springs, up to several kilometers 

away, may be affecting the regional 

groundwater flow to the wetlands along 

the San Pedro River, including Lewis 

Springs (Stromberg et al. 2019, p. 9). 

The continued decline of groundwater 

levels upgradient from perennial river 

reaches will eventually diminish the 

base flow of the San Pedro River and 

impact the riparian ecosystem within 

the SPRNCA (Leake et al. 2008, p. 2). 

This groundwater use over the past 

century has been so profound that the 

effects of pumping over the past century 

will eventually capture and eliminate 

surface flow from the river, even if all 

groundwater pumping were to stop 

(Gungle et al. 2016, p. 29). Models show 

the area of Lewis Springs as being one 

of the areas of greatest groundwater loss 

in the basin (Leake et al. 2008, p. 14). 

The aquifer supporting the La 

Cebadilla springs could be reduced from 

numerous private wells (including the 

Tanque Verde Guest Ranch) producing 

water from the aquifer that feeds the 

springs (Eastoe and Fonseca 2019, pers. 

comm.). It is unknown how quickly 

pumping a mile or two away from the 

springs might affect the springs 

themselves (Eastoe and Fonseca 2019, 

pers. comm.). 

We do not have information on the 

source of water supplying the springs or 

about the amount of groundwater use at 

Rancho Agua Caliente or Ojo Varelen ̃ o, 

both in Mexico. 

Spring modification—The Arizona 

eryngo population at Agua Caliente was 

extirpated due to a number of 

manipulations, including spring 

modification (i.e., the springs were 

blasted in the 1930s and again in the 

1960s) that significantly decreased the 

water flow (Stromberg et al. 2019, p. 5; 

Friends of Agua Caliente 2020, entire) 

and pond impoundment. 

Water diversion—The Arizona eryngo 

population at La Cebadilla has been 

exposed to water diversion for many 

decades; this diversion may have led to 

a reduction in the size of the cienega, 

but enough water still flows to maintain 

the cienega and support the largest 

documented population (Fonseca 2019, 

p. 2; Stromberg et al. 2019, p. 5). Pond 

impoundment diverts water from the 

cienega at Agua Caliente; this was 

pronounced in the 1960s during 

subdivision construction and has 

continued since. 

Less is known about water loss 

associated with the cienegas supporting 

the Arizona eryngo in Mexico, but we 

are aware that the municipality of Casas 

Grandes is interested in installing a 

pipeline from the spring at El Ojo 

Varelen ̃ o to supply water to the 

Universidad Tecnolo ́gica de Casas 

Grandes. Currently at Ojo Varelen ̃ o, 

springflow is collected in concrete spa 

ponds, which likely affects the natural 

hydrology of the site. 

Drought and warming—All Arizona 

eryngo populations are exposed to 

drought, as well as warming 

temperatures from climate change. 

Decreased precipitation and increased 

temperatures due to climate change will 

exacerbate declines in surface and 

groundwater levels, which will cause 

further drying of cienega habitat 

required by the Arizona eryngo. 

Climate change has already begun, 

and continued greenhouse gas 

emissions at or above current rates will 

cause further warming. Climate models 

indicate that the transition to a more 

arid climate is already underway and 

predict that in this century the arid 

regions of the southwestern United 

States will become drier (i.e., decreased 

precipitation) and warmer (i.e., 

increased surface temperatures), and 

have fewer frost days, decreased snow 

pack, increased frequency of extreme 

weather events (heat waves, droughts, 

and floods), declines in river flow and 

soil moisture, and greater water demand 

by plants, animals, and humans (Archer 

and Predick 2008, p. 23; Garfin et al. 

2013, pp. 5–6). Increasing dryness in the 

southwestern United States and 

northern Mexico is predicted to occur as 

early as 2021–2040 (Seager et al. 2007, 

p. 1181). Climate modeling of the 

southwestern United States shows 

consistent projections of drying, 

primarily due to a decrease in winter 

precipitation (Collins et al. 2013, p. 

1080). For both Pima and Cochise 

Counties, where the La Cebadilla and 

Lewis Springs populations occur, the 

average daily maximum temperature, 

under both lower (i.e. RCP 4.5) and 

higher (i.e., RCP 8.5) emissions 

scenarios, will increase by mid-century 

(Climate Explorer 2020). 

Climate change over the 21st century 

is projected to reduce renewable surface 

water and groundwater resources in 

most dry subtropical regions (IPCC 

2014, p. 69). Over the next 100 years, 

groundwater recharge in the San Pedro 

basin is expected to decrease 17 to 30 

percent, depending on the climate 

scenario considered (Serrat-Capdevila et 

al. 2007, p. 63), and average annual base 

flow will be half the base flow in 2000. 

As the area gets drier, the San Pedro 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
12572 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 41 / Thursday, March 4, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

aquifer groundwater overdraft will 

become more severe as recharge 

declines and groundwater pumping 

increases (Meixner et al. 2016, p. 135). 

For the purposes of our analysis, we 

chose two Representative Concentration 

Pathways, RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5 (IPCC 

2014, p. 8) to assess future condition of 

the Arizona eryngo. These climate 

scenarios were incorporated into our 

future scenarios of the status of the 

Arizona eryngo in the SSA report. 

Summary of water loss—In summary, 

water loss has caused the extirpation of 

two of six known populations of the 

Arizona eryngo and has affected the 

current viability of all extant 

populations. Both extant U.S. 

populations are exposed to water loss 

through groundwater withdrawal, and 

one of these (La Cebadilla) is also 

exposed to spring diversion. 

Groundwater withdrawal, particularly 

when exacerbated by climate change, is 

a primary threat to the survival of the 

Arizona eryngo at Lewis Springs and La 

Cebadilla. Less is known about water 

loss associated with the two populations 

in Mexico, but spring diversion is 

proposed at one site supporting the 

Arizona eryngo, and it is likely that the 

species is vulnerable to groundwater 

withdrawal. Drought and warming as a 

result of climate change affects all 

populations, particularly when 

combined with groundwater withdrawal 

and diversion. 

Change in Vegetation at Cienegas 

The invasion of vegetation that 

reduces full sun conditions poses a 

threat to the Arizona eryngo. Changes in 

vegetation at cienegas are primarily 

from fire suppression, introduction of 

nonnative plant species, decreased flood 

events, and changes in hydrology and 

climate. Prior to the arrival of European 

settlers, burning of cienegas by 

indigenous people was frequent enough 

to exclude most woody plants (e.g., 

hackberry (Celtis spp.), buttonbush 

(Cephalanthus spp.), cottonwood 

(Populus spp.), ash (Fraxinus spp.), and 

willow (Salix spp.)) and suppress 

bulrush from cienegas and to promote 

growth of native grasses (Davis et al. 

2002, p. 1; Cole and Cole 2015, p. 32). 

Extant cienegas now have less diversity 

of annual and disturbance-adapted 

native understory species and an 

increase in native woody, clonal, and 

nonnative plants (Stromberg et al. 2017, 

p. 10). As water levels in cienegas 

decrease, woody plants invade without 

regular disturbance (e.g., fires, floods) to 

the system (Huxman and Scott 2007, p. 

1). Shifts from herbaceous wetland 

vegetation to more deeply rooted 

riparian trees have been well 

documented at wetlands with lowered 

water tables (Stromberg et al. 2019, p. 

9). These woody plants shade out 

Arizona eryngo and cause water level 

declines in cienegas through increased 

evapotranspiration, particularly in the 

summer (Johnson et al. 2016, p. 83). 

Invasive, nonnative plants (e.g., giant 

reed, Johnsongrass) are of concern 

because they often quickly colonize an 

area and aggressively compete with 

native species such as the Arizona 

eryngo for sunlight, water, and 

nutrients. Giant reed is a fast-growing, 

tall (up to 6 meters (m) (∼20 feet (ft)), 

perennial, hydrophytic (water-loving) 

grass that grows in riparian areas, 

streams, irrigation ditches, and 

wetlands. It is an aggressive invader that 

rapidly spreads into a thick 

monoculture that outcompetes and 

shades out other vegetation (Frandsen 

1997, p. 245; DiPietro 2002, p. 9). Giant 

reed is fire-adapted and resprouts from 

extensive underground rhizomes even 

after very hot fires that kill native 

vegetation (DiPietro 2002, p. 9). 

