Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 112 / Friday, June 10, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 35431 

composite directional antenna pattern 

(in relative field). The RMS value, for a 

composite antenna pattern specified in 

relative field values, may be determined 

from the following formula: 

RMS = the square root of: 

[(relative field value 1)2 + (relative field 

value 2)2 + .... + (last relative field 

value)2] 

total number of relative field values 

(B) Where the relative field values are 

taken from at least 36 evenly spaced 

radials for the entire 360 degrees of 

azimuth. The application for license 

must also demonstrate that coverage of 

the community of license by the 70 dBu 

contour is maintained for stations 

authorized pursuant to § 73.215 on 

Channels 221 through 300, as required 

by § 73.315(a), while noncommercial 

educational stations operating on 

Channels 201 through 220 must show 

that the 60 dBu contour covers at least 

a portion of the community of license. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Effective July 11, 2022, amend 

§ 73.1620 by revising paragraph (a)(3) to 

read as follows: 

§ 73.1620 Program tests. 

(a) * * * 

(3) FM licensees replacing a 

directional antenna pursuant to 

§ 73.1690(c)(2) without changes which 

require a construction permit (see 

§ 73.1690(b)) may immediately 

commence program test operations with 

the new antenna at one half (50%) of the 

authorized ERP upon installation. If the 

directional antenna replacement is an 

EXACT duplicate of the antenna being 

replaced (i.e., same manufacturer, 

antenna model number, and measured 

or computer modeled composite 

pattern), program tests may commence 

with the new antenna at the full 

authorized power upon installation. The 

licensee must file a modification of 

license application on FCC Form 2100, 

Schedule 302–FM within 10 days of 

commencing operations with the newly 

installed antenna, and the license 

application must contain all of the 

exhibits required by § 73.1690(c)(2). 

After review of the modification-oflicense application to cover the antenna 

change, the Commission will issue a 

letter notifying the applicant whether 

program test operation at the full 

authorized power has been approved for 

the replacement directional antenna. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Delayed indefinitely, amend 

§ 73.1690 by revising paragraphs (c)(2) 

introductory text and (c)(2)(i) through 

(iii) to read as follows: 

§ 73.1690 Modification of transmission 

systems. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) Replacement of a directional FM 

antenna, where the measured or 

computer modeled composite 

directional antenna pattern does not 

exceed the licensed composite 

directional pattern at any azimuth, 

where no change in effective radiated 

power will result, and where 

compliance with the principal coverage 

requirements of § 73.315(a) will be 

maintained by the measured or 

computer modeled directional pattern. 

The antenna must be mounted not more 

than 2 meters above or 4 meters below 

the authorized values. The modification 

of license application on FCC Form 

2100, Schedule 302–FM to cover the 

antenna replacement must contain all of 

the data in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through 

(v) of this section. Program test 

operations at one half (50%) power may 

commence immediately upon 

installation pursuant to § 73.1620(a)(3). 

However, if the replacement directional 

antenna is an exact replacement (i.e., no 

change in manufacturer, antenna model 

number, AND measured or computer 

modeled composite antenna pattern), 

program test operations may commence 

immediately upon installation at the full 

authorized power. 

(i) A measured or computer modeled 

directional antenna pattern and 

tabulation on the antenna 

manufacturer’s letterhead showing both 

the horizontally and vertically polarized 

radiation components and 

demonstrating that neither of the 

components exceeds the authorized 

composite antenna pattern along any 

azimuth. 

(ii) Contour protection stations 

authorized pursuant to § 73.215 or 

§ 73.509 must attach a showing that the 

RMS (root mean square) of the 

composite measured or computer 

modeled directional antenna pattern is 

85% or more of the RMS of the 

authorized composite antenna pattern. 

See § 73.316(c)(9). If this requirement 

cannot be met, the licensee may include 

new relative field values with the 

license application to reduce the 

authorized composite antenna pattern 

so as to bring the measured or computer 

modeled composite antenna pattern into 

compliance with the 85 percent 

requirement. 

(iii) A description from the 

manufacturer as to the procedures used 

to measure or computer model the 

directional antenna pattern. The 

antenna measurements or computer 

modeling must be performed with the 

antenna mounted on a tower, tower 

section, or scale model equivalent to 

that on which the antenna will be 

permanently mounted, and the tower or 

tower section must include transmission 

lines, ladders, conduits, other antennas, 

and any other installations which may 

affect the measured or computer 

modeled directional pattern. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2022–11688 Filed 6–9–22; 8:45 am] 

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 FXES1111090FEDR 223] 

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: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), determine 

endangered species status under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), 

as amended, for 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. We 

also designate critical habitat for the 

Arizona eryngo. In total, approximately 

12.7 acres (5.1 hectares) in Pima and 

Cochise Counties, Arizona, fall within 

the boundaries of the critical habitat 

designation. This rule extends the 

protections of the Act to this species 

and its designated critical habitat. 

DATES: This rule is effective July 11, 

2022. 

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available 

on the internet at https://

www.regulations.gov. Comments and 

materials we received, as well as 

supporting documentation we used in 

preparing this rule, are available for 

public inspection at https://

www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 

FWS–R2–ES–2020–0130. 

For the critical habitat designation, 

the coordinates or plot points or both 

from which the maps are generated are 

included in the decision file and are 

available at https://www.regulations.gov 

at Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2020–0130. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Heather Whitlaw, Arizona Ecological 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
35432 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 112 / Friday, June 10, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

Services Field Office, 9828 North 31st 

Ave. C3, Phoenix, AZ 85051–2517; 

telephone 602–242–0210. Individuals in 

the United States who are deaf, 

deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a 

speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, 

TDD, or TeleBraille) to access 

telecommunications relay services. 

Individuals outside the United States 

should use the relay services offered 

within their country to make 

international calls to the point-ofcontact in the United States. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

Why we need to publish a rule. Under 

the Act, a species warrants listing if it 

meets the definition of an endangered 

species (in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range) or a threatened species (likely 

to become endangered in the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range). We have 

determined that the Arizona eryngo 

meets the definition of an endangered 

species; therefore, we are listing it as 

such and designating critical habitat for 

it. Both listing a species and designating 

critical habitat can be completed only 

by issuing a rule through the 

Administrative Procedure Act 

rulemaking process. 

What this document does. This rule 

makes final the listing of the Arizona 

eryngo as an endangered species and the 

designation of critical habitat for the 

species under the Act. We are 

designating critical habitat in two units, 

on private and public property, totaling 

12.7 acres (5.1 hectares) in Pima and 

Cochise Counties, Arizona. 

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 (Factors A). 

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. 

Previous Federal Actions 

Please refer to the March 4, 2021, 

proposed listing and critical habitat rule 

for the Arizona eryngo (86 FR 12563) for 

a detailed description of previous 

Federal actions concerning this species. 

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. 

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 peer review of the SSA 

report. The Service sent the SSA report 

to eight independent peer reviewers and 

received four responses. 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. 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). 

Summary of Changes From the 

Proposed Rule 

Based on information we received in 

the comments regarding proposed 

critical habitat, we are excluding all of 

proposed Unit 3 (Agua Caliente) from 

the critical habitat designation for the 

Arizona eryngo. This exclusion results 

in a decrease of approximately 0.33 

acres (0.13 hectares) from the areas we 

proposed to designate as critical habitat 

for the species. 

Summary of Comments and 

Recommendations 

In the March 4, 2021, proposed rule 

to list the Arizona eryngo as an 

endangered species and designate 

critical habitat under the Act (86 FR 

12563), we requested that all interested 

parties submit written comments on the 

proposal by May 3, 2021. We also 

contacted appropriate Federal and State 

agencies, scientific experts and 

organizations, and other interested 

parties and invited them to comment on 

the proposal. Newspaper notices 

inviting general public comment were 

published in the Arizona Daily Star. We 

did not receive any requests for a public 

hearing. All substantive information 

received during the comment period has 

either been incorporated directly into 

this final determination or is addressed 

below. 

Peer Reviewer Comments 

As discussed in Supporting 

Documents above, we received 

comments from four peer reviewers on 

the draft SSA report. We reviewed all 

comments we received from the peer 

reviewers for substantive issues and 

new information regarding the 

information contained in the SSA 

report. The peer reviewers generally 

concurred with our methods and 

conclusions, and provided additional 

information, clarifications, and 

suggestions, including updates to the 

taxonomy of Eryngium, clarifications in 

terminology and discussions of genetic 

diversity, and other editorial 

suggestions. There was one comment on 

distribution records of the species in 

Mexico, which were further clarified in 

the SSA report for the species. 

Otherwise, no substantive changes to 

our analysis and conclusions within the 

SSA report were deemed necessary, and 

peer reviewer comments are addressed 

in version 1.0 of the SSA report, which 

was made available for public review at 

https://www.regulations.gov under 

Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2020–0130 

when the March 4, 2021, proposed rule 

published. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 112 / Friday, June 10, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 35433 

Public Comments 

(1) Comment: Several commenters 

requested that additional habitat be 

evaluated for designation as unoccupied 

critical habitat. 

Our response: When designating 

critical habitat, we first evaluate areas 

occupied by the species and will only 

consider unoccupied areas to be 

essential where a critical habitat 

designation limited to geographical 

areas occupied would be inadequate to 

ensure the conservation of the species. 

