[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 112 (Friday, June 10, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35431-35459]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-12521]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 35432]]

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-
of-contact 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.

[[Page 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

[[Page 35434]]

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

[[Page 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 (S[aacute]nchez Escalante et al. 2019), which were the 
Rancho Agua Caliente and Ojo Varele[ntilde]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 cream-colored 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 (S[aacute]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, Michoac[aacute]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 
Michoac[aacute]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

[[Page 35436]]

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 
northwest-southeast 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 
Garc[iacute]a (S[aacute]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) (S[aacute]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 (S[aacute]nchez Escalante et al. 2019, p. 16; S[aacute]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

[[Page 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 Varele[ntilde]o, Chihuahua, Mexico (Extant)--Arizona eryngo 
occurs at a privately owned hot springs spa, El Ojo Varele[ntilde]o, 
located northwest of the municipality of Casas Grandes in Chihuahua 
(S[aacute]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 (S[aacute]nchez Escalante et al. 2019, p. 17) that 
occupy an area of about 0.075 hectares (0.18 acres) (S[aacute]nchez 
Escalante 2019, pers. comm.). No juveniles were documented.
    Based on photography of the site, it appears that Ojo 
Varele[ntilde]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 (S[aacute]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 species-specific 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

[[Page 35438]]

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

[[Page 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 co-occurring 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

[[Page 35440]]

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 Varele[ntilde]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 (S[aacute]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 Varele[ntilde]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

[[Page 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 Varele[ntilde]o to supply water to the 
Universidad Tecnol[oacute]gica de Casas Grandes. Currently at Ojo 
Varele[ntilde]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 Varele[ntilde]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

[[Page 35442]]

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 Varele[ntilde]o, many nonnative plant species also occur, 
with a particularly aggressive invasion of giant reed (S[aacute]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 Varele[ntilde]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 Varele[ntilde]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

[[Page 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 (S[aacute]nchez Escalante et al. 
2019, p. 16; S[aacute]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 (S[aacute]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 Varele[ntilde]o, Mexico
    The Arizona eryngo population at Ojo Varele[ntilde]o contains about 
56 adult plants (S[aacute]nchez Escalante et al. 2019, p. 17) in a 
0.075-hectare (0.18-acre) area (S[aacute]nchez Escalante 2019, pers. 
comm.). No juveniles have been documented at this site.
    Giant reed has been aggressively invading Ojo Varele[ntilde]o 
(S[aacute]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 (S[aacute]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 Varele[ntilde]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 co-occurring 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

[[Page 35444]]

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, self-sustaining, and functioning 
components of their ecosystems.
    Recovery planning consists of preparing draft and final recovery 
plans, beginning with the development of a recovery outline and making 
it available to the public within 30 days of a final listing 
determination. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation 
of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to be used to 
develop a recovery plan. Revisions of the plan may be done to address 
continuing or new 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 non-Federal 
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

[[Page 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 non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner requests Federal 
agency funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed 
species or critical habitat, the Federal agency would be required to 
consult with the Service under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. However, 
even if the Service were to conclude that the proposed activity would 
result in destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat, 
the Federal action agency and the landowner are not required to abandon 
the proposed activity, or to restore or recover the species; instead, 
they must implement ``reasonable and prudent alternatives'' to avoid 
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.

[[Page 35446]]

    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 life-
history needs of the species, including, but not limited to, water 
characteristics, soil type, geological features, sites, prey, 
vegetation, symbiotic species, or other features. A feature may be a 
single habitat characteristic or a more complex combination of habitat 
characteristics. Features may include habitat characteristics that 
support ephemeral or dynamic habitat conditions. Features may also be 
expressed in terms relating to principles of conservation biology, such 
as patch size, distribution distances, and connectivity. For example, 
physical features essential to the conservation of the species might 
include gravel of a particular size required for spawning, alkaline 
soil for seed germination, protective cover for migration, or 
susceptibility to flooding or fire that maintains necessary early-
successional habitat characteristics. Biological features might include 
prey species, forage grasses, specific kinds or ages of trees for 
roosting or nesting, symbiotic fungi, or 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 life-history needs, condition, and status of the 
species. These characteristics include, but are not limited to, space 
for individual and population growth and for normal behavior; food, 
water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological 
requirements; cover or shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction, or 
rearing (or development) of offspring; and habitats that are protected 
from disturbance.

Summary of Essential Physical or Biological Features

    We derive the specific physical or biological features essential to 
the

[[Page 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.

[[Page 35448]]



               Table 1--Areas That Meet the Definition of Critical Habitat for the Arizona Eryngo
                    [Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Size of unit in acres
        Critical habitat unit           Land ownership by type         (hectares)               Occupied?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Lewis Springs.....................  Federal (BLM)..........  9.6 (3.9)..............  Yes.
2. La Cebadilla......................  Private, Pima County     3.1 (1.3)..............  Yes.
                                        Regional Flood Control
                                        District.
Agua Caliente [proposed Unit 3]......  Pima County Natural      N/A: Excluded from       Yes.
                                        Resources, Parks and     designation under
                                        Recreation.              section 4(b)(2) of the
                                                                 Act.
                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.

[[Page 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://

[[Page 35450]]

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.

[[Page 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

[[Page 35452]]

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 non-Federal 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

[[Page 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 
non-Federal 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Areas meeting
                                                                                  the definition  Areas excluded
                                                                                    of critical    from critical
                 Proposed unit                            Specific area             habitat, in     habitat, in
                                                                                       acres           acres
                                                                                    (hectares)      (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

[[Page 35454]]

(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 non-Federal entities that receive 
Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require 
approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be 
indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally 
binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the 
extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they 
receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid 
program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would 
critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs 
listed above onto State governments.
    (2) We do not believe that this rule will significantly or uniquely 
affect small governments because the lands within the critical habitat 
designation that are owned by Pima County are already subject to a 
restrictive covenant that limits development and protects

[[Page 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.

[[Page 35456]]

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Regulation Promulgation

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

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

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

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

0
2. Amend Sec.  17.12, 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:


Sec.  17.12   Endangered and threatened plants.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Listing citations and
         Scientific name              Common name        Where listed         Status         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
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
3. Amend Sec.  17.96, in paragraph (a), by adding an entry for ``Family 
Apiaceae: Eryngium sparganophyllum (Arizona eryngo)'' in alphabetical 
order to read as follows:


Sec.  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

[[Page 35457]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10JN22.009

    (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:

[[Page 35458]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10JN22.010

    (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:

[[Page 35459]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10JN22.011

* * * * *

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