Additionally, it uses large amounts of 

water, thereby reducing the amount of 

water available for native vegetation 

(DiPietro 2002, p. 10). 

Johnsongrass is a fast-growing, tall, 

invasive perennial grass that thrives in 

a variety of environments and climates 

(Peerzada et al. 2017, p. 2). It mostly 

grows at moist sites (e.g., irrigation 

canals, cultivated fields, field edges, 

pastures), and in Arizona, it is known as 

a riparian weed in the Sonoran and 

Chihuahuan Deserts. Johnsongrass 

impacts the growth of native plants; it 

is difficult to control and has become 

resistant to herbicides, particularly 

glyphosate (Peerzada et al. 2017, p. 2). 

At three of four cienegas supporting 

the Arizona eryngo (Lewis Springs, La 

Cebadilla, and Ojo Varelen ̃ o), an 

increase in woody vegetation and 

nonnative plant species has been 

documented. This vegetation is 

outcompeting the Arizona eryngo for 

sunlight and space, likely causing a 

decrease in population size and extent 

at these sites. At Lewis Springs, 

Johnsongrass is aggressively invading 

and appears to be suppressing Arizona 

eryngo, particularly in the drier areas of 

the wetlands (Li 2019, entire; Simms 

2019, entire). Johnsongrass has been 

present at this site since at least 2009. 

In the drier areas of the wetlands, 

baccharis is encroaching and appears to 

be suppressing Arizona eryngo; no 

Arizona eryngo plants have been found 

growing in the understory of baccharis 

(Li 2019, entire; Simms 2019, entire). At 

La Cebadilla, aerial imagery indicates 

that mesquite (Prosopis spp.) is 

invading the cienega, and cottonwood 

also appears to be shading out Arizona 

eryngo (Fonseca 2019, entire). Arizona 

ash (Fraxinus velutina) trees are 

invading the cienega and shading out 

Arizona eryngo as well (Li 2020b, p. 3). 

At Ojo Varelen ̃ o, many nonnative plant 

species also occur, with a particularly 

aggressive invasion of giant reed 

(Sa ́nchez Escalante et al. 2019, pp. 9– 

10). 

In summary, nonnative Johnsongrass 

and giant reed are likely to continue to 

aggressively invade Lewis Springs and 

Ojo Varelen ̃o. These nonnative plant 

species may contribute to the near-term 

extirpation of Arizona eryngo 

populations at these sites. Woody 

vegetation encroachment at La Cebadilla 

and Lewis Springs is also likely to 

continue, further degrading habitat 

conditions. 

Direct Harm and Mortality 

Livestock, such as cattle and horses, 

and native herbivores (both invertebrate 

and vertebrate) may cause harm or 

mortality to Arizona eryngo plants 

through trampling, herbivory, or 

uprooting. Because mature plants have 

large, fibrous leaves, cattle are more 

likely to consume young plants at an 

early growth stage. As discussed above, 

cattle are present at Rancho Agua 

Caliente, and trespass cattle and horses 

could enter Lewis Springs and trample, 

consume flowers, and reduce the 

seedbank of the Arizona eryngo. To our 

knowledge, no livestock are present at 

La Cebadilla or Ojo Varelen ̃o. At the 

Agua Caliente reintroduction site in 

Arizona, javelina uprooted and killed 

young plants, and gophers ate young 

reintroduced plants (Fonseca 2018, p. 1; 

Li 2019, p. 6). 

Many invertebrates have been 

observed on Arizona eryngo plants at La 

Cebadilla and Lewis Springs (Stromberg 

et al. 2019, p. 8; Li 2019, p. 2; Simms 

2019, p. 1). Some of these invertebrates 

may be floral herbivores, but they do not 

appear to be of concern for the species’ 

viability. 

In summary, while herbivory and 

trampling may harm individual Arizona 

eryngo plants and the seedbank, they 

are not significant threats to the species. 

Summary 

Our analysis of the past, current, and 

future influences on the needs of the 

Arizona eryngo for long-term viability 

revealed that there are two that pose the 

greatest risk to future viability: Water 

loss (groundwater withdrawal and water 

diversion) and invasion of nonnative 

and woody plant species, both of which 

are exacerbated by drought and 

warming caused by climate change. 

Water loss reduces the availability of 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 41 / Thursday, March 4, 2021 / Proposed Rules 12573 

moist soils, and nonnative and woody 

plant species outcompete Arizona 

eryngo for sunlight, space, and water, 

thereby reducing the quantity and 

quality of habitat. 

Species Condition 

Here we discuss the current condition 

of the Arizona eryngo, taking into 

account the risks to those populations 

that are currently occurring. We 

consider climate change to be currently 

occurring and exacerbating effects of 

drought, warming, groundwater 

withdrawal, diversion, and invasion of 

nonnative and woody plant species. In 

the SSA report, for each population, we 

developed and assigned condition 

categories for three population factors 

and two habitat factors that are 

important for viability of the Arizona 

eryngo. The condition scores for each 

factor were then used to determine an 

overall condition of each population: 

high, moderate, low, or functionally 

extirpated. These overall conditions 

translate to our presumed probability of 

persistence of each population, with 

populations in high condition having 

the highest presumed probability of 

persistence over 30 years (greater than 

90 percent), populations in moderate 

condition having a presumed 

probability of persistence that falls 

between 60 and 90 percent, and 

populations in low condition having the 

lowest probability of persistence 

(between 10 and 60 percent). 

Functionally extirpated populations are 

not expected to persist over 30 years or 

are already extirpated. 

Overall, there are four remaining 

populations of Arizona eryngo, all 

restricted to small cienegas in the 

Sonoran and Chihuahuan Deserts in 

Arizona and Mexico. Historically, 

Arizona eryngo populations were likely 

connected to one another, but today 

they are small and isolated due to 

cienega loss throughout the region. 

Repopulation of extirpated locations is 

extremely unlikely without human 

assistance. Two populations are 

currently in moderate condition and 

two are in low condition, and two have 

been extirpated. 

La Cebadilla 

La Cebadilla contains the largest 

population of the Arizona eryngo, with 

a population estimate of over 30,000 

individuals. However, this population 

occurs in a very small area; the 

occupied area is approximately 0.04 

hectares (1.1 acres), and the population 

depends on stable groundwater to 

maintain springflow into the cienega. 

The cienega has been altered by 

increased presence of trees, bank 

erosion, pasture grading, utility 

construction, and subdivision 

development (Fonseca 2019, p. 3). 

Historical images indicate that the 

cienega was more extensive in 1941, 

with fewer trees on some margins of the 

cienega and no forest on the southern 

margin of the cienega (Fonseca 2019, p. 

1). Due to the encroachment of woody 

vegetation, this site has varied sunlight 

conditions, with more shade currently 

than in the past. 

The cienega has been shrinking, 

indicating the aquifer is being depleted 

(Fonseca 2019, pers. comm.). The 

aquifer supporting the La Cebadilla 

springs supports numerous private 

wells (including the Tanque Verde 

Guest Ranch) (Eastoe and Fonseca 2019, 

pers. comm.). In addition to 

groundwater use, aquifer depletion 

could also result from increased 

evapotranspiration of tree cover and 

stream channel adjustments. 

La Cebadilla Estates and the Pima 

County Regional Flood Control District 

(PCFCD) are committed to the 

conservation of the unique ecological 

diversity of La Cebadilla cienega and are 

working to reduce woody vegetation. 

The homeowners association of La 

Cebadilla Estates manages their portion 

of the cienega as common property for 

the common use and enjoyment of its 

members. PCFCD manages their portion 

of the cienega as natural open space, 

which has a restrictive covenant that 

limits development and protects natural 

resources on the property. 

Because of the small extent of the 

population and the encroachment of 

woody vegetation, the Arizona eryngo 

population is currently in moderate 

condition and is at risk of extirpation 

from decreased springflow due to 

continuing loss of groundwater from the 

aquifer. 

Lewis Springs 

The population of Arizona eryngo in 

Lewis Springs, estimated at 1,813 

plants, occurs along a very narrow 

cienega parallel to a railroad, occupying 

about 0.04 hectares (0.1 acres) (Li 2020a, 

p. 1). In 2005, there were more than a 

dozen springs and seeps in the wetland 

complex; as of 2019, some of the 

wetland patches appear to be drying, 

with soil drier at several sites than it 

had been in 2005 (Simms 2019, entire). 