We are not designating any areas 

currently unoccupied by Arizona eryngo 

because we cannot with reasonable 

certainty determine whether they will 

be essential for the conservation of the 

species. For long-term viability, the 

species will require the establishment 

and protection of additional resilient 

populations across its historical range to 

reduce its risk of extinction. While the 

species may need these areas, we do not 

have sufficient information at this time 

to identify specific locations outside the 

known historical distribution that have 

the potential conditions necessary to 

support the species or whether they 

would contribute to conservation. As 

has been recently demonstrated, 

attempts to establish the species at 

unoccupied locations thought to have 

appropriate habitat (e.g., Agua Caliente) 

have not been successful. Thus, at this 

time, we are unable to identify which 

cienegas not currently occupied by 

Arizona eryngo will be suitable for the 

reintroduction of the species at this 

time. 

(2) Comment: Several commenters 

requested that we evaluate Las Cienegas 

National Conservation Area, St. David 

Cienega, and Historic Canoa Ranch as 

critical habitat. 

Our response: Recent efforts have 

been made to establish the species at 

additional locations that were not 

historically occupied (e.g., Las Cienegas 

National Conservation Area, St. David 

Cienega, Historic Canoa Ranch). We 

support these efforts to increase species 

redundancy (i.e., increase the number of 

populations of Arizona eryngo). As 

required by the Act, we proposed as 

critical habitat the specific areas within 

the geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time of listing that contain 

the physical or biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species, which may require special 

management considerations or 

protection. 

We have more clearly defined what it 

means for an area to be occupied by 

Arizona eryngo (see Criteria Used To 

Identify Critical Habitat, below) to mean 

the presence of mature adult plants. 

Recent introductions have consisted of 

scattered seed or plantings of young 

plants, most of which did not survive. 

Without survival and recruitment, it is 

difficult to determine whether these 

sites provide the conditions that would 

support the species and contribute to 

long-term conservation. Because we do 

not intend to designate as critical 

habitat in areas that will not contribute 

to the conservation of the species, 

defining ‘‘occupied’’ in this manner will 

ensure only those areas with a 

significant likelihood of success will be 

included as critical habitat. Using this 

definition, Las Cienegas National 

Conservation Area, St. David Cienega, 

and Historic Canoa Ranch are not 

considered occupied by Arizona eryngo 

at this time. Section 4(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the 

Act allows us from time-to-time to 

revise critical habitat designations, as 

appropriate. Therefore, if we become 

aware of additional locations that meet 

the definition of critical habitat in the 

future, then we may revise critical 

habitat at that time. 

(3) Comment: Several commenters 

requested the removal of Agua Caliente 

as critical habitat due to lack of physical 

or biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species present at 

this site and provided information on 

land-use and water diversion history for 

Agua Caliente Spring. This included 

Pima County, which owns Agua 

Caliente Park where this unit is located. 

Our response: In our designation of 

critical habitat, we identified that Agua 

Caliente had the physical and biological 

features necessary for the conservation 

of the species. It contains two (saturated 

soils and areas of open canopy) of the 

three physical or biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

Arizona eryngo. However, based on 

recent information on the status of the 

population, we are no longer certain the 

physical and biological features present 

at Agua Caliente are sufficient to 

support the species. Our analysis 

determined that excluding proposed 

Unit 3 (Agua Caliente) outweighs the 

benefit of inclusion and will not result 

in the extinction of the species. 

(4) Comment: A commenter requested 

that in the interest of Fort Huachuca, 

Lewis Springs be excluded from critical 

habitat under section 4(a)(3)(B) of the 

Act due to economic impacts; however, 

the commenter did not provide any 

specific information as to what these 

economic impacts entailed. 

Our response: Under section 4(a)(3)(B) 

of the Act, we do 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 prepared under 

section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 

670a), if we determine that such plan 

provides a benefit to the species for 

which critical habitat is proposed for 

designation. With regard to critical 

habitat at Lewis Springs, we cannot 

exempt this area from critical habitat 

under the Act’s section 4(a)(3)(B) 

because it is not owned or controlled by 

the Department of Defense, nor 

designated for its use, and is not subject 

to an integrated natural resources 

management plan. 

Because the commenter references 

economic impacts, we considered 

whether they intended their comment to 

recommend that these lands be 

excluded under section 4(b)(2) rather 

than section 4(a)(3)(B). Based on our 

economic analysis, the estimated annual 

incremental costs of consultations for 

the Lewis Springs unit will be $4,000. 

Because these costs are relatively minor, 

and the commenter did not provide any 

specific information regarding a basis 

for exclusion, we did not conduct an 

exclusion analysis. 

(5) Comment: A commenter stated we 

must consider impacts to local 

governments and national defense and 

security, including economic impacts 

that would result from the proposed 

listing and critical habitat designation. 

Our response: With regard to 

considering impacts of listing the 

Arizona eryngo, in making a 

determination as to whether a species 

meets the Act’s definition of an 

endangered or threatened species, under 

section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act the 

Secretary is to make that determination 

based solely on the basis of the best 

scientific and commercial data 

available. The question of whether or 

not there may be impacts caused by the 

listing cannot by law enter into the 

determination. However, we conducted 

an evaluation of economic and other 

impacts in association with the 

designation of critical habitat under 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act (IEc 2020, 

entire). Therefore, we considered the 

potential economic impacts of the 

critical habitat designation, including 

the potential benefits of such 

designation. Costs of the critical habitat 

designation would manifest through 

Section 7 consultations on federally 

owned lands, with the total anticipated 

cost of these consultations over a 10- 

year period being no more than $36,000 

(IEc 2020, p. 13). As the critical habitat 

designations do not occur on military 

owned lands, it will not have an effect 

on national security. The economic 

analysis predicted the critical habitat 

designation was unlikely to trigger 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
35434 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 112 / Friday, June 10, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

additional State or local regulations (IEc 

2020, p. 17). 

(6) Comment: A commenter 

questioned the accuracy of our 

economic analysis and requested that an 

updated economic analysis be 

conducted that includes cumulative 

effects, fiscal burdens, and a 

quantification of impacts to water users. 

Our response: Our economic analysis 

represents our best assessment of what 

the economic impacts may be of the 

critical habitat designation for the 

Arizona eryngo. Section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act requires the consideration of 

potential economic impacts associated 

with the designation of critical habitat. 

The regulatory effect of critical habitat 

designation under the Act directly 

impacts only Federal agencies, as a 

result of the requirement that those 

agencies avoid ‘‘adverse modification’’ 

of critical habitat. Specifically, section 

7(a)(2) of the Act states that each 

Federal agency shall, in consultation 

with and with the assistance of the 

Secretary, insure that any action 

authorized, funded, or carried out by 

such agency is not likely to jeopardize 

the continued existence of any 

endangered species or threatened 

species or result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of habitat of such 

species which is determined by the 

Secretary to be critical habitat. 

This requirement is the direct 

regulatory impact of a critical habitat 

designation and serves as the 

foundation of our economic analysis. 

We define it as an ‘‘incremental impact’’ 

because it is an economic impact that is 

incurred above and beyond the baseline 

impacts that may stem from the listing 

of the species (for example, costs 

associated with avoiding take under 

section 9 of the Act); thus, it 

incrementally adds to those baseline 

costs. However, in most cases, and 

especially where the habitat in question 

is already occupied by the listed 

species, if there is a Federal nexus, the 

action agency already consults with the 

Service to ensure its actions will not 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

the species; thus, the additional costs of 

consultation to further ensure the action 

will not destroy or adversely modify 

critical habitat are usually relatively 

minimal. Because the Act provides for 

the consideration of economic impacts 

associated only with the designation of 

critical habitat, and because the direct 

regulatory effect of critical habitat is the 

requirement that Federal agencies avoid 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat, the direct economic 

impacts of a critical habitat designation 

in occupied areas are generally limited 

to the costs of consultations on actions 

with a Federal nexus, and rest squarely 

on Federal action agencies. The 

economic assessment did not find that 

designating critical habitat would have 

additional economic impacts beyond 

the costs of consultations (IEc 2020, 

entire). 

(7) Comment: A comment was made 

that we failed to comply with the Data 

Quality Act (DQA), the Information 

Quality Guidelines, Presidential 

memoranda, and Secretarial orders on 

scientific integrity and transparency, 

and more time is required to collect data 

on the species to comply with the DQA. 

Our response: In making a 

determination as to whether a species 

meets the Act’s definition of an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species, under section 4(b)(1)(A) of the 

Act, the Secretary is to make that 

determination based solely on the basis 

of the best scientific and commercial 

data available. In addition, under 

section 4(b)(6)(A), the Act requires the 

Service to publish a final rule within 1 

year from the date we propose to list a 

species, with certain exceptions. We are 

obligated to and have followed both of 

the aforementioned statutory 

requirements. Additionally, in 

accordance with the Information 

Quality Act, also referred to as the Data 

Quality Act (DQA) (Pub. L. 106–554), 

the Service has guidelines in place for 

use and review of data and publications. 

The Service has complied with these 

requirements. 

(8) Comment: A comment was made 

that listing will further harm the species 

and hamper research, and that we must 

consider the benefits gained by not 

listing the species and weigh these 

against the dangers of an incorrect 

listing. 