The water source of Lewis Springs 

Cienega is supplied by mountain front 

recharge (westward flow from the Mule 

Mountains and eastward flow from the 

Huachuca Mountains) (Baillie et al. 

2007, p. 7; Stromberg et al. 2019, p. 6). 

Groundwater pumping up to several 

kilometers away may be affecting the 

regional groundwater flow to the 

wetlands along the San Pedro River, 

including Lewis Springs (Stromberg et 

al. 2019, p. 9). 

Nonnative Johnsongrass is 

aggressively invading Lewis Springs and 

appears to be suppressing Arizona 

eryngo, particularly in the drier areas of 

the cienega (Simms 2019, p. 22; Li 

2020a, p. 2). Similarly, baccharis has 

been invading and appears to be 

suppressing Arizona eryngo, as no 

Arizona eryngo plants were found 

growing in the understory of baccharis 

(Simms 2019, p. 6; Li 2019, p. 1). In the 

wetter areas of the cienega where the 

soil is saturated and surface water is 

generally present, common spikerush 

(Eleocharis palustris) and bulrush 

appear to suppress Arizona eryngo (Li 

2020a, p. 2). 

BLM has conducted some removal of 

Johnsongrass at Lewis Springs and is 

currently planning for additional 

removal of the species. BLM is also 

planning experimental removal of 

baccharis shrubs at Lewis Springs, and 

they are considering establishment of 

additional populations and/or 

subpopulations of Arizona eryngo at 

suitable sites within Lewis Springs and 

the SPRNCA. BLM is also collecting 

seeds for propagation and banking. 

Because of the moderate population 

size, extremely small population extent, 

decreasing springflow and increased 

drying of soils, and plant species 

invasion, Lewis Springs is currently in 

moderate condition. The population is 

currently at risk of extirpation from 

drying due to drought, groundwater 

pumping, and invasion of nonnative 

Johnsongrass. 

Rancho Agua Caliente, Mexico 

The Arizona eryngo population at 

Rancho Agua Caliente occupies about 1 

hectare (2.5 acres). The population is 

estimated to be several hundred plants, 

including juveniles (Sa ́nchez Escalante 

et al. 2019, p. 16; Sa ́nchez Escalante 

2019, pers. comm.). This cienega is the 

only known population of Arizona 

eryngo in Sonora. 

Rancho Agua Caliente is an active 

cattle ranch, and Arizona eryngo habitat 

is somewhat disturbed by cattle 

(Sa ́nchez Escalante et al. 2019, p. 16), 

which may help create open sun 

conditions for the species. We have no 

information on the groundwater source 

for the spring. 

Because of the small numbers of 

individuals at Rancho Agua Caliente, 

the population is currently in low 

condition and is at risk of extirpation 

due to drought and drying of habitat. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
12574 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 41 / Thursday, March 4, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

Ojo Varelen ̃ o, Mexico 

The Arizona eryngo population at Ojo 

Varelen ̃o contains about 56 adult plants 

(Sa ́nchez Escalante et al. 2019, p. 17) in 

a 0.075-hectare (0.18-acre) area (Sa ́nchez 

Escalante 2019, pers. comm.). No 

juveniles have been documented at this 

site. 

Giant reed has been aggressively 

invading Ojo Varelen ̃ o (Sa ́nchez 

Escalante et al. 2019, p. 10), and it 

appears that the site has variable soil 

moisture and sunlight conditions. The 

giant reed invasion is creating 

conditions with high amounts of shade 

and little to no space for other plants. 

Springflow is collected in concrete spa 

ponds (Sa ́nchez Escalante et al. 2019, p. 

28), which likely affects the natural 

hydrology of the site. Currently, we do 

not have information on the source of 

water supplying the springs or the 

amount of groundwater use at this site. 

Because of the very low population 

numbers and the lack of juveniles, the 

population of Arizona eryngo at Ojo 

Varelen ̃ o is currently in low condition. 

A small change in the water levels at the 

cienega or further invasion by giant reed 

could cause the extirpation of the 

population in the near future. 

We note that, by using the SSA 

framework to guide our analysis of the 

scientific information documented in 

the SSA report, we have not only 

analyzed individual effects on the 

species, but we have also analyzed their 

potential cumulative effects. We 

incorporate the cumulative effects into 

our SSA analysis when we characterize 

the current and future condition of the 

species. Our assessment of the current 

and future conditions encompasses and 

incorporates the threats individually 

and cumulatively. Our current and 

future condition assessment is iterative 

because it accumulates and evaluates 

the effects of all the factors that may be 

influencing the species, including 

threats and conservation efforts. 

Because the SSA framework considers 

not just the presence of the factors, but 

to what degree they collectively 

influence risk to the entire species, our 

assessment integrates the cumulative 

effects of the factors and replaces a 

standalone cumulative effects analysis. 

Determination of Arizona Eryngo’s 

Status 

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

and its implementing regulations (50 

CFR part 424) set forth the procedures 

for determining whether a species meets 

the definition of an endangered species 

or a threatened species. The Act defines 

endangered species as a species ‘‘in 

danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range,’’ and 

threatened species as a species ‘‘likely 

to become an endangered species within 

the foreseeable future throughout all or 

a significant portion of its range.’’ The 

Act requires that we determine whether 

a species meets the definition of 

endangered species or threatened 

species because of any of the following 

factors: (A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

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

the inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; or (E) other natural or 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence. 

Status Throughout All of Its Range 

After evaluating threats to the species 

and assessing the cumulative effect of 

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

factors, we found that the Arizona 

eryngo has declined in abundance and 

distribution. At present, most of the 

known populations exist in very low 

abundances, and all populations occur 

in extremely small areas. Furthermore, 

existing available habitats are reduced 

in quality and quantity, relative to 

historical conditions. Our analysis 

revealed three primary threats that 

caused these declines and pose a 

meaningful risk to the viability of the 

species. These threats are primarily 

related to habitat changes (Factor A 

from the Act): Physical alteration of 

cienegas, water loss, and changes in cooccurring vegetation, all of which are 

exacerbated by the effects of climate 

change. 

Because of historical and current 

modifications of cienegas and 

groundwater withdrawals from the 

aquifers supporting occupied cienegas, 

Arizona eryngo populations are now 

fragmented and isolated from one 

another and unable to recolonize 

following extirpations. These 

populations are largely in a state of 

chronic degradation due to water loss 

and changes in co-occurring vegetation, 

affecting soil moisture and open canopy 

conditions and limiting the species’ 

resiliency. Given the high risk of a 

catastrophic drought or groundwater 

depletion, both of which are 

exacerbated by climate change, all 

Arizona eryngo populations are at a 

high or moderate risk of extirpation. 

Historically, the species, with a larger 

range of likely interconnected 

populations, would have been more 

resilient to stochastic events because 

even if some populations were 

extirpated by such events, they could be 

recolonized over time by dispersal from 

nearby surviving populations. This 

connectivity, which would have made 

for a highly resilient species overall, has 

been lost, and with two populations in 

low condition and two in moderate 

condition, the remnant populations are 

all at risk of loss. 

Our analysis of the Arizona eryngo’s 

current conditions, using the best 

available information, shows that the 

Arizona eryngo is in danger of 

extinction throughout all of its range 

due to the severity and immediacy of 

threats currently impacting the species. 

We find that a threatened species status 

is not appropriate because of the 

Arizona eryngo’s currently contracted 

range, because the populations are 

fragmented from one another, because 

the threats are currently ongoing and 

occurring across the entire range of the 

species. 

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. We have 

determined that the Arizona eryngo is in 

danger of extinction throughout all of its 

range and accordingly did not undertake 

an analysis of any significant portion of 

its range. Because the Arizona eryngo 

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 the Final 

Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase 

‘‘Significant Portion of Its Range’’ in the 

Endangered Species Act’s Definitions of 

‘‘Endangered Species’’ and ‘‘Threatened 

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

that provided the Services do not 

undertake an analysis of significant 

portions of a species’ range if the 

species warrants listing as threatened 

throughout all of its range. 

Determination of Status 

Our review of the best available 

scientific and commercial information 

indicates that the Arizona eryngo meets 

the Act’s definition of an endangered 

species. Therefore, we propose to list 

the Arizona eryngo 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, 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 41 / Thursday, March 4, 2021 / Proposed Rules 12575 

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 threats 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 threats to the 

species, as new substantive information 

becomes available. The recovery plan 

also identifies recovery criteria for 

review of when a species may be ready 

for reclassification from endangered to 

threatened (‘‘downlisting’’) or removal 

from protected status (‘‘delisting’’), and 

methods for monitoring recovery 

progress. Recovery plans also establish 

a framework for agencies to coordinate 

their recovery efforts and provide 

estimates of the cost of implementing 

recovery tasks. Recovery teams 

(composed of species experts, Federal 

and State agencies, nongovernmental 

organizations, and stakeholders) are 

often established to develop recovery 

plans. When completed, the recovery 

outline, draft recovery plan, and the 

final recovery plan will be available on 

our website (http://www.fws.gov/ 

endangered), or from our Arizona 

Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Implementation of recovery actions 

generally requires the participation of a 

broad range of partners, including other 

Federal agencies, States, Tribes, 

nongovernmental organizations, 

businesses, and private landowners. 

Examples of recovery actions include 

habitat restoration (e.g., restoration of 

native vegetation), research, captive 

propagation and reintroduction, and 

outreach and education. The recovery of 

many listed species cannot be 

accomplished solely on Federal lands 

because their range may occur primarily 

or solely on non-Federal lands. To 

achieve recovery of these species 

requires cooperative conservation efforts 

on private, State, and Tribal lands. 

If this species is listed, funding for 

recovery actions will be available from 

a variety of sources, including Federal 

budgets, State programs, and cost-share 

grants for non-Federal landowners, the 

academic community, and 

nongovernmental organizations. In 

addition, pursuant to section 6 of the 

Act, the State of Arizona would be 

eligible for Federal funds to implement 

management actions that promote the 

protection or recovery of the Arizona 

eryngo. Information on our grant 

programs that are available to aid 

species recovery can be found at: http:// 

www.fws.gov/grants. 

Although the Arizona eryngo is only 

proposed for listing under the Act at 

this time, please let us know if you are 

interested in participating in recovery 

efforts for this species. Additionally, we 

invite you to submit any new 

information on this species whenever it 

becomes available and any information 

you may have for recovery planning 

purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT). 

Section 7(a) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies to evaluate their 

actions with respect to any species that 

is proposed or listed as an endangered 

or threatened species and with respect 

to its critical habitat, if any is 

designated. Regulations implementing 

this interagency cooperation provision 

of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 

402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies to confer with the 

Service on any action that is likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of a 

species proposed for listing or result in 

destruction or adverse modification of 

proposed critical habitat. If a species is 

listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of 

the Act requires Federal agencies to 

ensure that activities they authorize, 

fund, or carry out are not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

the species or destroy or adversely 

modify its critical habitat. If a Federal 

action may affect a listed species or its 

critical habitat, the responsible Federal 

agency must enter into consultation 

with the Service. 

Federal agency actions within the 

species’ habitat that may require 

conference or consultation or both as 

described in the preceding paragraph 

include management and any other 

landscape-altering activities on Federal 

lands administered by the BLM or 

groundwater use by Fort Huachuca or 

other Federal agencies (or permitted or 

funded by a Federal agency) within the 

hydrological influence of Lewis Springs, 

La Cebadilla, or Agua Caliente. 

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 proposed listing on 

proposed and ongoing activities within 

the range of the species proposed for 

listing. Based on the best available 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
12576 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 41 / Thursday, March 4, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

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 agricultural and 

silvicultural practices, including 

herbicide and pesticide use, that are 

carried out in accordance with any 

existing regulations, permit and label 

requirements, and best management 

practices; 

(2) Normal residential landscaping 

activities on non-Federal lands; and 

(3) Recreational use with minimal 

ground disturbance. 

Based on the best available 

information, the following activities 

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 handling, removing, 

trampling, or collecting of the Arizona 

eryngo on Federal land; and 

(2) Removing, cutting, digging up, or 

damaging or destroying the Arizona 

eryngo in knowing violation of any law 

or regulation of the State of Arizona or 

in the course of any violation of a State 

criminal trespass law. 

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. Designation also does 

not allow the government or public to 

access private lands, nor does 

designation require implementation of 

restoration, recovery, or enhancement 

measures by non-Federal landowners. 

Where a landowner requests Federal 

agency funding or authorization for an 

action that may affect a listed species or 

critical habitat, the Federal agency 

would be required to consult with the 

Service under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. 

However, even if the Service were to 

conclude that the proposed activity 

would result in destruction or adverse 

modification of the critical habitat, the 

Federal action agency and the 

landowner are not required to abandon 

the proposed activity, or to restore or 

recover the species; instead, they must 

implement ‘‘reasonable and prudent 

alternatives’’ to avoid destruction or 

adverse modification of critical habitat. 

Under the first prong of the Act’s 

definition of critical habitat, areas 

within the geographical area occupied 

by the species at the time it was listed 

are included in a critical habitat 

designation if they contain physical or 

biological features (1) which are 

essential to the conservation of the 

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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 41 / Thursday, March 4, 2021 / Proposed Rules 12577 

available, to use primary and original 

sources of information as the basis for 

recommendations to designate critical 

habitat. 

When we are determining which areas 

should be designated as critical habitat, 

our primary source of information is 

generally the information from the SSA 

report and information developed 

during the listing process for the 

species. Additional information sources 

may include any generalized 

conservation strategy, criteria, or outline 

that may have been developed for the 

species; the recovery plan for the 

species; articles in peer-reviewed 

journals; conservation plans developed 

by States and counties; scientific status 

surveys and studies; biological 

assessments; other unpublished 

materials; or experts’ opinions or 

personal knowledge. 

Habitat is dynamic, and species may 

move from one area to another over 

time. We recognize that critical habitat 

designated at a particular point in time 

may not include all of the habitat areas 

that we may later determine are 

necessary for the recovery of the 

species. For these reasons, a critical 

habitat designation does not signal that 

habitat outside the designated area is 

unimportant or may not be needed for 

recovery of the species. Areas that are 

important to the conservation of the 

species, both inside and outside the 

critical habitat designation, will 

continue to be subject to: (1) 

Conservation actions implemented 

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

regulatory protections afforded by the 

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

for Federal agencies to ensure their 

actions are not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of any endangered 

or threatened species; and (3) the 

prohibitions found in section 9 of the 

Act. Federally funded or permitted 

projects affecting listed species outside 

their designated critical habitat areas 

may still result in jeopardy findings in 

some cases. These protections and 

conservation tools will continue to 

contribute to recovery of this species. 

Similarly, critical habitat designations 

made on the basis of the best available 

information at the time of designation 

will not control the direction and 

substance of future recovery plans, 

habitat conservation plans (HCPs), or 

other species conservation planning 

efforts if new information available at 

the time of these planning efforts calls 

for a different outcome. 

Prudency Determination 

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

amended, and implementing regulations 

(50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the 

maximum extent prudent and 

determinable, the Secretary shall 

designate critical habitat at the time the 

species is determined to be an 

endangered or threatened species. Our 

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

that the Secretary may, but is not 

required to, determine that a 

designation would not be prudent in the 

following circumstances: 

(i) The species is threatened by taking 

or other human activity and 

identification of critical habitat can be 

expected to increase the degree of such 

threat to the species; 

(ii) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of a species’ habitat or range 

is not a threat to the species, or threats 

to the species’ habitat stem solely from 

causes that cannot be addressed through 

management actions resulting from 

consultations under section 7(a)(2) of 

the Act; 

(iii) Areas within the jurisdiction of 

the United States provide no more than 

negligible conservation value, if any, for 

a species occurring primarily outside 

the jurisdiction of the United States; 

(iv) No areas meet the definition of 

critical habitat; or 

(v) The Secretary otherwise 

determines that designation of critical 

habitat would not be prudent based on 

the best scientific data available. 

As discussed earlier in this document, 

there is currently no imminent threat of 

collection or vandalism identified under 

Factor B for this species, and 

identification and mapping of critical 

habitat is not expected to initiate any 

such threat. In our SSA and proposed 

listing determination for the Arizona 

eryngo, we determined that the present 

or threatened destruction, modification, 

or curtailment of habitat or range is a 

threat to the Arizona eryngo and that 

threat in some way can be addressed by 

section 7(a)(2) consultation measures. 