Our response: In making a 

determination as to whether a species 

meets the Act’s definition of an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species, under section 4(b)(1)(A) of the 

Act, the Secretary is to make that 

determination based solely on the basis 

of the best scientific and commercial 

data available. The question of whether 

or not there may be some negative or 

positive outcome to the listing cannot 

by law enter into the determination. On 

and after the effective date of this rule 

(see DATES, above), we are available to 

support and guide researchers in 

applying for recovery permits issued 

under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act to 

conduct research and implement actions 

to recover the species. 

(9) Comment: Commenters requested 

a 90-day extension of the public 

comment period, and a commenter 

requested a 5-year extension on the final 

rule to gather more scientific 

information on the species, specifically 

potential sites in Mexico. 

Our response: We consider the 60-day 

comment period for the March 4, 2021, 

proposed rule to have provided the 

public a sufficient opportunity for 

submitting comments on our proposal. 

In addition, as noted in our response to 

(7) Comment, above, the Act requires 

the Service to publish a final rule within 

1 year from the date we propose to list 

a species. This 1-year timeframe can 

only be extended if there is substantial 

disagreement regarding the sufficiency 

or accuracy of the available data 

relevant to the determination or revision 

concerned, but only for 6 months and 

only for purposes of soliciting 

additional data. Based on the comments 

we received and data evaluated, we did 

not identify substantial disagreement 

regarding the sufficiency or accuracy of 

the data. The comments expressing 

disagreement requested time to collect 

new data to inform this finding but did 

not provide conflicting or additional 

data that we did not consider in the 

proposed rule. Per section 4(b) of the 

Act and the Interagency Policy on 

Information Standards under the Act, 

we considered the best scientific and 

commercial data available regarding the 

Arizona eryngo to evaluate its potential 

status under the Act. We solicited peer 

review of our evaluation of the available 

data, and our peer reviewers supported 

our analysis. Science is a cumulative 

process, and the body of knowledge is 

ever-growing. In light of this, the 

Service will always take new research 

into consideration. If plausible new 

research supports amendment or 

revision of this rule in the future, the 

Service will modify the rule consistent 

with the Act and our established work 

priorities at that time. 

(10) Comment: A commenter 

requested that we consider a rule issued 

under section 4(d) of the Act for this 

species that would facilitate propagation 

by nurseries and transportation of 

Arizona eryngo. 

Our response: Section 4(d) of the Act 

directs the Service to issue regulations 

deemed necessary and advisable to 

provide for the conservation of 

threatened species. It allows the Service 

to promulgate rules for species listed as 

threatened (not endangered) that 

provide flexibility in implementing the 

Act. We are listing the Arizona eryngo 

as an endangered species; thus, we 

cannot apply a rule issued under section 

4(d) of the Act for this species. 

However, a section 10(a)(1)(A) permit 

may be requested to support scientific 

research or propagation. 

(11) Comment: A commenter stated 

that the Arizona eryngo was 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 112 / Friday, June 10, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 35435 

photographed in 2019 in juniper oak 

pine woodland in Sonora and asked 

what is known of the species range in 

oak woodlands. 

Our response: We contacted the 

observer who documented the specimen 

in Sonora because the species 

photographed did not appear to be 

Arizona eryngo. The observer 

subsequently visited the University of 

Arizona Herbarium to compare the 

species in question to specimens of 

Arizona eryngo. Upon careful 

examination, the observer determined 

that the species documented in the 

pine-oak woodland in Sonora was E. 

longifolium. SEINet now reflects this 

updated information (Record ID: 

e9c3315c–828f–4210–8fcd– 

d24451c712dd). 

(12) Comment: A commenter inquired 

about the distribution of Arizona eryngo 

in Mexico, asked who has searched for 

the species there, and questioned the 

assertion of Stromberg et al. 2020 

(entire) that reports of the species 

farther south in Mexico are likely not 

valid. 

Our response: A researcher from 

Mexico, who received funding under 

the Act’s section 6, searched 55 

locations in Sonora and Chihuahua for 

six rare plants, including the Arizona 

eryngo. He found the species at 2 of 55 

sites (Sa ́nchez Escalante et al. 2019), 

which were the Rancho Agua Caliente 

and Ojo Varelen ̃ o sites discussed in the 

SSA report. This combined with 

Stromberg et al. 2020 (entire) represents 

the best scientific and commercial data 

available on the species’ distribution in 

Mexico. 

I. Final 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, version 1.0 

(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 

occurs in 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. 

2020, p. 179; 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. 2020, p. 179). 

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 it. 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 centimeters into the 

soil (Stromberg et al. 2020, p. 177). 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. 2020, p. 

179). 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, and alkaline, and have 

salts on soil surfaces in the seasonally 

dry periphery (Stromberg et al. 2020, p. 

177). 

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. 2020, p. 175). Given 

the historical distribution of functional 

aridland cienegas (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)), 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 have been 

on-going to reintroduce the species to 

the historical site in Arizona from 

which it was extirpated (Agua Caliente) 

and to introduce the species to new sites 

(Historic Canoa Ranch in Pima County, 

Arizona, and Las Cienegas National 

Conservation Area in Pima and Santa 

Cruz Counties, Arizona) within its 

general historical range (Li 2021a, p. 3; 

Li 2021b, pp. 6–12). A handful of plants 

now exist at some of these 

reintroduction sites, such as Agua 

Caliente, 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 sites 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. 2020, 

p. 179), and specimens collected from 

Michoaca ́n and Guerrero appear to be 

another distinct taxon due to differences 

in flower color, habitat, elevation, and 

flowering time (Stromberg et al. 2020, p. 

179). 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. 

2020, p. 176). The springs were 

diminished, and Las Playas was found 

primarily dry by the mid to late 1950s 

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

2020, p. 176). 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. 2020, p. 176). ‘‘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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
35436 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 112 / Friday, June 10, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

and economics, is not feasible (Sivinksi 

2018, 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. 2020, p. 

176). This population was extirpated 

likely due to multiple manipulations of 

the site that eliminated cienega habitat, 

including, but not limited to, water 

diversion and vegetation clearing for 

agricultural activities, pond 

impoundment, groundwater pumping, 

and spring modification (Stromberg et 

al. 2020, p. 177; SWCA 2002, p. 11). 

The property is now owned by Pima 

County Natural Resources, Parks and 

Recreation and is managed as a regional 

park (Pima County Parks and Recreation 

Department 1989, p. 2; Friends of Agua 

Caliente 2020, entire). Agua Caliente 

Regional Park includes human-made 

ponds that were once fed by water 

channeled from the springs. As a result 

of reduced spring flows and extended 

drought, in 2004, Pima County began 

pumping groundwater to maintain the 

main pond (Pond 1), a warm spring 

(Pima County 2021, p. 2). Restoration of 

Pond 1, which included the use of soil 

sealant to reduce seepage and conserve 

water, began in 2019, and was 

completed in 2020 (Pima County 2020a, 

entire). 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 

2020a, 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. 2020, p. 

182). 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. 2020, 

p. 177). 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. 2020, p. 177). Pima 

County Regional Flood Control District 

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. Both La 

Cebadilla Estates and Pima County 

Regional Flood Control District are 

supportive of continued conservation of 

the cienega and have implemented or 

authorized conservation actions at the 

site. 

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. 2020, p. 177). 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. 

2020, p. 177; 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). Population estimates have been over 

1,000 plants in recent years (Stromberg 

et al. 2020, p. 177; Li 2020a, p. 1; Li 

2020b, p. 1), with the most recent 

estimate of 1,813 plants (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. BLM has 

collected seeds for propagation, 

banking, and seeding trials, and has 

conducted one seeding trial at Lewis 

Springs. 

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. 2020, 

p. 179). 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. 2020, p. 179); 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 112 / Friday, June 10, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 35437 

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. 2020, pp. 

178). The site is within the San Miguel 

River Basin at the base of the Piedras 

Verdes Mountains (Stromberg et al. 

2020, p. 178). 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 (0.18 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. 

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 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 Act’s definition of an ‘‘endangered 

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

after conducting this cumulative 

analysis and describing the expected 

effect on the species now and in the 

foreseeable future. 

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 Service 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 listed as an endangered or threatened 

species under the Act. It does, however, 

provide the scientific basis that informs 

our regulatory decisions, which involve 

the further application of standards 

within the Act and its implementing 

regulations and policies. The following 

is a summary of the key results and 

conclusions from the SSA report; the 

full SSA report can be found at Docket 

FWS–R2–ES–2020–0130 on https://

www.regulations.gov. 

To assess Arizona eryngo’s viability, 

we used the three conservation biology 

principles of resiliency, redundancy, 

and representation (Shaffer and Stein 

2000, pp. 306–310). Briefly, resiliency 

supports the ability of the species to 

withstand environmental and 

demographic stochasticity (for example, 

wet or dry, warm or cold years), 

redundancy supports the ability of the 

species to withstand catastrophic events 

(for example, droughts, large pollution 

events), and representation supports the 

ability of the species to adapt over time 

to long-term changes in the environment 

(for example, climate changes). In 

general, the more resilient and 

redundant a species is and the more 

representation it has, the more likely it 

is to sustain populations over time, even 

under changing environmental 

conditions. Using these principles, we 

identified the species’ ecological 

requirements for survival and 

reproduction at the individual, 

population, and species levels, and 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
35438 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 112 / Friday, June 10, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 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. To assess the current and future 

condition of the species, we undertake 

an iterative analysis that encompasses 

and incorporates the threats 

individually and then 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. 

Using various timeframes and the 

current and projected future resiliency, 

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, because it reflects successful 

recruitment. 