Over half of the historical range of the 

species occurs in the jurisdiction of the 

United States, and we are able to 

identify areas that meet the definition of 

critical habitat. Therefore, because none 

of the circumstances enumerated in our 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(1) has 

been met and because there are no other 

circumstances the Secretary has 

identified for which this designation of 

critical habitat would be not prudent, 

we have determined that the 

designation of critical habitat is prudent 

for the Arizona eryngo. 

Critical Habitat Determinability 

Having determined that designation is 

prudent, under section 4(a)(3) of the Act 

we must find whether critical habitat for 

the Arizona eryngo is determinable. Our 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(2) state 

that critical habitat is not determinable 

when one or both of the following 

situations exist: 

(i) Data sufficient to perform required 

analyses are lacking, or 

(ii) The biological needs of the species 

are not sufficiently well known to 

identify any area that meets the 

definition of ‘‘critical habitat.’’ 

When critical habitat is not 

determinable, the Act allows the Service 

an additional year to publish a critical 

habitat designation (16 U.S.C. 

1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)). 

We reviewed the available 

information pertaining to the biological 

needs of the species and habitat 

characteristics where this species is 

located. This and other information 

represent the best scientific data 

available and led us to conclude that the 

designation of critical habitat is 

determinable for the Arizona eryngo. 

Physical or Biological Features 

Essential to the Conservation of the 

Species 

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 that 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, alkali 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, 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
12578 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 41 / Thursday, March 4, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

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; 

and habitats that are protected from 

disturbance. 

Physiological Requirements 

The Arizona eryngo needs 

permanently moist to saturated, 

alkaline, organic soils. The species is a 

cienega obligate and grows in wetland 

margins. At a minimum, soil should be 

moist year round immediately beneath 

the surface, even during drought years, 

as adequately moist soil is required for 

flowering, seed germination, and 

seedling survival and recruitment. 

Overly dry soils may allow other more 

drought-tolerant species to invade, or 

the Arizona eryngo plants may die. 

Conversely, if the soil is inundated with 

water for long periods, other invasive 

plant species may take over. Alkaline 

and organic soils are typical of cienegas. 

Based on the above information, we 

determine that the Arizona eryngo 

needs permanently moist to saturated 

soils. Soils should be saturated with 

some standing water during winter and 

be at least moist just below the surface 

during summer. 

Cienegas occupied by Arizona eryngo 

are associated with and fed by springs 

and are low-gradient wetlands that serve 

to slow water and trap organic materials 

and nutrients. Spring-dominated 

cienegas are maintained by fault lines 

crossing aquifers and/or the intersection 

of wetland sites with shallow aquifers 

overlaying a deeper, impervious layer, 

both of which allow for groundwater to 

be forced to the surface (Minckley et al. 

2013a, p. 214; Johnson et al. 2016, pp. 

80–81). Cienegas are often found in the 

upper reaches of small drainages or 

above river channels in a variety of 

surrounding vegetation communities, 

and thus are protected from scouring 

floods (Sivinski and Tonne 2011, p. 2). 

Cienegas have water tables at or near the 

ground surface (Norman et al. 2019, p. 

4) and are therefore maintained by the 

discharge of groundwater from 

relatively shallow aquifers. A decline in 

groundwater inflow (recharge) or 

increase in groundwater outflow 

(discharge) (e.g., from groundwater 

withdrawal, drought, increased 

evapotranspiration) can lead to 

reductions and disruptions in 

springflow, or elimination of springs 

and wetlands altogether (Johnson et al. 

2016, p. 52). The hydrological processes 

that maintain functional cienega habitat 

support resilient Arizona eryngo 

populations. 

Finally, the Arizona eryngo needs 

open sun conditions (Stromberg et al. 

2019, p. 9). The species is more 

abundant in open areas than in areas 

shaded by riparian trees. Colony 

boundaries at most sites are defined by 

the presence of native and nonnative 

vegetation. Plants observed in 

November 2019 and January 2020 under 

tree canopy at La Cebadilla showed a 

reduction in flowering that year, and 

leaves appeared less upright (more 

prostrate) and etiolated (pale due to 

reduced exposure to sunlight) compared 

to nearby Arizona eryngo plants in 

sunnier conditions (Li 2020a, p. 11). 

Summary of Essential Physical or 

Biological Features 

We derive the specific physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the Arizona eryngo from 

studies of the species’ habitat, ecology, 

and life history as described below. 

Additional information can be found in 

the SSA report (Service 2020, entire; 

available on http://www.regulations.gov 

under Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2020– 

0130). We have determined that the 

following physical or biological features 

are essential to the conservation of 

Arizona eryngo: 

(1) Cienegas within the Chihuahuan 

and Sonoran Deserts: 

(a) That contain permanently moist to 

saturated, organic, alkaline soils with 

some standing water in winter and that 

are moist at or just below the surface in 

summer; and 

(b) That have functional hydrological 

processes and are sustained by 

springflow via discharge of 

groundwater. 

(2) Areas of open canopy throughout 

the cienega. 

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 

threats: Physical alteration of cienegas, 

water loss, and changes in co-occurring 

vegetation. Management activities that 

could ameliorate these threats include, 

but are not limited to: Use best 

management practices (BMPs) to 

minimize erosion and sedimentation; 

remove and control invasive, nonnative 

species (e.g., Johnsongrass) that 

encroach on critical habitat; selectively 

manage woody vegetation that 

encroaches on critical habitat; exclude 

livestock, or in some instances where 

such management would further the 

conservation of cienega habitat and the 

species, use highly managed grazing; 

avoid or minimize groundwater 

withdrawal to maintain adequate 

springflow to maintain cienegas; and 

avoid springflow diversion and 

springhead modification to maintain 

springflow to cienegas. 

In summary, we find that the 

occupied areas we are proposing to 

designate as critical habitat contain the 

physical or biological features that are 

essential to the conservation of the 

Arizona eryngo and that may require 

special management considerations or 

protection. Special management 

considerations or protection may be 

required of the Federal action agency to 

eliminate, or to reduce to negligible 

levels, the threats affecting the essential 

physical or biological features of each 

unit. 

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. We are not currently 

proposing to designate any areas outside 

the geographical area occupied by the 

species because we have not identified 

any unoccupied areas that meet the 

definition of critical habitat at this time. 

While the Arizona eryngo needs 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 41 / Thursday, March 4, 2021 / Proposed Rules 12579 

additional populations to reduce 

extinction risk, the only historical 

extirpated location with the essential 

physical or biological features is Agua 

Caliente, where the species has already 

been reintroduced; therefore, it is 

currently occupied. We are not aware of 

which additional locations may have a 

reasonable certainty of contributing to 

conservation. 

In summary, for areas within the 

geographic area occupied by the species 

at the time of listing, we delineated 

critical habitat unit boundaries using 

the following criteria: Evaluate habitat 

suitability of cienegas within the 

geographic area occupied at the time of 

listing, and retain those cienegas that 

contain some or all of the physical or 

biological features that are essential to 

support life history processes of the 

species. 

When determining proposed critical 

habitat boundaries, we made every 

effort to avoid including developed 

areas such as lands covered by 

buildings, pavement, and other 

structures because such lands lack 

physical or biological features necessary 

for the Arizona eryngo. 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 proposed rule have been 

excluded by text in the proposed rule 

and are not proposed for designation as 

critical habitat. Therefore, if the critical 

habitat is finalized as proposed, a 

Federal action involving these lands 

would 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 propose to designate as critical 

habitat lands that we have determined 

are occupied 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 support 

life-history processes of the species. 

Units are proposed for designation 

based on one or more of the physical or 

biological features being present to 

support Arizona eryngo’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 

Arizona eryngo’s particular use of that 

habitat. 

The critical habitat designation is 

defined by the map or maps, as 

modified by any accompanying 

regulatory text, presented at the end of 

this document under Proposed 

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 each map is based available to 

the public at https://www.fws.gov/ 

southwest/es/arizona/ and at http://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R2–ES–2020–0130. 

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation 

We are proposing three units as 

critical habitat for the Arizona eryngo, 

all of which are in Arizona. The critical 

habitat areas we describe below 

constitute our current best assessment of 

areas that meet the definition of critical 

habitat for the Arizona eryngo. The 

three areas we propose as critical habitat 

are: (1) Lewis Springs, (2) La Cebadilla, 

and (3) Agua Caliente. The table below 

shows the proposed critical habitat 

units and the approximate area of each 

unit. All units are occupied. 

TABLE OF PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS FOR THE ARIZONA ERYNGO

[Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries] 

Critical habitat unit Subunit Land ownership by type 

Size of unit 

in acres 

(hectares) 

Occupied? 

1. Lewis Springs ............................ ....................................................... Federal (BLM) ............................... 9.6 (3.9) Yes. 

2. La Cebadilla .............................. ....................................................... Private, Pima County Regional 

Flood Control District.

3.1 (1.3) Yes. 

3. Agua Caliente ............................ 3a. Pond 1 Wetland ...................... Pima County Natural Resources, 

Parks and Recreation.

0.04 (0.02) Yes. 

3b. Pond 1 Wildlife Island ............ ....................................................... 0.2 (0.07) 

3c. Pond 2 .................................... ....................................................... 0.09 (0.04) 

Total ........................................ ....................................................... ....................................................... 13.0 (5.3) 

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 

Arizona eryngo, below. 

Unit 1: Lewis Springs 

Unit 1 consists of 9.6 acres (3.9 

hectares) encompassing the wetlands at 

Lewis Springs just to the east of the San 

Pedro River in Cochise County, within 

the San Pedro River Basin. The unit is 

located within the SPRNCA, which is 

owned and managed by the BLM to 

conserve, protect, and enhance a rare 

remnant of desert riparian ecosystem. 

The unit is occupied by the species and 

contains all the physical or biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the Arizona eryngo. The Lewis Springs 

Unit is being affected by drought, 

nonnative species invasion, woody 

vegetation encroachment, and ongoing 

human demand for water resulting in 

declining groundwater levels. Therefore, 

special management is necessary to 

reduce invasion of nonnative species 

and encroachment of woody vegetation 

and to improve groundwater levels to 

support continued springflow. 

Unit 2: La Cebadilla 

Unit 2 consists of 3.1 acres (1.3 

hectares) of cienega habitat at La 

Cebadilla Cienega, adjacent to the 

Tanque Verde Wash east of Tucson in 

Pima County, within the Santa Cruz 

River Basin. The majority of the unit is 

located on lands owned by La Cebadilla 

Estates, with a smaller portion of the 

unit located on lands owned and 

managed by PCFCD. The homeowners 

association of La Cebadilla Estates 

manages their portion of the cienega as 

common property for the common use 

and enjoyment of its members. PCFCD 

manages their portion of the cienega as 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
12580 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 41 / Thursday, March 4, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

natural open space, which has a 

restrictive covenant that limits 

development and protects natural 

resources on the property. The La 

Cebadilla Unit is occupied by the 

species and contains all the physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the Arizona eryngo. The 

unit is located in a rural neighborhood 

and is being affected by drought, woody 

vegetation encroachment, and ongoing 

human demand for water resulting in 

declining groundwater levels. Therefore, 

special management is necessary to 

reduce encroachment of woody 

vegetation and to improve groundwater 

levels to support continued springflow. 

Unit 3: Agua Caliente 

Unit 3 consists of three subunits 

totaling 0.3 acres (0.1 hectares), all 

within the Agua Caliente Regional Park. 

The park is located east of Tucson in 

Pima County within the Santa Cruz 

River Basin (Stromberg et al. 2019, p. 5) 

and is owned and managed by Pima 

County Natural Resources, Parks and 

Recreation. The Arizona eryngo 

historically occurred at this site, but the 

population was extirpated, likely due to 

multiple manipulations of the site, 

including spring modification 

(Stromberg et al., p. 5; SWCA 2002, pp. 

1–2) and pond impoundment. 

Reintroduction efforts for the species 

began in 2017, and while a selfsustaining population does not yet exist, 

multiple plants have been established at 

various sites within the unit. Therefore, 

the unit is occupied by the species and 

contains two (saturated soils and areas 

of open canopy) of the three physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the Arizona eryngo. The 

Agua Caliente Unit is in a semi-rural 

setting and is being affected by drought, 

nonnative species invasion, woody 

vegetation encroachment, and ongoing 

human demand for water resulting in 

declining groundwater levels. Therefore, 

special management is necessary to 

reduce invasion of nonnative species 

and encroachment of woody vegetation 

and to improve groundwater levels to 

support continued springflow. 

Subunit 3a: Pond 1 Wetland—Subunit 

3a, Pond 1 Wetland consists of 0.04 

acres (0.02 hectares) of shoreline habitat 

on the northwest shore of Pond 1. 

During restoration of Pond 1, a small 

wetland was created in this area, and 

Arizona eryngo were planted. The 

shoreline contains saturated soils, and 

portions of the shoreline contain open 

canopy. This subunit is currently 

occupied. 

Subunit 3b: Pond 1 Wildlife Island— 

Subunit 3b, Pond 1 Wildlife Island 

consists of 0.2 acres (0.07 hectares) of a 

wildlife island within Pond 1. A 

channel is cut through the wildlife 

island, creating saturated soil conditions 

within the channel, where Arizona 

eryngo were planted. The entire wildlife 

island has open canopy conditions 

currently. This subunit is currently 

occupied. 

Subunit 3c: Pond 2—Subunit 3c, 

Pond 2 consists of 0.09 acres (0.04 

hectares) of shoreline habitat on the 

south shore of Pond 2. Arizona eryngo 

were planted just above the water line 

in an area of completely open canopy 

that contains saturated soils. This 

subunit is currently occupied. 

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. 

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 set forth 

requirements for 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 41 / Thursday, March 4, 2021 / Proposed Rules 12581 

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 ‘‘Destruction or 

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 regulation that 

designates critical habitat, activities 

involving a Federal action that may 

violate section 7(a)(2) of the Act by 

destroying or adversely modifying such 

habitat, or that may be affected by such 

designation. 

Activities that the Service 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 alter the 

hydrology of the cienega. Such activities 

could include, but are not limited to, 

springflow diversion, springhead 

modification, groundwater withdrawal, 

and physical alteration of the cienega. 

These activities could change the 

hydrological processes of the cienega, 

reducing or eliminating habitat for the 

Arizona eryngo. 

(2) Actions that promote the growth of 

nonnative plant species and canopy 

cover. Such actions include, but are not 

limited to, planting of nonnative plant 

species and woody vegetation, and seed 

spread through livestock and tire treads. 

These activities could reduce or 

eliminate habitat for the Arizona eryngo. 

(3) Actions that result in further 

fragmentation of Arizona eryngo habitat. 

Such actions include, but are not 

limited to, fuel breaks, roads, and trails. 

These activities could reduce or 

eliminate habitat for the Arizona eryngo. 

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 

(DoD) lands with a completed INRMP 

within the proposed critical habitat 

designation. 

Consideration of Exclusions 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 the determination to 

exclude a particular area, 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. 

We describe below the process that 

we undertook for taking into 

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 proposed 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 should we 

choose to conduct 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 this proposed 

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 

Arizona eryngo (IEc 2020, entire). We 

began by conducting a screening 

analysis of the proposed 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
12582 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 41 / Thursday, March 4, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

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 proposed 

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 are what we 

consider our draft economic analysis 

(DEA) of the proposed critical habitat 

designation for the Arizona eryngo; our 

DEA is summarized in the narrative 

below. 

Executive Orders (E.O.s) 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 proposed 

designation of critical habitat for the 

Arizona eryngo, first we identified, in 

the IEM dated October 15, 2020, 

probable incremental economic impacts 

associated with the following categories 

of activities: (1) Federal lands 

management (Bureau of Land 

Management); (2) vegetation 

management; (3) fire and fuels 

management; and (4) livestock grazing. 

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, 

designation of critical habitat only 

affects activities conducted, funded, 

permitted, or authorized by Federal 

agencies. If we list the species, in areas 

where the Arizona eryngo is present, 

Federal agencies would be required to 

consult with the Service under section 

7 of the Act on activities they fund, 

permit, or implement that may affect the 

species. If, when we list the species, we 

also finalize this proposed critical 

habitat designation, consultations to 

avoid the destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat would be 

incorporated into the existing 

consultation process. 

In our IEM, we attempted to clarify 

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 the 

Arizona eryngo’s critical habitat. 

Because the designation of critical 

habitat for Arizona eryngo is being 

proposed concurrently with the listing, 

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 to constitute jeopardy to the 

Arizona eryngo 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 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 

proposed designation of critical habitat. 

The proposed critical habitat 

designation for the Arizona eryngo 

totals 13.0 acres (5.3 hectares) in three 

units, all of which are occupied. In 

occupied areas, any actions that may 

affect the species or its habitat would 

also affect critical habitat, and 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 Arizona eryngo. 