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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 112 / Friday, June 10, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 35439 

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 at minimum a resilient 

Arizona eryngo population should 

occupy greater than 1 hectare (2.5 acres) 

within a functional cienega. 

Soil Moisture 

Arizona eryngo populations also need 

moist to saturated soils year-round. 

Arizona eryngo has been documented in 

standing water up to 2 centimeters to 

soil that is dry at the surface but 

saturated several centimeters into the 

soil (Stromberg et al. 2020, p. 177). 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. 2020, p. 179). 

Seedling recruitment may be episodic, 

with greater recruitment success in 

wetter years. Soils must remain 

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. Additionally, dense 

vegetation appears to hinder seedling 

recruitment (Li 2021b, pp. 3–4). 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 final 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
35440 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 112 / Friday, June 10, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

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 the remaining 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 

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. 

2020, p. 176). 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. 2020, p. 181). 

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 of the site that 

eliminated cienega habitat, including, 

but not limited to, water diversion and 

vegetation clearing for agricultural 

activities, pond impoundment, 

groundwater pumping, and 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. 2020, p. 

177; Pima County 2021, p. 16; Friends 

of Agua Caliente 2020, entire; SWCA 

2002, p. 11). 

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. 2020, p. 177). 

Cienega habitat was eliminated from 

Agua Caliente due to multiple 

manipulations, including diversion of 

spring water via canals and pipes for 

agricultural purposes and pond 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 112 / Friday, June 10, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 35441 

impoundment (Pima County 2021, p. 

16). 

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 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., representative 

concentration pathway (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 

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 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 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. 2020, p. 

182). 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
35442 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 112 / Friday, June 10, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

eryngo (Fonseca 2019, entire). Velvet 

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 

plants, 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. 2020, p. 175; 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 

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. The four extant 

populations are described below. 

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 

(PCRFCD) 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. Under an agreement with 

Partners for Fish and Wildlife, in 2021, 

La Cebadilla Estates supported the 

experimental removal of young velvet 

ash trees encroaching on the cienega, 

which was successful at improving 

conditions for Arizona eryngo (Li 2021b, 

p. 1). 

PCRFCD 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. PCRFCD has 

implemented actions to conserve 

Arizona eryngo at La Cebadilla, such as 

removing parts of a fallen cottonwood 

tree that were covering Arizona eryngo 

(Li 2020b, p. 2), and is planning 

additional actions. 

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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 112 / Friday, June 10, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 35443 

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. 2020, p. 

177). 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. 2020, p. 181). 

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 

ha (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. 

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. 

Conservation Efforts and Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

Conservation efforts are occurring at 

multiple sites supporting Arizona 

eryngo. As discussed above, for 

example, at Lewis Springs, BLM has 

been assessing and planning the 

removal of nonnative and select woody 

vegetation and has conducted some 

removal of Johnsongrass. BLM has 

collected seeds for propagation, 

banking, and seeding trials, and has 

conducted one seeding trial at Lewis 

Springs. Additionally, BLM has 

introduced Arizona eryngo to the Las 

Cienegas National Conservation Area. 

Pima County has been working to 

reintroduce Arizona eryngo to Agua 

Caliente and introduce it to Canoa 

Ranch. La Cebadilla Estates has been 

supportive of various survey, 

monitoring, and conservation actions on 

their property. These conservation 

efforts have significantly contributed to 

our knowledge of Arizona eryngo and 

conservation of the species; however, at 

this time, these efforts are inadequate to 

prevent the need for listing because 

major threats, such as water loss and 

drought and climate change, are still 

present. 

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 

an ‘‘endangered species’’ as a species in 

danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range, and a 

‘‘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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
35444 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 112 / Friday, June 10, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

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 species’ populations 

are fragmented from one another, and 

because the threats to the species are 

currently ongoing and occurring across 

its entire range. 

Status Throughout a Significant Portion 

of Its Range 

Under the Act and our implementing 

regulations, a species may warrant 

listing if it is in danger of extinction or 

likely to become so in the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range. 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 portions 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 are listing 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, 

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 (https://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. 

Following publication of this final 

rule, funding for recovery actions will 

be available from a variety of sources, 

including Federal budgets, State 

programs, and cost-share grants for nonFederal landowners, the academic 

community, and nongovernmental 

organizations. In addition, pursuant to 

section 6 of the Act, the States of 

Arizona and New Mexico will 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: 

https://www.fws.gov/grants. 

Please let us know if you are 

interested in participating in recovery 

efforts for the Arizona eryngo. 

Additionally, we invite you to submit 

any new information on this species 

whenever it becomes available and any 

information you may have for recovery 

planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Section 7(a) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies to evaluate their 

actions with respect to any species that 

is listed as an endangered or threatened 

species and with respect to its critical 

habitat, if any is designated. Regulations 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 112 / Friday, June 10, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 35445 

implementing this interagency 

cooperation provision of the Act are 

codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section 

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

agencies to ensure that activities they 

authorize, fund, or carry out are not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any endangered or 

threatened species or destroy or 

adversely modify its critical habitat. If a 

Federal action may affect a listed 

species or its critical habitat, the 

responsible Federal agency must enter 

into consultation with the Service. 

Federal agency actions within the 

species’ habitat that may require 

conference or consultation or both as 

described in the preceding paragraph 

include management and any other 

landscape-altering activities on Federal 

lands administered by the 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 

or La Cebadilla. 

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 will or will 

not constitute a violation of section 9 of 

the Act. The intent of this policy is to 

increase public awareness of the effect 

of a final listing on proposed and 

ongoing activities within the range of a 

listed species. Based on the best 

available information, the following 

actions are unlikely to result in a 

violation of section 9, if these activities 

are carried out in accordance with 

existing regulations and permit 

requirements; this list is not 

comprehensive: 

(1) Normal 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. Such designation also 

does not allow the government or public 

to access private lands. Such 

designation does not require 

implementation of restoration, recovery, 

or enhancement measures by nonFederal landowners. Where a landowner 

requests Federal agency funding or 

authorization for an action that may 

affect a listed species or critical habitat, 

the Federal agency would be required to 

consult with the Service under section 

7(a)(2) of the Act. However, even if the 

Service were to conclude that the 

proposed activity would result in 

destruction or adverse modification of 

the critical habitat, the Federal action 

agency and the landowner are not 

required to abandon the proposed 

activity, or to restore or recover the 

species; instead, they must implement 

‘‘reasonable and prudent alternatives’’ 

to avoid destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
35446 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 112 / Friday, June 10, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

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). 

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. The implementing regulations 

at 50 CFR 424.12(b)(2) further delineate 

unoccupied critical habitat by setting 

out three specific parameters: (1) When 

designating critical habitat, the 

Secretary will first evaluate areas 

occupied by the species; (2) 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; and (3) 

for an unoccupied area to be considered 

essential, the Secretary must determine 

that there is a reasonable certainty both 

that the area will contribute to the 

conservation of the species and that the 

area contains one or more of those 

physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the species. 

Section 4 of the Act requires that we 

designate critical habitat on the basis of 

the best scientific data available. 

Further, our Policy on Information 

Standards Under the Endangered 

Species Act (published in the Federal 

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

the Information Quality Act (section 515 

of the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act for 

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

5658)), and our associated Information 

Quality Guidelines provide criteria, 

establish procedures, and provide 

guidance to ensure that our decisions 

are based on the best scientific data 

available. They require our biologists, to 

the extent consistent with the Act and 

with the use of the best scientific data 

available, to use primary and original 

sources of information as the basis for 

recommendations to designate critical 

habitat. 

When we are determining which areas 

should be designated as critical habitat, 

our primary source of information is 

generally the information from the SSA 

report and information developed 

during the listing process for the 

species. Additional information sources 

may include any generalized 

conservation strategy, criteria, or outline 

that may have been developed for the 

species; the recovery plan for the 

species; articles in peer-reviewed 

journals; conservation plans developed 

by States and counties; scientific status 

surveys and studies; biological 

assessments; other unpublished 

materials; or experts’ opinions or 

personal knowledge. 

As the regulatory definition of 

‘‘habitat’’ reflects (50 CFR 424.02), 

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. 

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 which 

may require special management 

considerations or protection. The 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define 

‘‘physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the species’’ as 

the features that occur in specific areas 

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

but not limited to, water characteristics, 

soil type, geological features, sites, prey, 

vegetation, symbiotic species, or other 

features. A feature may be a single 

habitat characteristic or a more complex 

combination of habitat characteristics. 

Features may include habitat 

characteristics that support ephemeral 

or dynamic habitat conditions. Features 

may also be expressed in terms relating 

to principles of conservation biology, 

such as patch size, distribution 

distances, and connectivity. For 

example, physical features essential to 

the conservation of the species might 

include gravel of a particular size 

required for spawning, alkaline soil for 

seed germination, protective cover for 

migration, or susceptibility to flooding 

or fire that maintains necessary earlysuccessional habitat characteristics. 

Biological features might include prey 

species, forage grasses, specific kinds or 

ages of trees for roosting or nesting, 

symbiotic fungi, or absence of 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, we may consider an appropriate 

quality, quantity, and spatial and 

temporal arrangement of habitat 

characteristics in the context of the lifehistory 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. 

Summary of Essential Physical or 

Biological Features 

We derive the specific physical or 

biological features essential to the 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 112 / Friday, June 10, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 35447 

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 https://

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. 

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. Arizona eryngo is 

well-established at two historical 

locations, Lewis Springs and La 

Cebadilla, has been reintroduced at 

another historical location where it was 

extirpated (Agua Caliente), and has been 

introduced at several cienegas lacking 

historical records of occupancy. 

Introductions have recently been 

initiated at several additional locations, 

with the spreading of seeds and planting 

of seedlings. However, we do not 

consider these introductions to result in 

occupancy until fully mature, 

reproductive plants and production of 

seedlings have become established. 

Therefore, areas occupied at the time of 

listing include three locations: Lewis 

Springs, La Cebadilla, and Agua 

Caliente. Other sites, such as Las 

Cienegas National Conservation Area 

and St. David Cienega, where plantings 

or seed scattering recently occurred but 

no adult plants have become 

established, are considered to be 

unoccupied. Because we lack 

information on the environmental 

conditions of these (or any other) 

unoccupied sites to help us determine 

whether they can support the Arizona 

eryngo, we cannot determine that they 

will contribute to the long-term 

conservation of the species. Therefore, 

we are not designating any areas outside 

the geographical area occupied by the 

species as critical habitat. 

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 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 rule have been 

excluded by text in the rule and are not 

designated as critical habitat. Therefore, 

a Federal action involving these lands 

will not trigger section 7 consultation 

with respect to critical habitat and the 

requirement of no adverse modification 

unless the specific action will affect the 

physical or biological features in the 

adjacent critical habitat. 

We are designating as critical habitat 

areas 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 designated based on one or 

more of the physical or biological 

features being present to support the 

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 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 on https://

www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 

FWS–R2–ES–2020–0130, and on our 

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

southwest/es/arizona/. 

Final Critical Habitat Designation 

We are designating approximately 

12.7 acres (5.1 hectares) in two units as 

critical habitat for the Arizona eryngo. 

The two units we designate as critical 

habitat are: (1) Lewis Springs, and (2) La 

Cebadilla. The critical habitat areas we 

list in the table below constitute our 

current best assessment of areas that 

meet the definition of critical habitat for 

the Arizona eryngo. Table 1 shows the 

land ownership, size, and occupancy of 

the areas that meet the definition of 

critical habitat for the Arizona eryngo. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
35448 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 112 / Friday, June 10, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1—AREAS THAT MEET THE DEFINITION OF CRITICAL HABITAT FOR THE ARIZONA ERYNGO

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

Critical habitat unit 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. 

Agua Caliente [proposed Unit 3] ........... Pima County Natural Resources, Parks 

and Recreation.

N/A: Excluded from designation under 

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

Yes. 

Total ............................................... ............................................................... 12.7 (5.2) ..............................................

Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding. 

We present brief descriptions of the 

two units we are designating, and 

reasons why they meet the definition of 

critical habitat for Arizona eryngo, 

below. For a description of proposed 

Unit 3 (Agua Caliente), which we are 

excluding from this designation, please 

see Exclusions Based on Other Relevant 

Impacts, later in this document. 

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 considerations may 

be required 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 PCRFCD. 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. PCRFCD 

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. 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 may be required to 

reduce encroachment of woody 

vegetation and to improve groundwater 

levels to support continued springflow. 

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. 

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. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 112 / Friday, June 10, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 35449 

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, if subsequent to the previous 

consultation: (1) If the amount or extent 

of taking specified in the incidental take 

statement is exceeded; (2) if new 

information reveals effects of the action 

that may affect listed species or critical 

habitat in a manner or to an extent not 

previously considered; (3) if the 

identified action is subsequently 

modified in a manner that causes an 

effect to the listed species or critical 

habitat that was not considered in the 

biological opinion; or (4) if a new 

species is listed or critical habitat 

designated that may be affected by the 

identified action. 

In such situations, Federal agencies 

sometimes may need to request 

reinitiation of consultation with us, but 

the regulations also specify some 

exceptions to the requirement to 

reinitiate consultation on specific land 

management plans after subsequently 

listing a new species or designating new 

critical habitat. See the regulations for a 

description of those exceptions. 

Application of the ‘‘Adverse 

Modification’’ Standard 

The key factor related to the 

destruction or adverse modification 

determination is whether 

implementation of the proposed Federal 

action directly or indirectly alters the 

designated critical habitat in a way that 

appreciably diminishes the value of the 

critical habitat as a whole for the 

conservation of the listed species. As 

discussed above, the role of critical 

habitat is to support physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of a listed species and 

provide for the conservation of the 

species. 

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

to briefly evaluate and describe, in any 

proposed or final 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 Services may, 

during a consultation under section 

7(a)(2) of the Act, consider 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, development of 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 (DOD), 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 final critical habitat 

designation. 

Consideration of Impacts Under Section 

4(b)(2) of the Act 

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

the Secretary shall designate and make 

revisions to critical habitat on the basis 

of the best available scientific data after 

taking into consideration the economic 

impact, national security impact, and 

any other relevant impact of specifying 

any particular area as critical habitat. 

The Secretary may exclude an area from 

critical habitat if she determines that the 

benefits of such exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of specifying such area as part 

of the critical habitat, unless she 

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. 

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

may exclude an area from designated 

critical habitat based on economic 

impacts, impacts on national security, 

or any other relevant impacts. In 

considering whether to exclude a 

particular area from the designation, we 

identify the benefits of including the 

area in the designation, identify the 

benefits of excluding the area from the 

designation, and evaluate whether the 

benefits of exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of inclusion. If the analysis 

indicates that the benefits of exclusion 

outweigh the benefits of inclusion, the 

Secretary may exercise discretion to 

exclude the area only if such exclusion 

would not result in the extinction of the 

species. We describe below the process 

that we undertook for taking into 

consideration each category of impacts 

and our analyses of the relevant 

impacts. 

Exclusions Based on 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. In order to consider economic 

impacts, we prepared an incremental 

effects memorandum (IEM) and 

screening analysis which, together with 

our narrative and interpretation of 

effects, we consider our draft economic 

analysis (DEA) of the critical habitat 

designation and related factors (IEc 

2020, entire). The analysis, dated 

November 16, 2020 (IEc 2020, entire), 

was made available for public review 

from March 4, 2021, through May 3, 

2021 (see 86 FR 12563; March 4, 2021). 

The DEA addressed probable economic 

impacts of critical habitat designation 

for Arizona eryngo. Following the close 

of the March 4, 2021, proposed rule’s 

comment period, we reviewed and 

evaluated all information submitted 

during the comment period that may 

pertain to our consideration of the 

probable incremental economic impacts 

of this critical habitat designation. 

During the public comment period on 

the proposed rule, we received a 

comment on our economic analysis, 

which we address in our response to (6) 

Comment under Summary of Comments 

and Recommendations, above. 

Additional information relevant to the 

probable incremental economic impacts 

of critical habitat designation for the 

Arizona eryngo is summarized below 

and available in the screening analysis 

for the Arizona eryngo (IEc 2020, 

entire), available at https:// 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
35450 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 112 / Friday, June 10, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

www.regulations.gov. We are adopting 

the DEA as the final economic analysis. 

In occupied areas, any actions that 

may affect the species or its habitat will 

also likely affect critical habitat, and it 

is unlikely that any additional 

conservation efforts will 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 as a result of the 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 

will predominantly be administrative in 

nature and will not be significant. 

The probable incremental economic 

impacts of this critical habitat 

designation for the Arizona eryngo 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 both of the 

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, this designation is 

expected to result in 12 to 17 

consultations in 10 years for a 

maximum total estimated cost of 

$36,000 over this time period (IEc 2020, 

p. 12). Thus, the annual administrative 

burden is unlikely to reach or exceed 

$100 million in any single year; 

therefore, the economic impacts are not 

significant. The Service considered the 

economic impacts of the critical habitat 

designation. The Secretary is not 

exercising her discretion to exclude any 

areas from this designation of critical 

habitat for the Arizona eryngo based on 

economic impacts. 

Exclusions Based on Impacts on 

National Security and Homeland 

Security 

In preparing this rule, we determined 

that none of the lands within the 

designated critical habitat for the 

Arizona eryngo are owned or managed 

by the Department of Defense or 

Department of Homeland Security, and, 

therefore, we anticipate no impact on 

national security or homeland security. 

We did not receive any additional 

information during the public comment 

period for the proposed critical habitat 

designation regarding impacts of the 

designation on national security or 

homeland security that would support 

excluding any specific areas from the 

final critical habitat designation under 

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

implementing regulations at 50 CFR 

424.19. 

Exclusions Based on Other Relevant 

Impacts 

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

consider any other relevant impacts, in 

addition to economic impacts and 

impacts on national security. We 

consider a number of factors, including 

whether there are permitted 

conservation plans covering the species 

in the area such as HCPs, safe harbor 

agreements, 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. 

When identifying the benefits of 

inclusion for an area, we consider the 

additional regulatory benefits that area 

would receive due to the protection 

from destruction or adverse 

modification as a result of actions with 

a Federal nexus, the educational 

benefits of mapping essential habitat for 

recovery of the listed species, and any 

benefits that may result from a 

designation due to State or Federal laws 

that may apply to critical habitat. 

When considering the benefits of 

exclusion, we consider, among other 

things, whether exclusion of a specific 

area is likely to result in conservation, 

or in the continuation, strengthening, or 

encouragement of partnerships. 

Additionally, continued 

implementation of an ongoing 

management plan that provides equal to 

or more conservation than a critical 

habitat designation would reduce the 

benefits of including that specific area 

in the critical habitat designation. 

After identifying the benefits of 

inclusion and the benefits of exclusion, 

we carefully weigh the two sides to 

evaluate whether the benefits of 

exclusion outweigh those of inclusion. 

If our analysis indicates that the benefits 

of exclusion outweigh the benefits of 

inclusion, we then determine whether 

exclusion would result in extinction of 

the species. If exclusion of an area from 

critical habitat will result in extinction, 

we will not exclude it from the 

designation. 

Based on the information provided in 

the public comments, including those 

from the landowner (Pima County) and 

the best scientific data available, we 

evaluated whether lands in the 

proposed critical habitat Unit 3 (Agua 

Caliente) are appropriate for exclusion 

from the final designation under section 

4(b)(2) of the Act. If the analysis 

indicates that the benefits of excluding 

lands from the final designation 

outweigh the benefits of designating 

those lands as critical habitat, then the 

Secretary may exercise her discretion to 

exclude the lands from the final 

designation. In the paragraphs below, 

we provide a detailed balancing analysis 

of the areas being excluded under 

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

Description of Proposed Unit 3: Agua 

Caliente 

Proposed 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. 2020, p. 

177) 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 that 

eliminated cienega habitat, including, 

but not limited to, water diversion and 

vegetation clearing for agricultural 

activities, pond impoundment, 

groundwater pumping, and spring 

modification (Stromberg et al. 2020, p. 

177; SWCA 2002, p. 11). Reintroduction 

efforts for the species began in 2017, 

with 20 individuals planted that year 

and another 15 in 2018. Most of these 

plants have died, with at most 1 to 3 

individuals maturing into adult plants. 

Seedling production has been observed 

on occasions, but none have survived to 

reach reproductive maturity. The 

limited success of this reintroduction 

and the comments provided by Pima 

County raise uncertainty as to whether 

this site could be restored to contain 

sufficient physical or biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species. Soils at this site are saturated, 

and there are areas of open canopy (two 

of three physical or biological features 

we identified as essential to Arizona 

eryngo), but this is a heavily 

manipulated waterway that does not 

function like an unaltered cienega. It 

lacks functional hydrological processes, 

which ultimately may limit the ability 

of the soils to maintain appropriate 

moisture levels for the species. Even 

though this unit is currently occupied, 

the limited recruitment and extensive 

die-off of reintroduced individuals is 

evidence that the habitat may not be 

fully restorable at this site. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 112 / Friday, June 10, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 35451 

Private or Other Non-Federal 

Conservation Plans or Agreements and 

Partnerships, in General 

We sometimes exclude specific areas 

from critical habitat designations based 

in part on the existence of private or 

other non-Federal conservation plans or 

agreements and their attendant 

partnerships. A conservation plan or 

agreement describes actions that are 

designed to provide for the conservation 

needs of a species and its habitat, and 

may include actions to reduce or 

mitigate negative effects on the species 

caused by activities on or adjacent to the 

area covered by the plan. Conservation 

plans or agreements can be developed 

by private entities with no Service 

involvement, or in partnership with the 

Service. 

We evaluate a variety of factors to 

determine how the benefits of any 

exclusion and the benefits of inclusion 

are affected by the existence of private 

or other non-Federal conservation plans 

or agreements and their attendant 

partnerships when we undertake a 

discretionary section 4(b)(2) exclusion 

analysis. A non-exhaustive list of factors 

that we will consider for non-permitted 

plans or agreements is shown below. 

These factors are not required elements 

of plans or agreements, and all items 

may not apply to every plan or 

agreement. 

(i) The degree to which the plan or 

agreement provides for the conservation 

of the species or the essential physical 

or biological features (if present) for the 

species. 

(ii) Whether there is a reasonable 

expectation that the conservation 

management strategies and actions 

contained in a management plan or 

agreement will be implemented. 

(iii) The demonstrated 

implementation and success of the 

chosen conservation measures. 

(iv) The degree to which the record of 

the plan supports a conclusion that a 

critical habitat designation would 

impair the realization of benefits 

expected from the plan, agreement, or 

partnership. 

(v) The extent of public participation 

in the development of the conservation 

plan. 

(vi) The degree to which there has 

been agency review and required 

determinations (e.g., State regulatory 

requirements), as necessary and 

appropriate. 

(vii) Whether National Environmental 

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

seq.) compliance was required. 

(viii) Whether the plan or agreement 

contains a monitoring program and 

adaptive management to ensure that the 

conservation measures are effective and 

can be modified in the future in 

response to new information. 

Agua Caliente Protections, Including the 

Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan 

Pima County is a long-term 

conservation partner and leader, and 

Pima County and the Service have a 

memorandum of understanding (MOU) 

to work collaboratively and 

cooperatively to implement meaningful 

conservation and mitigation as part of 

the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan 

(Pima County 2020b). A portion of Agua 

Caliente Regional Park is identified in 

the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan as 

an Important Riparian Area and as a 

Biological Core Management Area. The 

western-most parcel that includes Agua 

Caliente Wash is encumbered with a 

restrictive covenant as mitigation land 

for the County’s and Flood Control 

District’s Multi-Species Conservation 

Plan (MSCP) section 10 permit. The 

MSCP is the part of the Sonoran Desert 

Conservation Plan that addresses 

endangered species compliance. 

Because the Arizona eryngo was not 

listed when the MSCP was developed, 

it was not explicitly included as part of 

the MSCP and so is not covered by the 

section 10 permit. Therefore, we 

considered the conservation activities 

Pima County has identified in the 

Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan in 

assessing critical habitat designation for 

Agua Caliente. 

The conservation goals of the MOU 

include ensuring the long-term survival 

of the full spectrum of plants and 

animals that are indigenous to Pima 

County through maintaining or 

improving the habitat conditions and 

ecosystem functions necessary for their 

survival. Objectives under this goal 

include: 

(1) Promote recovery of federally 

listed and candidate species; 

(2) Where feasible and appropriate, 

reintroduce and recover species that 

have been extirpated from this region; 

(3) Maintain or improve the status of 

unlisted species whose existence in 

Pima County is vulnerable; 

(4) Identify biological threats to the 

region’s biodiversity posed by 

introduced and nonnative species of 

plants and animals, and develop 

strategies to reduce these threats and 

avoid additional invasive species in the 

future; 

(5) Identify causes that disrupt 

ecosystem functions within target plant 

communities selected for their 

biological significance, and develop 

strategies to reverse or mitigate them; 

and 

(6) Promote long-term viability and 

mitigate for impacts to species, 

environments, and biotic communities 

that have special significance to people 

in this region because of their aesthetic 

or cultural values, regional uniqueness, 

or economic significance. 

These goals align with several of the 

factors we may consider for basing an 

exclusion on a conservation plan. 

As a designated County park, Agua 

Caliente is owned and managed by Pima 

County for recreational opportunities, 

habitat, scenery, and resource 

protection. Additionally, Agua Caliente 

Ranch Historic Landscape is listed in 

the National Register of Historic Places, 

the Arizona Register of Historic Places, 

and Pima County’s Register of Historic 

Places, which affords both recognition 

and certain protections. The landscape 

of the County park includes certain 

trees, buildings, and ponds that are 

contributing elements as a National 

Register District, and Pima County 

designated the entire historic park as a 

Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan 

‘‘Priority Cultural Resource’’ to be 

managed for preservation and 

conservation. Consequently, the County 

has invested grant funds and bond 

funds in ensuring these resources are 

protected and appropriately 

rehabilitated. 

Benefits of Inclusion—Agua Caliente 

(Proposed Unit 3) 

The principal benefit of including an 

area in critical habitat designation is the 

requirement of Federal agencies to 

ensure that actions that they fund, 

authorize, or carry out are not likely to 

result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of any designated critical 

habitat, which is the regulatory standard 

of section 7(a)(2) of the Act under which 

consultation is completed. Federal 

agencies must consult with the Service 

on actions that may affect a listed 

species, and refrain from actions that are 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of such species. The analysis 

of effects to critical habitat is a separate 

and different analysis from that of the 

effects to the species. Therefore, the 

difference in outcomes of these two 

analyses represents the regulatory 

benefit of critical habitat. For some 

cases, the outcome of these analyses 

will be similar, because effects to habitat 

will often result in effects to the species. 

However, the regulatory standard is 

different, as the jeopardy analysis 

investigates the action’s impact to 

survival and recovery of the species, 

while the adverse modification analysis 

investigates the action’s effects to the 

designated critical habitat’s contribution 

to conservation. Thus, critical habitat 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
35452 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 112 / Friday, June 10, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

designation may provide greater benefits 

to the recovery of a species than listing 

would alone. Therefore, critical habitat 

designation may provide a regulatory 

benefit for the Arizona eryngo on lands 

within the Agua Caliente Regional Park. 

Another possible benefit of including 

lands in critical habitat is public 

education regarding the potential 

conservation value of an area that may 

help focus conservation efforts on areas 

of high conservation value for certain 

species. We consider any information 

about the Arizona eryngo and its habitat 

that reaches a wide audience, including 

parties engaged in conservation 

activities, to be valuable. Designation of 

critical habitat would provide 

educational benefits by informing 

Federal agencies and the public about 

the presence of the species in this unit. 

However, we also acknowledge the 

limited benefit of including this unit to 

the conservation of the species. The 

limited success of the reintroduction of 

Agua Caliente indicates that the 

conservation benefits of including this 

site as critical habitat are not high. The 

current condition of the population 

indicates the habitat is not sufficient to 

contribute to the long-term conservation 

of the species. 

Benefits of Exclusion—Agua Caliente 

(Proposed Unit 3) 

The benefits of excluding 0.3 acre (0.1 

hectare) of land within the Agua 

Caliente Regional Park, owned and 

managed by Pima County Natural 

Resources, Parks and Recreation, from 

the designation of critical habitat for the 

Arizona eryngo are substantial and 

include: (1) Continuance and 

strengthening of our effective 

partnership with Pima County to 

promote voluntary, proactive 

conservation of the Arizona eryngo and 

its habitat; (2) allowance for continued 

meaningful collaboration and 

cooperation in working toward species 

recovery, including conservation 

benefits that might not otherwise occur, 

such as reintroducing the species at 

Agua Caliente or other sites; and (3) 

encouragement of developing and 

implementing conservation and 

management plans in the future for the 

Arizona eryngo or other federally listed 

and sensitive species. 

Pima County has been a long-term 

conservation partner and has led 

multiple efforts to conserve the Arizona 

eryngo, including working to reestablish 

the species at Agua Caliente and two 

other sites. The Arizona eryngo 

reintroduction effort at Agua Caliente is 

still in an experimental phase, and a 

viable population has not yet been 

established. Supporting Pima County to 

continue leading conservation efforts for 

the species without the regulatory 

burdens of critical habitat is important. 

Excluding Agua Caliente from the 

critical habitat designation will allow 

the County the ability to focus on their 

ongoing, voluntary conservation efforts. 

Also, Agua Caliente Regional Park is 

a highly manipulated system that is 

subjected to substantial management 

from Pima County. Due to alterations of 

the habitat and hydrology, Agua 

Caliente no longer functions like a 

natural, unaltered cienega. Managers 

continue to experiment with the system 

to provide conditions appropriate for 

species such as the Arizona eryngo. 

Establishing critical habitat on a specific 

area of the park may limit Pima 

County’s ability to adjust their 

management in a manner that may 

ultimately benefit the species in the 

long term, allowing them to determine 

through trial and error which locations 

in the park are able to be managed for 

the species, providing the necessary 

features and establishing a new 

population. To date, introduction of the 

Arizona eryngo to the park has not been 

successful in establishing a population, 

and most individuals have experienced 

mortality due to inadequate conditions. 

Excluding this park from critical habitat 

provides Pima County the flexibility to 

conduct management that will promote 

recovery on their lands for the long-term 

benefit of the species. 

Additionally, many landowners 

perceive critical habitat as an unfair and 

unnecessary regulatory burden. 

According to some researchers, the 

designation of critical habitat on private 

lands significantly reduces the 

likelihood that landowners will support 

and carry out conservation actions 

(Main et al. 1999, p. 1,263; Bean 2002, 

p. 2). The magnitude of this negative 

outcome is greatly amplified in 

situations where active management 

measures (such as reintroduction, fire 

management, and control of invasive 

species) are necessary for species 

conservation (Bean 2002, pp. 3–4). We 

believe the exclusion of this specific 

area of non-federally owned lands from 

the critical habitat designation for 

Arizona eryngo can contribute to the 

species’ recovery and provide a superior 

level of conservation than critical 

habitat can provide. The Service 

believes that, where consistent with the 

discretion provided by the Act, it is 

necessary to implement policies that 

provide positive incentives to nonFederal landowners to voluntarily 

conserve natural resources and that 

remove or reduce disincentives to 

conservation (Wilcove et al. 1996, pp. 

1–15; Bean 2002, pp. 1–7). Partnerships 

with non-Federal landowners are vital 

to the conservation of listed species, 

especially on non-Federal lands; 

therefore, the Service is committed to 

supporting and encouraging such 

partnerships through the recognition of 

positive conservation contributions. In 

the case considered here, excluding this 

area from critical habitat designation 

will help foster the partnership that 

Pima County has developed with the 

Service; will encourage the continued 

implementation of voluntary 

conservation actions for the benefit 

ofthe Arizona eryngo and its habitat on 

these lands; and may also serve as a 

model and aid in fostering future 

cooperative relationships with other 

parties here, and in other locations, for 

the benefit of other endangered or 

threatened species. 

Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the 

Benefits of Inclusion—Agua Caliente 

(Proposed Unit 3) 

We evaluated the exclusion of 0.3 acre 

(0.1 hectare) of County land within the 

boundaries of the Agua Caliente 

Regional Park, under a long-term 

conservation partnership and MOU, 

from our designation of critical habitat, 

and we determined the benefits of 

excluding these lands outweigh the 

benefits of including them as critical 

habitat for the Arizona eryngo. 

The Service concludes the additional 

regulatory and educational benefits of 

including these lands as critical habitat 

are relatively small, because of the 

unlikelihood of a Federal nexus on 

these County lands. Examining the eight 

factors that may be considered under a 

discretionary section 4(b)(2) exclusion 

analysis for a non-permitted 

conservation plan (see Private or Other 

Non-Federal Conservation Plans or 

Agreements and Partnerships, in 

General), we found the conservation 

plan developed by Pima County satisfies 

several that would promote the 

conservation of the species. Specifically, 

the plan has objectives to promote 

recovery of federally listed species and 

promote long-term viability of native 

species, which would satisfy factor (i). 

The benefits of critical habitat 

designation are further reduced because 

the existence of a long-term 

conservation partnership and MOU 

between Pima County and the Service, 

as well as numerous land protections, 

discussed above, at Agua Caliente 

Regional Park. Given Pima County’s 

history of conservation, this satisfies 

factor (iii) of the section 4(b)(2) 

exclusion analysis. In addition, the plan 

includes multiple objectives that would 

satisfy factor (viii) by promoting 

monitoring and adaptive management to 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 112 / Friday, June 10, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 35453 

ensure conservation measures are 

effective. We anticipate that there will 

be little additional Federal regulatory 

benefit to the taxon on County land 

because there is a low likelihood that 

those areas will be negatively affected to 

any significant degree by Federal 

activities requiring section 7 

consultation, and ongoing management 

activities indicate there would be no 

additional requirements pursuant to a 

consultation that addresses critical 

habitat. 

Furthermore, the potential 

educational and informational benefits 

of critical habitat designation on lands 

containing the physical or biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the Arizona eryngo would be minimal, 

because Pima County has been a leader 

in conservation of the Arizona eryngo 

and demonstrated their knowledge of 

the species and its habitat needs 

throughout their partnership with the 

Service. Additionally, the current active 

conservation efforts on County lands 

contribute to our knowledge of the 

species through reintroduction efforts, 

monitoring, and scientific research. 

In contrast, the benefits derived from 

excluding Agua Caliente and enhancing 

our partnership with Pima County are 

significant. Because voluntary 

conservation efforts for the benefit of 

listed species on non-Federal lands are 

so valuable, the Service considers the 

maintenance and encouragement of 

conservation partnerships to be a 

significant benefit of exclusion. 

Excluding these areas from critical 

habitat will help foster the partnership 

Pima County has developed with the 

Service and will encourage the 

continued implementation of voluntary 

conservation actions for the benefit of 

the Arizona eryngo and its habitat on 

these lands. 

We find that excluding areas from 

critical habitat that are receiving both 

long-term conservation and 

management for the purpose of 

protecting the habitat that supports the 

Arizona eryngo will preserve our 

partnership with Pima County and 

encourage future collaboration towards 

conservation and recovery of listed 

species. The partnership benefits are 

significant and outweigh the small 

potential regulatory, educational, and 

ancillary benefits of including the land 

in the critical habitat designation for the 

Arizona eryngo. Therefore, the 

conservation partnership between Pima 

County and the Service provides greater 

protection of habitat for the Arizona 

eryngo than could be gained through the 

project-by-project analysis of a critical 

habitat designation. 

Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction 

of the Species—Agua Caliente 

(Proposed Unit 3) 

We determined that the exclusion of 

0.3 acre (0.1 hectare) of land within the 

boundaries of the Agua Caliente 

Regional Park owned and managed by 

Pima County Natural Resources, Parks 

and Recreation will not result in 

extinction of the taxon. Protections 

afforded the taxon and its habitat by the 

long-term Pima County and Service 

conservation partnership, MOU, and 

various land protections provide 

assurances that the taxon will not go 

extinct as a result of excluding these 

lands from the critical habitat 

designation. 

An important consideration as we 

evaluate these exclusions and their 

potential effect on the species in 

question is that critical habitat does not 

carry with it a regulatory requirement to 

restore or actively manage habitat for 

the benefit of listed species; the 

regulatory effect of critical habitat is 

only the avoidance of destruction or 

adverse modification of critical habitat 

should an action with a Federal nexus 

occur. It is, therefore, advantageous for 

the conservation of the species to 

support the proactive efforts of nonFederal landowners who are 

contributing to the enhancement of 

essential habitat features for listed 

species through exclusion. The jeopardy 

standard of section 7 of the Act will also 

provide protection in these occupied 

areas when there is a Federal nexus. 

Therefore, based on the above 

discussion, the Secretary is exercising 

her discretion to exclude 0.3 acre (0.1 

hectare) of land from the designation of 

critical habitat for the Arizona eryngo. 

Summary of Exclusions 

As discussed above, based on the 

information provided by entities seeking 

exclusion, as well as any additional 

public comments we received, we 

evaluated whether certain lands in our 

proposed critical habitat designation 

were appropriate for exclusion from this 

final designation pursuant to section 

4(b)(2) of the Act. We are excluding the 

following areas from critical habitat 

designation for the Arizona eryngo: 

TABLE 2—AREAS EXCLUDED FROM CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION BY CRITICAL HABITAT UNIT

Proposed unit Specific area 

Areas meeting 

the definition 

of critical habitat, in acres 

(hectares) 

Areas excluded from 

critical habitat, 

in acres 

(hectares) 

3. Agua Caliente ............................................................................ 3a. Pond 1 Wetland .................................... 0.04 (0.02) 0.04 (0.02) 

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

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

Required Determinations 

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 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
35454 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 112 / Friday, June 10, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

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

whenever an agency is required to 

publish a notice of rulemaking for any 

proposed or final rule, it must prepare 

and make available for public comment 

a regulatory flexibility analysis that 

describes the effects of the rule on small 

entities (i.e., small businesses, small 

organizations, and small government 

jurisdictions). However, no regulatory 

flexibility analysis is required if the 

head of the agency certifies the rule will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. The SBREFA amended the RFA 

to require Federal agencies to provide a 

certification statement of the factual 

basis for certifying that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

According to the Small Business 

Administration, small entities include 

small organizations such as 

independent nonprofit organizations; 

small governmental jurisdictions, 

including school boards and city and 

town governments that serve fewer than 

50,000 residents; and small businesses 

(13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses 

include manufacturing and mining 

concerns with fewer than 500 

employees, wholesale trade entities 

with fewer than 100 employees, retail 

and service businesses with less than $5 

million in annual sales, general and 

heavy construction businesses with less 

than $27.5 million in annual business, 

special trade contractors doing less than 

$11.5 million in annual business, and 

agricultural businesses with annual 

sales less than $750,000. To determine 

if potential economic impacts to these 

small entities are significant, we 

considered the types of activities that 

might trigger regulatory impacts under 

this designation as well as types of 

project modifications that may result. In 

general, the term ‘‘significant economic 

impact’’ is meant to apply to a typical 

small business firm’s business 

operations. 

Under the RFA, as amended, and as 

understood in light of recent court 

decisions, Federal agencies are required 

to evaluate the potential incremental 

impacts of rulemaking on those entities 

directly regulated by the rulemaking 

itself; in other words, the RFA does not 

require agencies to evaluate the 

potential impacts to indirectly regulated 

entities. The regulatory mechanism 

through which critical habitat 

protections are realized is section 7 of 

the Act, which requires Federal 

agencies, in consultation with the 

Service, to ensure that any action 

authorized, funded, or carried out by the 

agency is not likely to destroy or 

adversely modify critical habitat. 

Therefore, under section 7, only Federal 

action agencies are directly subject to 

the specific regulatory requirement 

(avoiding destruction and adverse 

modification) imposed by critical 

habitat designation. Consequently, it is 

our position that only Federal action 

agencies will be directly regulated by 

this 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 will 

be directly regulated by this rulemaking, 

the Service certifies that this critical 

habitat designation will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

In summary, we have considered 

whether the designation will 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 this critical habitat 

designation will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small business entities. 

Therefore, a regulatory flexibility 

analysis is not required. 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use— 

Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211 (Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use) requires agencies 

to prepare Statements of Energy Effects 

when undertaking certain actions. In 

our economic analysis, we did not find 

that this critical habitat designation will 

significantly affect energy supplies, 

distribution, or use, as the areas 

identified as critical habitat are in 

cienegas in mostly remote areas with 

little energy supplies, distribution, or 

infrastructure in place. 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 rule will not produce a 

Federal mandate. In general, a Federal 

mandate is a provision in legislation, 

statute, or regulation that would impose 

an enforceable duty upon State, local, or 

Tribal governments, or the private 

sector, and includes both ‘‘Federal 

intergovernmental mandates’’ and 

‘‘Federal private sector mandates.’’ 

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

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

mandate’’ includes a regulation that 

‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 

upon State, local, or Tribal 

governments’’ with two exceptions. It 

excludes ‘‘a condition of Federal 

assistance.’’ It also excludes ‘‘a duty 

arising from participation in a voluntary 

Federal program,’’ unless the regulation 

‘‘relates to a then-existing Federal 

program under which $500,000,000 or 

more is provided annually to State, 

local, and Tribal governments under 

entitlement authority,’’ if the provision 

would ‘‘increase the stringency of 

conditions of assistance’’ or ‘‘place caps 

upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal 

Government’s responsibility to provide 

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

governments ‘‘lack authority’’ to adjust 

accordingly. At the time of enactment, 

these entitlement programs were: 

Medicaid; Aid to Families with 

Dependent Children work programs; 

Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social 

Services Block Grants; Vocational 

Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, 

Adoption Assistance, and Independent 

Living; Family Support Welfare 

Services; and Child Support 

Enforcement. ‘‘Federal private sector 

mandate’’ includes a regulation that 

‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 

upon the private sector, except (i) a 

condition of Federal assistance or (ii) a 

duty arising from participation in a 

voluntary Federal program.’’ 

The designation of critical habitat 

does not impose a legally binding duty 

on non-Federal Government entities or 

private parties. Under the Act, the only 

regulatory effect is that Federal agencies 

must ensure that their actions do not 

destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat under section 7. While nonFederal entities that receive Federal 

funding, assistance, or permits, or that 

otherwise require approval or 

authorization from a Federal agency for 

an action, may be indirectly impacted 

by the designation of critical habitat, the 

legally binding duty to avoid 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat rests squarely on the 

Federal agency. Furthermore, to the 

extent that non-Federal entities are 

indirectly impacted because they 

receive Federal assistance or participate 

in a voluntary Federal aid program, the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would 

not apply, nor would critical habitat 

shift the costs of the large entitlement 

programs listed above onto State 

governments. 

(2) We do not believe that this rule 

will significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments because the lands 

within the critical habitat designation 

that are owned by Pima County are 

already subject to a restrictive covenant 

that limits development and protects 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 112 / Friday, June 10, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 35455 

natural resources on the property, and 

small governments will be affected only 

to the extent that any programs having 

Federal funds, permits, or other 

authorized activities must ensure that 

their actions will 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 

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 this 

designation of critical habitat for the 

Arizona eryngo, and it concludes that 

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 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 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, this final 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 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 will 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 will not unduly burden the judicial 

system and that it meets the 

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

of the Order. We are designating critical 

habitat in accordance with the 

provisions of the Act. To assist the 

public in understanding the habitat 

needs of the species, this final rule 

identifies the physical or biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species. The designated areas of 

critical habitat are presented on maps, 

and the rule provides several options for 

the interested public to obtain more 

detailed location information, if desired. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) 

This rule does not contain 

information collection requirements, 

and a submission to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

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

We may not conduct or sponsor and you 

are not required to respond to a 

collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. 

National Environmental Policy Act (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 

It is our position that, outside the 

jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to 

prepare environmental analyses 

pursuant to the National Environmental 

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

seq.) in connection with regulations 

adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the 

Act. We published a notice outlining 

our reasons for this determination in the 

Federal Register on October 25, 1983 

(48 FR 49244). This position was upheld 

by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. 

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

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

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994 

(Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive 

Order 13175 (Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments), and the Department of 

the Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we 

readily acknowledge our responsibility 

to communicate meaningfully with 

recognized Federal Tribes on a 

government-to-government basis. In 

accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 

of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal 

Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust 

Responsibilities, and the Endangered 

Species Act), we readily acknowledge 

our responsibilities to work directly 

with Tribes in developing programs for 

healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that 

Tribal lands are not subject to the same 

controls as Federal public lands, to 

remain sensitive to Indian culture, and 

to make information available to Tribes. 

We have determined that no Tribal 

lands fall within the boundaries of the 

critical habitat designation for the 

Arizona eryngo, so no Tribal lands will 

be affected by this designation. 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited in 

this rulemaking is available on the 

internet at https://www.regulations.gov 

and upon request from the Arizona 

Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this final rule 

are the staff members of the Fish and 

Wildlife Service’s Species Assessment 

Team and the Arizona Ecological 

Services Field Office. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
35456 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 112 / Friday, June 10, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we amend part 17, 

subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth 

below: 

PART 17—ENDANGERED AND 

THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

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

1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise 

noted. 

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

adding an entry for ‘‘Eryngium 

sparganophyllum’’ to the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Plants 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 87 FR [INSERT Federal Register PAGE WHERE 

THE DOCUMENT BEGINS], June 10, 2022; 50 

CFR 17.96(a).CH

* * * * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 17.96, in paragraph (a), by 

adding an entry for ‘‘Family Apiaceae: 

Eryngium sparganophyllum (Arizona 

eryngo)’’ in alphabetical order 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 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 July 11, 2022. 

(4) 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 https://

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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 112 / Friday, June 10, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 35457 

(6) Unit 1: Lewis Springs, Cochise 

County, Arizona. 

(i) 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: 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1ER10JN22.009</GPH>
35458 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 112 / Friday, June 10, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

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

Arizona. 

(i) 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: 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1ER10JN22.010</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 112 / Friday, June 10, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 35459 

* * * * * 

Martha Williams, 

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–12521 Filed 6–9–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–C 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1ER10JN22.011</GPH>