Therefore, only administrative costs are 

expected in the proposed critical habitat 

designation. While this additional 

analysis will require time and resources 

by both the Federal action agency and 

the Service, it is believed that, in most 

circumstances, these costs would 

predominantly be administrative in 

nature and would not be significant. 

The probable incremental economic 

impacts of the Arizona eryngo critical 

habitat designation are expected to be 

limited to additional administrative 

effort as well as minor costs of 

conservation efforts resulting from a 

small number of future section 7 

consultations. Because all of the 

proposed critical habitat units are 

occupied by the species, incremental 

economic impacts of critical habitat 

designation, other than administrative 

costs, are unlikely. At approximately 

$5,300 or less per consultation, in order 

to reach the threshold of $100 million 

of incremental administrative impacts 

in a single year, critical habitat 

designation would have to result in 

more than 18,800 consultations in a 

single year; instead, this designation is 

expected to result in 12 to 17 

consultations in 10 years. Thus, the 

annual administrative burden is 

unlikely to reach $100 million. 

We are soliciting data and comments 

from the public on the DEA discussed 

above, as well as all aspects of this 

proposed rule and our required 

determinations. During the development 

of a final designation, we will consider 

the information presented in the DEA 

and any additional information on 

economic impacts we receive during the 

public comment period to determine 

whether any specific areas should be 

excluded from the final critical habitat 

designation under authority of section 

4(b)(2) and our implementing 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.19. In 

particular, we may exclude an area from 

critical habitat if we determine that the 

benefits of excluding the area outweigh 

the benefits of including the area, 

provided the exclusion will not result in 

the extinction of this species. 

Consideration of National Security 

Impacts 

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

not cover all 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 41 / Thursday, March 4, 2021 / Proposed Rules 12583 

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. 

In preparing this proposal, we have 

determined that the lands within the 

proposed designation of critical habitat 

for the Arizona eryngo are not owned, 

managed, or used by the DoD or DHS. 

We anticipate no impact on national 

security or homeland security. However, 

during the development of a final 

designation we will consider any 

additional information we receive 

through the public comment period on 

the impacts of the proposed designation 

on national security or homeland 

security to determine whether any 

specific areas should be excluded from 

the final critical habitat designation 

under authority of section 4(b)(2) and 

our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 

424.19. 

Consideration of 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 discussed 

above. We consider a number of factors 

including whether there are permitted 

conservation plans covering the species 

in the area such as HCPs, safe harbor 

agreements (SHAs), or candidate 

conservation agreements with 

assurances (CCAAs), or whether there 

are non-permitted conservation 

agreements and partnerships that would 

be encouraged by designation of, or 

exclusion from, critical habitat. In 

addition, we look at the existence of 

Tribal conservation plans and 

partnerships and consider the 

government-to-government relationship 

of the United States with Tribal entities. 

We also consider any social impacts that 

might occur because of the designation. 

In preparing this proposal, we have 

determined that there are currently no 

HCPs or other management plans for the 

Arizona eryngo, and the proposed 

designation does not include any Tribal 

lands or trust resources. We anticipate 

no impact on Tribal lands, partnerships, 

or HCPs from this proposed critical 

habitat designation. Additionally, as 

described above, we are not considering 

excluding any particular areas from 

critical habitat on the basis of impacts 

to national security or economic 

impacts. However, during the 

development of a final designation, we 

will consider any additional 

information we receive through the 

public comment period regarding other 

relevant impacts of the proposed 

designation and will determine whether 

any specific areas should be excluded 

from the final critical habitat 

designation under authority of section 

4(b)(2) and our implementing 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.19. 

Required Determinations 

Clarity of the Rule 

We are required by Executive Orders 

12866 and 12988 and by the 

Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 

1998, to write all rules in plain 

language. This means that each rule we 

publish must: 

(1) Be logically organized; 

(2) Use the active voice to address 

readers directly; 

(3) Use clear language rather than 

jargon; 

(4) Be divided into short sections and 

sentences; and 

(5) Use lists and tables wherever 

possible. 

If you feel that we have not met these 

requirements, send us comments by one 

of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To 

better help us revise the rule, your 

comments should be as specific as 

possible. For example, you should tell 

us the numbers of the sections or 

paragraphs that are unclearly written, 

which sections or sentences are too 

long, the sections where you feel lists or 

tables would be useful, etc. 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

(Executive Orders 12866 and 13563) 

Executive Order 12866 provides that 

the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of 

Management and Budget will review all 

significant rules. OIRA has determined 

that this rule is not significant. 

Executive Order 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 proposed 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
12584 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 41 / Thursday, March 4, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

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 

whether 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 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 would be directly regulated if 

we adopt the proposed critical habitat 

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 would be 

directly regulated by this rulemaking, 

the Service certifies that, if made final 

as proposed, the proposed critical 

habitat designation will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

In summary, we have considered 

whether the proposed designation 

would result in a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. For the above reasons and 

based on currently available 

information, we certify that, if made 

final, the proposed critical habitat 

designation will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small business entities. 

Therefore, an initial 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. In 

our economic analysis, we did not find 

that this proposed critical habitat 

designation would 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 finding: 

(1) This proposed rule would 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 

would significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments because the lands 

proposed for critical habitat designation 

that are owned by Pima County are 

already set aside for conservation 

purposes, and small governments would 

be affected only to the extent that any 

programs having Federal funds, permits, 

or other authorized activities must 

ensure that their actions would not 

adversely affect the critical habitat. 

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 

Arizona eryngo 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 41 / Thursday, March 4, 2021 / Proposed Rules 12585 

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 for the 

proposed designation of critical habitat 

for the Arizona eryngo, and it concludes 

that, if adopted, this designation of 

critical habitat 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 proposed 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 this 

proposed critical habitat designation 

with, appropriate State resource 

agencies. 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 proposed rule does not have 

substantial direct effects either on the 

States, or on the relationship between 

the national government and the States, 

or on the distribution of powers and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. The proposed 

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 for 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 State and 

local governments in long-range 

planning because they 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 

under section 7(a)(2) of the Act 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 would not unduly burden the 

judicial system and that it meets the 

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

of the Order. We have proposed 

designating critical habitat in 

accordance with the provisions of the 

Act. To assist the public in 

understanding the habitat needs of the 

species, this proposed rule identifies the 

elements of physical or biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species. The proposed areas of 

designated critical habitat are presented 

on maps, and the proposed 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)). All 

of the proposed critical habitat lies 

outside of the jurisdiction of the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. 

As a result, we are not preparing an 

environmental analysis. 

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 have determined that no Tribal 

lands fall within the boundaries of the 

proposed critical habitat for the Arizona 

eryngo, so no Tribal lands would be 

affected by the proposed designation. 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited in 

this rulemaking is available on the 

internet at http://www.regulations.gov 

and upon request from the Arizona 

Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this proposed 

rule are the staff members of the 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. 

Proposed Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we propose to 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. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
12586 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 41 / Thursday, March 4, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

■ 2. Amend § 17.12(h), the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Plants, by 

adding an entry for ‘‘Eryngium 

sparganophyllum’’ in alphabetical order 

under FLOWERING PLANTS to read as 

follows: 

§ 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

Scientific name Common name Where listed Status Listing citations and 

applicable rules 

FLOWERING PLANTS

* * * * * * * 

Eryngium 

sparganophyllum.

Arizona eryngo ............... Wherever found .............. E [Federal Register citation when published as a 

final rule]; 50 CFR 17.96(a).CH

* * * * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 17.96(a) by adding an 

entry for ‘‘Eryngium sparganophyllum 

(Arizona eryngo)’’ in alphabetical order 

under Family Apiaceae to read as 

follows: 

§ 17.96 Critical habitat—plants. 

(a) Flowering plants. 

* * * * * 

Family Apiaceae: Eryngium 

sparganophyllum (Arizona eryngo) 

(1) Critical habitat units are depicted 

for Pima and Cochise Counties, Arizona, 

on the maps in this entry. 

(2) Within these areas, the physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the Arizona eryngo 

consist of the following components: 

(i) Cienegas within the Chihuahuan 

and Sonoran Deserts: 

(A) That contain permanently moist to 

saturated, organic, alkaline soils with 

some standing water in winter and that 

are moist at or just below the surface in 

summer; and 

(B) That have functional hydrological 

processes and are sustained by 

springflow via discharge of 

groundwater. 

(ii) Areas of open canopy throughout 

the cienega. 

(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 

final rule. 

(4) Critical habitat map units. Data 

layers defining map units were created 

on a base of U.S. Geological Survey 

digital ortho-photo quarter-quadrangles, 

and critical habitat units were then 

mapped using Universal Transverse 

Mercator (UTM) Zone 15N coordinates. 

The maps in this entry, as modified by 

any accompanying regulatory text, 

establish 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/, at 

http://www.regulations.gov at Docket 

No. FWS–R2–ES–2020–0130, 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 41 / Thursday, March 4, 2021 / Proposed Rules 12587 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–C 

(6) Unit 1: Lewis Springs, Cochise 

County, Arizona. 

(i) General description: Unit 1 

consists of 9.6 acres (3.9 hectares) 

encompassing the wetlands at Lewis 

Springs just to the east of the San Pedro 

River in Cochise County, within the San 

Pedro River Basin. The unit is located 

within the San Pedro Riparian National 

Conservation Area, which is owned and 

managed by the Bureau of Land 

Management. 

(ii) Map of Unit 1 follows: 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALSEP04MR21.000</GPH>
12588 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 41 / Thursday, March 4, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–C 

(7) Unit 2: La Cebadilla, Pima County, 

Arizona. 

(i) General description: Unit 2 

consists of 3.1 acres (1.3 hectares) of 

cienega habitat at La Cebadilla Cienega, 

adjacent to the Tanque Verde Wash east 

of Tucson within the Santa Cruz River 

Basin. The majority of the unit is 

located on lands owned by La Cebadilla 

Estates, with a smaller portion of the 

unit located on lands owned and 

managed by the Pima County Regional 

Flood Control District. 

(ii) Map of Unit 2 follows: 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALSEP04MR21.001</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 41 / Thursday, March 4, 2021 / Proposed Rules 12589 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–C 

(8) Unit 3: Agua Caliente, Pima 

County, Arizona. 

(i) General description: Unit 3 

consists of three subunits totaling 0.3 

acres (0.1 hectares) east of Tucson 

within the Santa Cruz River Basin and 

is owned and managed by Pima County 

Natural Resources, Parks and 

Recreation. 

(ii) Map of Unit 3 follows: 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALSEP04MR21.002</GPH>
12590 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 41 / Thursday, March 4, 2021 / Proposed Rules 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALSEP04MR21.003</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 41 / Thursday, March 4, 2021 / Proposed Rules 12591 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–C 

* * * * * 

Martha Williams, 

Senior Advisor to the Secretary, Exercising 

the Delegated Authority of the Director, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2021–03705 Filed 3–3–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 648 

[Docket No. 210225–0031;RTID 0648–XX069] 

Fisheries of the Northeastern United 

States; Atlantic Spiny Dogfish Fishery; 

Revised 2021 and Projected 2022 

Specifications 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes revised 

specifications for the 2021 Atlantic 

spiny dogfish fishery based on the MidAtlantic Fishery Management Council’s 

updated risk policy, and projected 

status quo specifications for fishing year 

2022, as recommended by the MidAtlantic and New England Fishery 

Management Councils. This action is 

necessary to establish allowable harvest 

levels to prevent overfishing while 

enabling optimum yield, using the best 

information available. This rule also 

informs the public of the proposed 

fishery specifications and provides an 

opportunity for comment. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

March 19, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on this document, identified by NOAA– 

NMFS–2021–0004, by the following 

method: 

Electronic Submission: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. 

1. Go to https://www.regulations.gov/ 

docket?D=NOAA-NMFS-2021-0004, 

2. Click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, 

complete the required fields, and 

3. Enter or attach your comments. 

Instructions: Comments sent by any 

other method, to any other address or 

individual, or received after the end of 

the comment period, may not be 

considered by NMFS. All comments 

received are part of the public record 

and will generally be posted for public 

viewing on www.regulations.gov 

without change. All personal identifying 

information (e.g., name, address, etc.), 

confidential business information, or 

otherwise sensitive information 

submitted voluntarily by the sender will 

be publicly accessible. NMFS will 

accept anonymous comments (enter 

‘‘N/A’’ in the required fields if you wish 

to remain anonymous). If you are unable 

to submit your comment through 

www.regulations.gov, contact Cynthia 

Ferrio, Fishery Policy Analyst, 

Cynthia.Ferrio@noaa.gov. 

Copies of the Supplemental 

Information Report (SIR) and other 

supporting documents for this action are 

available upon request from Dr. 

Christopher M. Moore, Executive 

Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council, Suite 201, 800 

North State Street, Dover, DE 19901. 

These documents are also accessible via 

the internet at http://www.mafmc.org/ 

supporting-documents. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Cynthia Ferrio, Fishery Policy Analyst, 

(978) 281–9180. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Mid-Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council and the New 

England Fishery Management Council 

jointly manage the Atlantic Spiny 

Dogfish Fishery Management Plan 

(FMP), with the Mid-Atlantic Council 

acting as the administrative lead. 

Additionally, the Atlantic States Marine 

Fisheries Commission manages the 

spiny dogfish fishery in state waters 

from Maine to North Carolina through 

an interstate fishery management plan. 

The Councils’ FMP requires the 

specification of an annual catch limit 

(ACL), annual catch target (ACT), and 

total allowable landings (TAL). These 

limits and other management measures 

may be set for up to five fishing years 

at a time, with each fishing year running 

from May 1 through April 30. This 

action proposes revised specifications 

for the 2021 spiny dogfish fishery as 

well as projects specifications for 2022, 

based on the Mid-Atlantic Council’s 

updated risk policy. 

The spiny dogfish fishery is currently 

operating under multi-year 

specifications for 2019–2021, based on a 

2018 assessment update. The 

commercial quota is already projected to 

increase approximately 14 percent from 

fishing year 2020 to 2021 under these 

initial specifications. However, the MidAtlantic Council recently updated its 

risk policy to accept a higher level of 

risk for stocks at or above biomass 

targets (85 FR 81152; December 15, 

2020). At its meeting on September 8, 

2020, the Mid-Atlantic Council’s 

Scientific and Statistical Committee’s 

(SSC) recommended that the projected 

Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) and 

resulting commercial quota for the 2021 

spiny dogfish fishery be recalculated 

using this new approach. Applying the 

new risk policy would increase the 2021 

ABC 9 percent from what was initially 

projected (24 percent above 2020). 

The joint New England and MidAtlantic Council Spiny Dogfish 

Monitoring Committee also 

recommended revising the 2021 

specifications to reflect the updated risk 

policy at its September 2020 meeting, 

consistent with the SSC. The 

Monitoring Committee derived its 

recommendations for the remainder of 

the revised specifications from the 

recommended ABC using the process 

defined in the FMP. Expected Canadian 

landings (45 mt) were deducted from 

the ABC to calculate the ACL, which 

was set equal to the ACT because no 

overages have occurred in recent years. 

The estimate of U.S. discards (3,992 mt) 

was deducted from the ACT to derive 

the TAL, and expected U.S. recreational 

landings (53 mt) were removed from the 

TAL to calculate the final coastwide 

commercial quota. 

The Monitoring Committee also 

recommended projecting status quo 

specifications for fishing year 2022. 

There is a research track stock 

assessment for spiny dogfish scheduled 

in 2022, and little additional or new 

data will be available to inform 2022 

specifications prior to the assessment. 

Therefore, the Monitoring Committee 

determined that status quo catch limits 

would be appropriate until the 

upcoming assessment can inform 

specifications for the 2023 fishing year 

and beyond. Both Councils and the 

Commission reviewed and approved 

SSC and Monitoring Committee 

recommendations at their respective 

meetings in October and December, and 

all recommended revised and projected 

2021 and 2022 spiny dogfish 

specifications based on the updated 

Mid-Atlantic Council risk policy. 

Proposed Specifications 

This action proposes the Councils’ 

recommendations for revised 2021 and 

projected status quo 2022 spiny dogfish 

specifications to maintain compliance 

with the Mid-Atlantic Council’s 

updated risk policy. These proposed 

catch limits are consistent with the SSC, 

Monitoring Committee, and 

Commission recommendations as well. 

Although currently projected 2021 

specifications were already increasing 

compared to fishing year 2020, these 

revised catch limits are nearly 10 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS