[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 160 (Thursday, August 18, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55266-55313]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-19159]



[[Page 55265]]

Vol. 81

Thursday,

No. 160

August 18, 2016

Part II





Department of the Interior





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





 Fish and Wildlife Service





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





50 CFR Part 17





Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical 
Habitat for the Acu[ntilde]a Cactus and the Fickeisen Plains Cactus; 
Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 81 , No. 160 / Thursday, August 18, 2016 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 55266]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2013-0025; 4500090023]
RIN 1018-AZ43


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of 
Critical Habitat for the Acu[ntilde]a Cactus and the Fickeisen Plains 
Cactus

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), designate 
critical habitat for the Echinomastus erectocentrus var. acunensis 
(acu[ntilde]a cactus) and the Pediocactus peeblesianus var. 
fickeiseniae (Fickeisen plains cactus) under the Endangered Species 
Act. Critical habitat for the acu[ntilde]a cactus is located in 
Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal Counties, Arizona, and critical habitat for 
the Fickeisen plains cactus is located in Coconino and Mohave Counties, 
Arizona. The effect of this regulation is to designate critical habitat 
for the acu[ntilde]a cactus and the Fickeisen plains cactus under the 
Endangered Species Act.

DATES: This rule becomes effective September 19, 2016.

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2013-0025. Comments and 
materials we received, as well as some supporting documentation used in 
the preparation of this final rule, are available for public inspection 
at http://www.regulations.gov. All of the comments, materials, and 
documentation that we considered in this rulemaking are available by 
appointment, during normal business hours at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, 9828 North 31st Ave., Suite C3, Phoenix, AZ 85051; telephone 
602-242-0210; facsimile 602-242-2513.
    The coordinates or plot points or both from which the maps are 
generated are included in the administrative record for this critical 
habitat designation and are available at http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona, at http://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2013-
0025, and at the Arizona Ecological Services Office (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT). Any additional tools or supporting information 
that we developed for this critical habitat designation will also be 
available at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Web site and Field 
Office set out above, and may also be included in the preamble and at 
http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Spangle, Field Supervisor, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, 9828 North 31st Ave., Suite C3, Phoenix, AZ 
85051; by telephone (602) 242-0210; or by facsimile (602) 242-2513. 
Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call 
the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary

    This document consists of a final rule to designate critical 
habitat for Echinomastus erectocentrus var. acunensis (acu[ntilde]a 
cactus) and Pediocactus peeblesianus var. fickeiseniae (Fickeisen 
plains cactus) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (Act). In this final rule, we refer to these 
species by their common names.
    Why we need to publish a rule. This is a final rule to designate 
critical habitat for the acu[ntilde]a cactus and Fickeisen plains 
cactus. Under the Act, any species that is determined to be an 
endangered or threatened species requires critical habitat to be 
designated, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable. 
Designations and revisions of critical habitat can only be completed by 
issuing a rule.
    On October 3, 2012, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) 
published in the Federal Register a proposed rule to list the 
acu[ntilde]a cactus and the Fickeisen plains cactus as endangered 
species and designate critical habitat for them (77 FR 60509). The 
Service published in the Federal Register a final rule to list the 
acu[ntilde]a cactus and the Fickeisen plains cactus as endangered 
species on October 1, 2013 (78 FR 60608). Section 4(b)(2) of the Act 
states that the Secretary shall designate 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 critical habitat areas we are designating in this rule 
constitute our current best assessment of the areas that meet the 
definition of critical habitat for the acu[ntilde]a cactus and the 
Fickeisen plains cactus. We included unoccupied areas with suitable 
acu[ntilde]a cactus habitat in the proposed critical habitat 
designation; however, we have since changed our determination and 
concluded that unoccupied habitat is not essential for the conservation 
of the acu[ntilde]a cactus and, therefore, removed these areas from the 
final designation. All areas included in this final critical habitat 
designation for both the acu[ntilde]a cactus and the Fickeisen plains 
cactus are occupied. We are designating:
     In total, approximately 7,501 ha (18,535 ac) in six units 
as critical habitat for the acu[ntilde]a cactus.
     In total, approximately 7,062 ha (17,456 ac) in six units 
as critical habitat for the Fickeisen plains cactus.
    Economic analysis. In order to consider economic impacts, we have 
prepared an analysis of the economic impacts of the critical habitat 
designations. We announced the availability of the draft economic 
analysis (DEA) in the Federal Register on March 28, 2013 (78 FR 18938), 
allowing the public to provide comments on our analysis. We have 
incorporated the comments and have completed the final economic 
analysis (FEA, dated August 23, 2013).
    Peer review and public comment. We sought comments from independent 
specialists to ensure that our designation is based on scientifically 
sound data and analyses. We invited these peer reviewers to comment on 
our listing and critical habitat proposal. We obtained opinions from 
two knowledgeable individuals for the acu[ntilde]a cactus and two 
knowledgeable individuals for the Fickeisen plains cactus, all with 
scientific expertise to review our technical assumptions, analysis, and 
whether or not we had used the best available information for both 
plants. The comments of these reviewers were focused on the designation 
of the two species; we received only one review that incorporated a 
comment on the Fickeisen plains cactus critical habitat designation 
portion of the draft rule. These peer reviewers generally concurred 
with our methods and conclusions and provided additional information, 
clarifications, and suggestions to improve this final rule. Information 
we received from peer review is incorporated into this final rule. We 
also considered all comments and information received from the public 
during the comment period.

Previous Federal Actions

    On October 1, 2013, we published in the Federal Register a final 
determination to list the acu[ntilde]a cactus and the Fickeisen plains 
cactus as endangered species under the Act (78 FR 60608). Please refer 
to the proposed listing and critical habitat rule for the acu[ntilde]a 
cactus and the Fickeisen plains cactus (77 FR 60509, October 3, 2012)

[[Page 55267]]

for a discussion of previous Federal actions that occurred prior to the 
listing of these taxa.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    We requested written comments from the public on the proposed 
designation of critical habitat for the acu[ntilde]a cactus and the 
Fickeisen plains cactus during three comment periods. The first comment 
period associated with the publication of the proposed rule (77 FR 
60509) opened on October 3, 2012, and closed on December 3, 2012. We 
requested comments on the proposed critical habitat designation and 
associated DEA during a comment period that opened March 28, 2013, and 
closed on April 29, 2013 (78 FR 18938). We also requested comments on 
revisions to the proposed critical habitat designation during a comment 
period that opened July 8, 2013, and closed July 23, 2013 (78 FR 
40673). We did not receive a request for a public hearing during any of 
the three open comment periods. We also contacted appropriate Federal, 
State, and local agencies; scientific organizations; and other 
interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposed rule and 
DEA during these comment periods.
    During the public comment periods, we received 13 comment letters, 
including 1 from a peer reviewer, directly addressing the proposed 
critical habitat designation. All substantive information provided 
during comment periods has either been incorporated directly into this 
final determination or addressed below.

Peer Review

    In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994 
(59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinion from three knowledgeable 
individuals on the acu[ntilde]a cactus and six on the Fickeisen plains 
cactus having scientific expertise that included familiarity with the 
respected taxon and its habitat, biological needs, and threats. We 
received only one response that incorporated a comment on the critical 
habitat designation portion of the draft rule.
    We reviewed the comment received from the peer reviewer for 
substantive issues and new information regarding the proposed rules to 
list and designate critical habitat for the acu[ntilde]a cactus and 
Fickeisen plains cactus. The peer reviewer generally concurred with our 
methods and conclusions and provided additional information, 
clarifications, and suggestions to improve the final rules. Peer 
reviewer comments are addressed in the following summary and 
incorporated into this final critical habitat rule as appropriate.

Peer Reviewer Comments

    (1) Comment: One peer reviewer commented that the designation of 
1,000 meters (m) (3,280 feet (ft)) of pollination area surrounding each 
Fickeisen plains cactus population is inadequate to buffer threats. The 
reviewer suggested increasing the area around each population area by 
an additional 1,000 m (3,280 ft) for a total of 2,000 m (6,561 ft) to 
adjust for uncertainties of plant locations, provided that the primary 
constituent elements are present.
    Our Response: The Fickeisen plains cactus is dependent on 
pollinators for reproduction. Thus, preserving the interaction between 
the cactus and its pollinators is integral for survival. Through our 
analysis, we found that a 1,000-m (3,280-ft) pollination area was 
sufficient to support the maximum foraging distance of ground-nesting 
bees that are the primary pollinators of the cactus. This 1,000-m 
(3,280-ft) pollination area is not intended to serve as a buffer from 
threats, but as a primary constituent element necessary to support the 
essential physical or biological features. We do not have information 
suggesting that a larger area around plants is necessary to maintain 
and support plant-pollinator interactions.

Federal Comments

    (2) Comment: The U.S. Air Force provided information on past and 
planned future activities to conserve the acu[ntilde]a cactus on the 
Barry M. Goldwater Gunnery Range (BMGR).
    Our Response: Based on the information we received, the Service 
considered land on the BMGR for possible exemption from the final 
critical habitat designation for the acu[ntilde]a cactus under the 
authority of section (4)(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act. The Service met with 
the U.S. Air Force to discuss current and planned conservation measures 
for the acu[ntilde]a cactus on the BMGR. We have also evaluated the 
conservation measures for the species as presented in the approved 
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP) for the BMGR. The 
revised INRMP provides the following benefits for the acu[ntilde]a 
cactus: Avoiding disturbance of vegetation and pollinators within 900 m 
(2,953 ft) of known acu[ntilde]a cactus plants; developing and 
implementing procedures to control trespass livestock; monitoring 
illegal immigration, contraband trafficking, and border-related 
enforcement to prevent acu[ntilde]a cacti from being trampled or run 
over by vehicles; and continuing to monitor and control invasive plant 
species to maintain quality habitat and prevent the spread of fire 
where it was historically infrequent. For these reasons, the BMGR is 
exempt from the final designation of critical habitat for the 
acu[ntilde]a cactus. Please see the Exemptions section of this rule for 
a more detailed analysis.

Tribal Comments

    (3) Comment: The Tohono O'odham Nation requested both a meeting 
with the Service and an exclusion from the acu[ntilde]a cactus critical 
habitat designation on their lands. They provided information that 
efforts by the Tohono O'odham Nation's legislative body to protect the 
acu[ntilde]a cactus are under way.
    Our Response: The Service met with the Tohono O'odham Nation to 
discuss current and planned conservation measures for the acu[ntilde]a 
cactus on Tribal lands. The Service has considered land on the Tohono 
O'odham Nation for exclusion from the critical habitat designation 
under section (4)(b)(2) of the Act. We are excluding Tohono O'odham 
Nation land from the final critical habitat designation because the 
benefits of exclusion as critical habitat outweigh the benefits of 
inclusion as critical habitat. As further explained in the Exclusions 
section of this rule, we have concluded that the Tohono O'odham Nation 
has a commitment to protect and manage the acu[ntilde]a cactus habitat 
on their lands. Exclusion of lands of the Tohono O'odham Nation as 
critical habitat will allow us to maintain a cooperative working 
relationship with the Nation, and we expect that the Nation will 
continue to protect and manage the acu[ntilde]a cactus on their lands.
    (4) Comment: The Navajo Nation requested an exclusion from the 
final Fickeisen plains cactus critical habitat designation and 
submitted the final Navajo Nation Fickeisen Plains Cactus Management 
Plan that guides species and habitat management for the cactus on all 
lands administered by the Tribe.
    Our Response: The Service has considered land on the Navajo Nation 
for exclusion under section (4)(b)(2) of the Act and has met with the 
Navajo Nation to discuss current and planned conservation measures for 
the Fickeisen plains cactus on Tribal lands. We are excluding Navajo 
Nation land from the final critical habitat designation because the 
benefits of exclusion as critical habitat outweigh the benefits of 
inclusion as critical habitat. As further explained in the Exclusions 
section of this rule, we have concluded that the Navajo Nation has a 
commitment to protect and manage the Fickeisen plains

[[Page 55268]]

cactus on their land as described in the final management plan. 
Exclusion of lands of the Navajo Nation as critical habitat will allow 
us to maintain a cooperative working relationship with the Nation, and 
we expect that the Nation will continue to protect and manage Fickeisen 
plains cactus habitat on their lands.
    (5) Comment: The Navajo Nation suggests that critical habitat not 
be designated for the Fickeisen plains cactus due to the possibility of 
increased illegal collection. It is the position of the Navajo Nation 
Department of Fish and Wildlife (NNDFW) that illegal collection is a 
serious threat to the Fickeisen plains cactus and that making 
population locations public and easily accessible is detrimental to the 
conservation of the species.
    Our Response: We acknowledge the concern of the Navajo Nation that 
designating critical habitat may lead to illegal collection of listed 
plant species, but we disagree with this conclusion for the Fickeisen 
plains cactus. Section 4(a)(3) of the Act and implementing regulations 
(50 CFR 424.12), require that, to the maximum extent prudent and 
determinable, the Secretary designate critical habitat at the time the 
species is determined to be an endangered or threatened species. Our 
regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that the designation of 
critical habitat is not prudent when one or both of the following 
situations exist: (i) The species is threatened by taking or other 
human activity, and identification of critical habitat can be expected 
to increase the degree of such threat to the species, or (ii) such 
designation of critical habitat would not be beneficial to the species. 
In the proposed rule, we found no information that the Fickeisen plains 
cactus is threatened by illegal collection and concluded that the 
designation of critical habitat is prudent for the plant (77 FR 60509). 
In addition, during the comment periods for the proposed rule, we did 
not receive new information from the Navajo Nation or any other entity 
indicating that illegal collection is occurring across the range of the 
plant.
    (6) Comment: The Navajo Nation commented that there is no data 
showing that microbiotic soil crusts are closely associated with the 
Fickeisen plains cactus and, therefore, should not be included as a 
primary constituent element.
    Our Response: We acknowledge that there is no evidence available 
indicating that biological soil crusts are essential to the 
conservation of the Fickeisen plains cactus, only that crusts are a 
component of the habitat. Therefore, we have revised the primary 
constituent element language for this species. Please see the Primary 
Constituent Elements for the Fickeisen Plains Cactus section in the 
rule.
    (7) Comment: The Navajo Nation commented that the proposed 
Fickeisen plains cactus critical habitat locations on their land are 
based on outdated, approximately 20-year-old data and, thus, are not 
based on the best scientific information. In addition, the Tribe 
questioned critical habitat designation in areas containing fewer than 
25 cacti when there are larger populations of the plant elsewhere. The 
Tribe feels that extra conservation efforts should not be focused on 
smaller populations.
    Our Response: Section 3(5)(A) of the Act defines critical habitat 
to mean: (i) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied 
by the species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the 
provisions of section 4 of this Act, on which are found those physical 
or biological features essential to the conservation of the species and 
which may require special management considerations or protection; and 
(ii) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the 
species at the time it is listed in accordance with the provisions of 
section 4 of this Act, upon a determination by the Secretary that such 
areas are essential for the conservation of the species. The criteria 
for critical habitat were evaluated using the best scientific and 
commercial data available including plant surveys that occurred, in 
some cases, more than 18 years ago and at sites that have not been 
revisited. In the proposed rule, we specifically requested information 
from the public on the current status of populations where plants had 
been documented historically, but the site had not been revisited (77 
FR 60509, p. 60512). The Navajo Nation also submitted general 
information describing the populations on Tribal land, which included 
records of those that were last observed nearly 20 years ago, and for 
which they used to estimate the total number of Fickeisen plains cacti 
on Tribal land. We received no additional information on these 
populations. Therefore, we have used the best available scientific 
information in the designation of critical habitat for this species.
    In addition, we cannot exclude an occupied area from a critical 
habitat designation based on small population size. Rather, we are 
required under the Act to apply the critical habitat designation to all 
areas that meet the definition in section 3(5)(A) outlined above, 
provided we have not determined that the benefits of exclusion outweigh 
the benefits of including the area in the critical habitat designation. 
As mentioned in the response to comment number 4, above, we have made 
such a determination under section 4(b)(2) of the Act for Navajo Nation 
lands and are excluding from the final critical habitat designation all 
Navajo Nation lands, some of which contain small populations of the 
Fickeisen plains cacti. The exclusion of lands on the Navajo Nation as 
critical habitat will aid the Service in maintaining a cooperative 
working relationship with the Nation. In addition, we expect that the 
Navajo Nation will continue conservation efforts throughout the entire 
area occupied by the cactus, even where population size is limited.

Public Comments

    (8) Comment: The Babbitt Ranches, LLC, submitted the Draft Babbitt 
Ranches Fickeisen Plains Cactus Management Plan and requested that 
their lands be excluded from the final designation of critical habitat.
    Our Response: The Service considered land managed by the Babbitt 
Ranches, LLC, for exclusion under section (4)(b)(2) of the Act and has 
met with the landowners to discuss current and planned conservation 
measures for the Fickeisen plains cactus. As explained in the 
Exclusions section of this rule, we are excluding from the critical 
habitat designation lands owned by the Babbitt Ranches, LLC, and State 
trust lands that are managed by the Babbitt Ranches, LLC, where a land 
closure is in place. However, we are not excluding from the final 
designation the federally owned lands where Babbitt Ranches, LLC, holds 
grazing permits.
    (9) Comment: One commenter suggested that the use of the total 
number of acu[ntilde]a cactus flowers that bloomed in the spring 
following a winter with 29.7 centimeters (cm) (11.66 inches (in)) of 
precipitation recorded is biased. The commenter suggested using the 
percentage of adults with flowers or the average number of flowers per 
adult as a different metric. The commenter analyzed the Organ Pipe 
Cactus National Monument (OPCNM) data with these metrics and found no 
correlation between precipitation and flowering, adult population 
counts, or plant mortality.
    Our Response: The use of the number of acu[ntilde]a cactus flowers 
that bloomed in the spring following 29.7 cm (11.66 in) of 
precipitation was properly used to identify unoccupied areas that could 
be considered essential to the conservation of the species. In the 
proposed rule, we

[[Page 55269]]

discussed survey data gathered from monitoring plots established in 
1977; these data illustrate the relationship between precipitation and 
acu[ntilde]a cactus flowering. We noted that acu[ntilde]a cactus flower 
production and recruitment peaked in 1992 (Holm 2006, p. 2-10) 
following a winter period with total precipitation of 29.7 cm (11.66 
in) (Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC) 2012, entire). Similar 
peaks in recruitment occurred in the early 1990s (Holm 2006, p. 2-6; 
NPS 2011a, p. 1) following a 1990 summer period with 24.6 cm (9.7 in) 
of precipitation (WRCC 2012, entire). Alternatively, we also noted 
flower production lows in years with markedly low winter precipitation. 
We also note that Johnson (1992) found that flower production was 
highest during the 2 wettest years of his study; his analysis suggests 
that rainfall is positively correlated with the number of flowers 
produced in acu[ntilde]a cactus, as well as in other cacti, and cites 
numerous studies in his conclusion. Therefore, we used this information 
to identify areas that receive 29.7 cm (11.66 in) or higher total 
annual precipitation as necessary for the acu[ntilde]a cactus 
reproduction and survival. Thus, the best available information 
indicates that the total number of flowers is an appropriate metric. 
However, public comments we received provided evidence that this metric 
should be adjusted to reflect that areas receiving 29.7 cm (11.66 in) 
or higher in winter precipitation only (not annual precipitation) are 
necessary for the acu[ntilde]a cactus. We reassessed our proposed 
critical habitat based on this metric, but there are no areas in 
southern Arizona that contain the geology, elevation, and vegetation 
communities required by the cactus that support this level of 
precipitation concentrated in the winter months. Thus, in this final 
critical habitat designation, we removed 12,113 ha (29,933 ac) of 
proposed critical habitat from multiple units.
    (10) Comment: One commenter suggested that the inclusion of 
acu[ntilde]a cactus critical habitat on private lands in and around the 
town of Ajo may impede the ability of Ajo to attain funding for 
infrastructure improvements within the town.
    Our Response: Despite the fragmented nature of the pollinator 
habitat in and around the town of Ajo, three juvenile acu[ntilde]a 
cacti were found in 2013 from within Ajo town site populations and two 
juveniles were found in 2013 in the Little Ajo Mountains just south of 
the New Cornelia Copper Mine. The presence of these juveniles suggests 
that these areas identified as critical habitat contain the physical 
and biological features necessary for acu[ntilde]a cactus survival, 
including supporting pollinators that may be utilizing habitat within 
the town of Ajo. As stated in the FEA (2013, p. ES-9), no future 
projects with a Federal nexus were identified within the areas proposed 
as critical habitat in the town of Ajo and, thus, no impacts are 
forecast for community infrastructure and development activities.
    (11) Comment: One commenter is concerned with the reduction in 
proposed acu[ntilde]a cactus critical habitat due to the miscalculation 
of annual versus winter precipitation. This commenter suggests creating 
a lower winter precipitation limit necessary for acu[ntilde]a cactus 
survival, thus increasing the amount of critical habitat required for 
the species.
    Our Response: We recognize that adequate precipitation is necessary 
for acu[ntilde]a cactus seedling survival, flowering, and fruit set in 
adult plants. We also recognize that as climate change progresses, 
areas with higher precipitation or cooler temperatures may become 
important for the future survival of the species. However, we lack 
sufficient monitoring and climate modeling data to adjust the 
precipitation limit utilized in our proposed rule. We made the public 
aware of our incorrect usage of annual rainfall data rather than winter 
rainfall data in our revised proposed rule (July 8, 2013; 78 FR 40673), 
and we announced that we had removed all of the unoccupied critical 
habitat proposed in our October 3, 2012, proposed rule (77 FR 60509). 
We have used the best information available at this time to designate 
critical habitat.
    (12) Comment: One commenter stated the DEA fails to account for 
impacts associated with situations in which an activity does not 
jeopardize the species' continued survival, but nonetheless may be 
subject to project modifications to avoid adverse modification of 
critical habitat.
    Our Response: Section 2.3 of the FEA describes the reasons the 
Service does not anticipate critical habitat designation to result in 
additional conservation requirements. These reasons are also presented 
in the Service's ``Incremental Effects of Critical Habitat Designation 
for the Acu[ntilde]a Cactus and the Fickeisen Plains Cactus''. 
Conservation measures being implemented in response to the species' 
listing status under the Act are expected to sufficiently avoid 
potential destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat as 
well. Thus, projects are already avoiding adverse modification under 
the regulatory baseline, and no additional conservation measures or 
project modifications are expected following the critical habitat 
designation. The Service acknowledges there may be rare cases in which 
localized projects may not adversely affect the plants, but may 
adversely modify critical habitat. Specifically, this potential 
scenario could occur in areas of proposed critical habitat where the 
cacti are at very low densities. However, the best available 
information does not indicate that such areas are known to exist at 
this time.
    (13) Comment: One commenter stated, ``according to the Service, 
because the [acu[ntilde]a cactus] is closely tied to its habitat, it is 
more likely that surface disturbances resulting in critical habitat 
being adversely modified would likely also constitute jeopardy to the 
species.'' In light of this assertion, the commenter stated that a 
careful analysis of likely reasonable and prudent alternatives (RPAs) 
must be undertaken when evaluating the costs associated with 
designating critical habitat. In this case, the DEA contains no such 
discussion and limits the assessment of costs solely to administrative 
costs associated with carrying out a section 7 consultation.
    Our Response: Section 2.3.2 of the FEA describes the analytic 
framework used to identify incremental impacts of the proposed critical 
habitat designation. The analytic framework discussed in this section 
takes into account the above statements. Specifically, the FEA relies 
upon this statement as the basis for assuming that project 
modifications recommended to avoid adverse modification would not 
differ from those recommended to avoid jeopardy.
    Since all of the designated critical habitat units for the 
acu[ntilde]a cactus are occupied, a Federal action requiring section 7 
consultation would need to analyze impacts to both the species and 
critical habitat. If the action jeopardizes the species, the 
development of RPAs to conserve the species would be the same as those 
for critical habitat. Therefore, there would be no additional cost to 
conserve critical habitat beyond what it costs to prevent jeopardizing 
the species. RPAs are developed in cooperation with the Federal agency 
and applicant (if any) because often they are the only ones who can 
determine if an alternative is within their legal authority and 
jurisdiction, and if it is economically and technologically feasible.
    As stated in the FEA (ES-6, Appendix C, p. 11), in most cases the 
types of conservation efforts requested by the Service during section 7 
consultation

[[Page 55270]]

regarding the plants are not expected to change with critical habitat 
designation of occupied habitat due to the fact that the species are 
closely tied to their habitat and are not mobile. In most instances, we 
anticipate that the conservation efforts recommended to avoid jeopardy 
to the species also effectively would avoid the destruction or adverse 
modification of occupied critical habitat. As a result, critical 
habitat designation generally will not change the types of plant 
conservation efforts recommended by the Service. For these reasons, the 
incremental cost of designating critical habitat is considered 
administrative (i.e., those costs associated with addressing adverse 
modification in section 7 consultations).
    (14) Comment: One commenter asserted that the Service fails to 
consider the significant expense associated with initiating 
consultation, including the costs involved in preparing a biological 
assessment and submitting other information requested by the Service as 
a part of section 7 consultation.
    Our Response: The FEA relies on the best available information to 
estimate the administrative costs of section 7 consultations. As 
described in Exhibit 2-2 of the FEA, the consultation cost model is 
based on a review of consultation records and interviews with staff 
from three Service field offices, telephone interviews with action 
agencies (e.g., Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Forest Service, 
and U.S. Army Corps), and telephone interviews with private consulting 
firms who perform work in support of permittees.
    The model is periodically updated with new information received in 
the course of data collection efforts supporting economic analyses and 
public comment on more recent critical habitat rules. In addition, the 
general schedule rates are updated annually. The cost of preparing a 
biological assessment is included as part of the consultation cost 
model, with estimated incremental costs ranging from $500 to $5,600 per 
consultation. These costs are based on interviews with representatives 
from private consulting firms on the typical costs charged to clients 
in support of section 7 consultation efforts (e.g., biological survey 
and preparation of materials to support a biological assessment).
    (15) Comment: One commenter asserted that the DEA fails to consider 
that significant project delays result from the section 7 consultation 
process.
    Our Response: As discussed in the economic analysis, activities 
that would require consultation for critical habitat are primarily the 
same as activities that currently require consultation for the species 
because all of the proposed critical habitat units are occupied. We do 
not expect new consultations to result solely from the designation of 
critical habitat. Accordingly, critical habitat designation is not 
expected to result in any measurable time delays beyond the time 
constraints created by the baseline section 7 consultation process.
    (16) Comment: One commenter stated that the discussion of baseline 
protections in the proposed rule is inconsistent with how baseline 
protections are described and assessed in the DEA. Specifically, the 
commenter asserted that the proposed rule states that current 
protections are inadequate and do not address threats to the species 
and its habitat, whereas the DEA states that over 90 percent of the 
proposed critical habitat for the acu[ntilde]a cactus has baseline 
protections.
    Our Response: Baseline protections are related to the listing of a 
species as an endangered or threatened species under the Act rather 
than the designation of critical habitat. In the proposed listing rule, 
we considered whether the existing regulatory mechanisms were adequate 
to alleviate the identified threats. The DEA evaluated only the 
incremental impacts of critical habitat designation. Accordingly, the 
conclusion that over 90 percent of the proposed critical habitat for 
the acu[ntilde]a cactus is subject to baseline protections is based on 
the species being listed under the Act.
    (17) Comment: One commenter stated that the DEA did not adequately 
account for the possibility of private projects being subject to a 
Federal nexus, and, in turn, does not account for potential 
modification of these projects as a result of section 7 consultation.
    Our Response: Approximately 4,690 ha (11,590 ac) (18 percent) of 
the areas proposed as critical habitat for the acu[ntilde]a and 
Fickeisen plains cacti are privately owned. The economic analysis 
discusses the potential for a Federal nexus on private lands associated 
with livestock grazing and voluntary on-the-ground habitat improvement 
projects. For both activities, the DEA discussed the potential for 
Federal funding of these activities on private lands to trigger section 
7 consultation and forecasted one programmatic consultation with the 
respective action agency for future projects that may affect proposed 
critical habitat for the cacti on private lands. The FEA has been 
revised to include consideration of additional activities on private 
lands within acu[ntilde]a cactus Unit 2.
    (18) Comment: One commenter suggested that section 7 consultation 
could be triggered for projects implemented in the town of Ajo as the 
result of Federal funding under the U.S. Department of Housing and 
Urban Development's (HUD) Community Development Block Grant program.
    Our Response: We contacted Pima County's Community Development 
Block Grant (CDBG) Program. According to discussions with the Program 
Coordinator, there are two projects currently under way that are funded 
by the Pima County CDBG program in the town of Ajo and which appear to 
fall within areas proposed as critical habitat in acu[ntilde]a cactus 
critical habitat Unit 2. However, both projects involve improvements to 
existing structures and do not include any ground-disturbing activities 
that would trigger section 7 consultation.
    Section 7 consultation may be triggered for future projects funded 
under the Pima County CDBG program that involve new construction or 
ground-disturbing activities. The Pima County CDBG Program Coordinator 
indicated, however, that it is difficult to forecast projects that may 
occur in the future. Selection for funding under the Pima County CDBG 
program follows an annual cycle and is based on a range of factors, 
including the level of funding provided by HUD, an assessment of 
feasibility, need, and benefits, and local priorities as determined by 
the Pima County Board of Supervisors. At this time, the Pima County 
CDBG program is not aware of any new projects that involve ground-
disturbing activities within the area proposed as critical habitat in 
the town of Ajo. As a result, this analysis does not estimate any 
future section 7 consultations related to Pima County's CDBG program. 
To the extent that new projects funded by the Pima County CDBG program 
include ground-disturbing activities over the next 20 years, this 
analysis may underestimate costs in Ajo Unit 2 associated with section 
7 consultations. However, this assumption only affects the estimated 
administrative costs of section 7 consultation. As a result, any future 
incremental impacts are likely to be minor. The FEA has been revised to 
include this new information about potentially affected activities 
related to the CDBG program in the town of Ajo.
    (19) Comment: One commenter suggested that the DEA fails to conduct 
a proper Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RFA) for the town of Ajo, 
which is a small governmental jurisdiction based on a 2010 population 
of 3,304.
    Our Response: A portion of the town of Ajo overlaps proposed 
acu[ntilde]a critical

[[Page 55271]]

habitat in Ajo Unit 2. While we agree that the town of Ajo is a small 
governmental entity, RFAs are required for small governmental entities 
only when those entities are also considered directly regulated 
entities. In the case of critical habitat designation for the 
acu[ntilde]a and Fickeisen plains cacti, the only directly regulated 
entities are the Federal agencies required to consult under section 7 
of the Act. As such, the town of Ajo is not considered a directly 
regulated entity, and an RFA, therefore, is not required.
    (20) Comment: Two commenters asserted that the DEA fails to 
consider impacts to mining as a result of critical habitat designation 
for the acu[ntilde]a cactus. Specifically, the comments note that 
proposed habitat for acu[ntilde]a cactus in Ajo Unit 2 is in an area 
with historically active mines, as well as an area with potential for 
future mining.
    Our Response: A discussion of mining activities within areas 
proposed as critical habitat for the acu[ntilde]a cactus in Ajo Unit 2 
has been added to the FEA. Mining activities in this area may have a 
Federal nexus for section 7 consultation through the Federal permitting 
process with such action agencies as the BLM. Within Ajo Unit 2, at 
least one inactive copper mine and several unpatented mining claims 
overlap areas proposed as critical habitat. However, there is 
significant uncertainty regarding when, or if, any of these areas will 
be actively mined within the 20-year time period for this analysis. 
Accordingly, the FEA does not forecast any incremental impacts 
associated with these mining activities. To the extent that any of the 
mining resources present in Ajo Unit 2 are actively developed over the 
next 20 years, this analysis may underestimate the administrative costs 
associated with section 7 consultations. As Ajo Unit 2 is considered to 
be occupied by the acu[ntilde]a cactus, costs associated with 
implementing any conservation measures would be considered baseline 
impacts.
    (21) Comment: One commenter asserted that the DEA fails to assess 
potential impacts to energy supply distribution or use from the 
designation of critical habitat for the acu[ntilde]a cactus, and, 
therefore, is not in compliance with Executive Order 13211.
    Our Response: Executive Order 13211 states that Federal agencies 
must prepare and submit a ``Statement of Energy Effects'' for all 
``significant energy actions.'' The Office of Management and Budget 
provided guidance for implementing the Executive Order, and described 
various outcomes that may constitute ``a significant adverse effect.'' 
These are described in A-4 of the FEA. As described in Chapter 3 of the 
FEA, critical habitat designation for the Fickeisen plains cactus is 
anticipated to affect uranium mining. Impacts to uranium mining, 
however, are limited to the administrative costs of one formal 
consultation for the EZ Mine, totaling less than $900 in costs for the 
managing company, Energy Fuels Inc., over the 20-year period of 
analysis. The magnitude of this consultation cost is not anticipated to 
reduce fuel production or energy production, or increase the cost of 
energy production or distribution in the United States in excess of 1 
percent. Alternatively, as described in Chapter 3 of the FEA, critical 
habitat designation for the acu[ntilde]a cactus is not anticipated to 
affect mining. Therefore, the designation of critical habitat for 
either species does not exceed any of the thresholds provided by the 
Office of Management and Budget's guidance and is not considered a 
``significant energy action.'' Appendix A of the FEA has been updated 
to reflect this finding.

Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule

    Since the publication of the October 3, 2012 (77 FR 60509), 
proposed rule to list and designate critical habitat for the 
acu[ntilde]a cactus and Fickeisen plains cactus, we have made the 
following changes in the final critical habitat rules:
    (1) Based on information received from public comments, we 
reevaluated the designation of the Dripping Spring acu[ntilde]a cactus 
critical habitat subunit in OPCNM, Arizona. The proposed rule outlined 
criteria for designation of critical habitat, which included that 
unoccupied areas with suitable acu[ntilde]a cactus habitat and that 
receive higher mean winter precipitation were necessary for the 
conservation of the species. The additional information provided during 
the public comment period indicated that the Dripping Spring subunit 
was unoccupied yet does not receive 29.7 cm (11.66 in) of winter 
rainfall. As a result, we determined that it was not essential for 
acu[ntilde]a cactus conservation and did not include it in this final 
critical habitat designation, thus removing 1,591 ha (3,931 ac) of 
proposed critical habitat from Unit 1.
    (2) Based on information received from public comments, we excluded 
lands owned and managed by the Tohono O'odham Nation, Arizona, from the 
designation of critical habitat for the acu[ntilde]a cactus. Natural 
resources management already in place on the Tribe aids in the 
conservation of the species. As a result, 156 ha (385 ac) of critical 
habitat were removed from acu[ntilde]a cactus Unit 3.
    (3) Based on information received from public comments, including a 
revised section of an existing INRMP, we exempted lands owned and 
managed by the U.S. Air Force on the BMGR, Arizona, from the 
designation of critical habitat for the acu[ntilde]a cactus. Natural 
resources management for this species, as outlined in the revised 
INRMP, aids in the conservation of the acu[ntilde]a cactus. As a 
result, 378 ha (935 ac) of proposed critical habitat were removed from 
Unit 3.
    (4) Based on information received from public comments, we 
reevaluated acu[ntilde]a cactus critical habitat in areas receiving 
total annual precipitation exceeding 29.7 cm (11.66 in). We reassessed 
this habitat based on areas receiving 29.7 cm (11.66 in) or more of 
winter precipitation only. As a result, we determined that no areas in 
southern Arizona that contain the geology, elevation, and vegetation 
communities required by acu[ntilde]a cactus support this level of 
precipitation concentrated within the winter months. Therefore, in this 
final critical habitat designation, there are no critical habitat areas 
for the acu[ntilde]a cactus that receive 29.7 cm (11.66 in) or more of 
winter precipitation. As a result, 12,113 ha (29,933 ac) of proposed 
critical habitat were removed from multiple units. This issue is 
discussed in further detail in the revised proposed critical habitat 
designation (78 FR 40673, July 8, 2013).
    (5) Based on information received from public comments, we excluded 
3,865 ha (9,554 ac) of Tribal land from the final Fickeisen plains 
cactus critical habitat. Navajo Nation lands excluded include the 
entire Tiger Wash Unit (Unit 6), the entire Little Colorado River 
Overlook Unit (Unit 7), and portions of the Gray Mountain subunit 
(Subunit 8b) of the proposed Gray Mountain Unit (Unit 8). Natural 
resources management already in place on and documented in a new 
management plan for the Navajo Nation aids in the conservation of the 
species.
    (6) Based on information received from public comments, we excluded 
from the Fickeisen plains cactus final critical habitat designation 
8,139 ha (20,113 ac) of land that is either: (1) Owned by the Babbitt 
Ranches, LLC; or (2) managed by the Babbitt Ranches, LLC, but owned by 
the State and subject to land closure. The excluded area includes the 
entire proposed Cataract Canyon Unit and private land in the Mays Wash 
subunit. Exclusion of these lands as critical habitat will allow us to 
maintain a cooperative working

[[Page 55272]]

relationship with the Babbitt Ranches, LLC, and we expect that Babbitt 
Ranches, LLC, will continue to protect and manage the Fickeisen plains 
cactus habitat on their lands.
    (7) Based on new information received during the public comment 
periods, we removed the Snake Gulch Unit (945 ha (2,335 ac)) from the 
final designation of Fickeisen plains cactus critical habitat, because 
the unit is no longer considered occupied, and we determined that it is 
not essential to the conservation of the species. We added the South 
Canyon Unit (110 ha (272 ac)) on U.S. Forest Service (USFS) land where 
occupancy was verified in 2013.
    The rule revising 50 CFR 424.12 was published on February 11, 2016 
(81 FR 7413), and became effective on March 14, 2016. As stated in that 
rule, the revised version of Sec.  424.12 applies only to rulemakings 
for which the proposed rule is published after that date. Thus, the 
prior version of Sec.  424.12 will continue to apply to any rulemakings 
for which a proposed rule was published before that date. Since the 
proposed rule for acu[ntilde]a cactus and Fickeisen plains cactus 
critical habitat was published on October 3, 2012, this final rule 
follows the version of Sec.  424.12 that was in effect at that time.

Critical Habitat

Background

    It is our intent to discuss below only those topics directly 
relevant to the designation of critical habitat for the acu[ntilde]a 
cactus and Fickeisen plains cactus. For a complete description of the 
life history and habitat needs of the acu[ntilde]a cactus and Fickeisen 
plains cactus, see the Background section in the final listing rule 
published on (78 FR 60608, October 1, 2013).
    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.
    Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use 
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring 
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures 
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and 
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated 
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law 
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live 
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where 
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise 
relieved, may include regulated taking.
    Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act 
through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation 
with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is 
not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect 
land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or 
other conservation area. Such designation does not allow the government 
or public to access private lands. Such designation does not require 
implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by 
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 consultation requirements of section 7(a)(2) 
of the Act would apply, but even in the event of a destruction or 
adverse modification finding, the obligation of the Federal action 
agency and the landowner is not to restore or recover the species, but 
to implement reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid destruction 
or adverse modification of critical habitat.
    Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat, 
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time 
it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they 
contain physical or biological features (1) which are essential to the 
conservation of the species and (2) which may require special 
management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical 
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best 
scientific and commercial data available, those physical or biological 
features that are essential to the conservation of the species (such as 
space, food, cover, and protected habitat). In identifying those 
physical or biological features within an area, we focus on the 
principal biological or physical constituent elements (primary 
constituent elements such as roost sites, nesting grounds, seasonal 
wetlands, water quality, tide, soil type) that are essential to the 
conservation of the species. Primary constituent elements are the 
specific elements of physical or biological features that provide for a 
species' life-history processes, and are essential to the conservation 
of the species.
    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. We designate critical habitat in areas outside the 
geographical area occupied by a species only when a designation limited 
to its range would be inadequate to ensure 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 developed during the listing process for the species. 
Additional information sources may include the recovery plan for the 
species, articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans 
developed by States and counties, scientific status surveys and 
studies, biological assessments, other unpublished materials, or 
experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
    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

[[Page 55273]]

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 Act's section 9 prohibitions on taking 
any individual of the species, indicating taking caused by actions that 
affect habitat. Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed 
species outside their designated critical habitat areas may still 
result in jeopardy findings in some cases. These protections and 
conservation tools will continue to contribute to recovery of this 
species. Similarly, critical habitat designations made on the basis of 
the best available information at the time of designation will not 
control the direction and substance of future recovery plans, habitat 
conservation plans, or other species conservation planning efforts if 
new information available at the time of these planning efforts calls 
for a different outcome.

Acu[ntilde]a Cactus

Physical or Biological Features

    In accordance with sections 3(5)(A)(i) and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act 
and regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas within the 
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing to 
designate as critical habitat, 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. 
These include, but are not limited to:
    (1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal 
behavior;
    (2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or 
physiological requirements;
    (3) Cover or shelter;
    (4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development) 
of offspring; and
    (5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are 
representative of the historical, geographic, and ecological 
distributions of a species.
    We derive the specific physical or biological features required for 
the acu[ntilde]a cactus from studies of this species' habitat, ecology, 
and life history as described in the Critical Habitat section of the 
proposed rule to designate critical habitat published in the Federal 
Register on October 3, 2012 (77 FR 60509), and in the information 
presented below. Additional information can be found in the final 
listing rule (78 FR 60608; October 1, 2013). We have determined that 
the physical or biological features described below are essential for 
the acu[ntilde]a cactus.
Habitat for Individual and Population Growth, Including Sites for 
Germination, Pollination, Reproduction, Pollen and Seed Dispersal, and 
Seed Banks
    Pollination and Pollen Dispersal--Preservation of the mix of 
species and interspecific interactions they encompass greatly improves 
the chances for onsite survival of rare species (Tepedino et al. 1996, 
p. 245). Bee nesting habitat, foraging plants, and corridors must be 
preserved to protect the acu[ntilde]a cactus (Buchmann 2012, pers. 
comm.; McDonald 2007, p. 4). The acu[ntilde]a cactus relies solely on 
the production of seeds for reproduction with pollination highly linked 
to the acu[ntilde]a cactus' survival. A lack of pollinators would lead 
to a reduction of seed production that would lead, in turn, to a 
gradual reduction in the seed bank (Wilcock and Neiland 2002, p. 276). 
Although viability of seed in the seed bank is unknown, germination 
trials in the greenhouse suggest the seeds are short-lived (Rutman 
2007, p. 7).
    Successful pollination depends on the pollinator species and the 
distance the pollinator can travel between flowers (McDonald 2005, p. 
15). Acu[ntilde]a cacti are pollinated by a suite of bees from the 
Andrenidae, Anthophoridae, Anthophorinae, Halictidae, and Megachilidae 
families; however, the most abundant, robust, and consistent visitors 
in a 2-year study at OPCNM were the leafcutter bee (Megachile 
palmensis) and the cactus bee (Diadasia rinconis) (Johnson 1992, p. 
406). Leafcutter and cactus bees are native cactus specialist bees 
requiring a sufficient quantity of acu[ntilde]a and other cacti pollen 
throughout their foraging season to provision their nests and support 
their own survivorship (Blair and Williamson 2008, p. 428).
    No studies of pollinator dispersal distance have been conducted for 
the acu[ntilde]a cactus; however, in a study of a similar rare cactus 
in Arizona's Sonoran Desert, the Coryphantha scheeri var. robustispina 
(Pima pineapple cactus), McDonald (2005, p. 29) determined that the 
maximum distance the cactus bees travelled between Pima pineapple 
cactus individuals was 900 m (2,953 ft). The maximum distance travelled 
by the leafcutter bee is not known, though it is thought to be less 
than this (Buchmann 2012, pers. comm.). Because of the similarity of 
the acu[ntilde]a cactus and Pima pineapple cactus, we estimate that 900 
m (2,953 ft) around individual acu[ntilde]a cacti is needed to support 
pollinator foraging, nesting, and survivorship.
    Therefore, based on our review of the best available information, 
we identify a pollination area with a radius of 900 m (2,953 ft) around 
each individual acu[ntilde]a cactus plant as a physical or biological 
feature of acu[ntilde]a cactus habitat.
    Seed Dispersal, Germination, Growth, and Seed Banks--Bare soils 
within the seed dispersal range of the acu[ntilde]a cactus are 
necessary for recruitment and soil seed banking. Primary and secondary 
dispersal of these seeds can occur via a number of mechanisms including 
gravity, ants, wind, or rain (Butterwick 1982 to 1992, entire; Rutman 
1996b, pers. comm.; Rutman 2001, pers. comm.; Anderson 2011, p. 1). 
Primary dispersal is the movement of seeds short distances from the 
plant, whereas secondary dispersal involves the redistribution of seeds 
by living (e.g., insects) or non-living (e.g., wind) factors (van 
Rheede van Oudtshorrn and van Rooyen 1999, pp. 186-187).
    As evidenced by their commonly clumped habit, the majority of the 
acu[ntilde]a cactus seeds are dispersed by gravity; that is, they fall 
very close to the mother plant, which serves as a nurse plant for 
germination (Johnson et al. 1993, p. 178). With this type of dispersal, 
the distance seeds travel is limited. The immediate environment of the 
mother plant is typically highly suitable for establishment, and 
closely dispersed seeds have a better chance of germination, 
establishment, and survival than seeds dispersed by other mechanisms 
(van Rheede van Oudtshorrn and van Rooyen 1999, p. 91).
    Ants have been reported to both transport and consume the seeds of 
the acu[ntilde]a cactus (Butterwick 1982 to 1992, entire; Rutman 1996b, 
pers. comm.; Rutman 2001, pers. comm.; Anderson 2011, p. 1). 
Transported seeds may be dropped, discarded, or buried at either an 
appropriate or inappropriate depth for germination and emergence (van 
Rheede van Oudtshorrn and van Rooyen 1999, p. 15). Transported seed has 
the benefit of reduced competition from other seeds and reduced rodent 
predation that more commonly occurs near the mother plant (O'Dowd and 
Hay 1980, p. 536; Vander Wall et al. 2005, p. 802). The maximum 
distance seeds are dispersed by ants is typically less than 3 m (10 ft) 
and rarely more than 10

[[Page 55274]]

m (33 ft) (van Rheede van Oudtshorrn and van Rooyen 1999, p. 186).
    The maximum distance seeds are dispersed by wind depends on many 
factors including the height of the plant, characteristics of the 
surrounding vegetation, seed mass and size, and wind conditions (van 
Rheede van Oudtshorrn and van Rooyen 1999, p. 186). Secondary dispersal 
by wind can be farther in deserts, where vegetation is widely spaced 
and interspaces between trees and shrubs support wind velocities as 
much as four times higher than under trees and shrubs (van Rheede van 
Oudtshorrn and van Rooyen 1999, p. 187). Wind-blown soil, litter, and 
small seeds accumulate under shrubs and trees, or in soil surface 
depressions (Shreve 1942, p. 205; van Rheede van Oudtshorrn and van 
Rooyen 1999, p. 187).
    Dispersal of seed from rain wash or sheet flow (downslope movement 
of water in a thin, continuous flow) over the ground is considered to 
occur across a relatively short distance; in hot deserts, many plants 
disperse seed by rain (van Rheede van Oudtshorrn and van Rooyen 1999, 
pp. 69, 76). The distance that the acu[ntilde]a cactus seeds travel by 
either wind or water is not known; however, spacing of associated nurse 
trees and shrubs where soil, litter, and seed could accumulate is 
roughly 8 m (26 ft). This number was determined by using the average 
height of the largest tree associate, Cercidium microphyllum (palo 
verde) (Shreve 1942, pp. 202-203; Kearney and Peebles 1951, p. 407).
    Therefore, based on our review of the best available information 
regarding the maximum distance that seeds may disperse, and within 
which the acu[ntilde]a cactus seed banks, seedling establishment, and 
seedling growth can occur, we identify bare soils immediately adjacent 
to and within 10 m (33 ft) of existing reproductive acu[ntilde]a cactus 
plants as a physical or biological feature of acu[ntilde]a cactus 
habitat.
Appropriate Geological Layers and Topography that Support Individual 
Acu[ntilde]a Cactus Plants
    Geology--Bedrock and soil chemistry could help explain the current 
distribution of the acu[ntilde]a cactus across small islands of habitat 
in southern Arizona. Various reports describe the acu[ntilde]a cactus 
occurring on both fine- and coarse-textured soils derived from 
volcanic, granitic, and metamorphic rocks (Geraghty and Miller 1997, p. 
3; Rutman 2007, pp. 1-2). Specifically, parent rock materials of 
preferred habitat include extrusive felsic volcanic rocks of rhyolite, 
andesite, and tuff, and intrusive igneous rocks composed of granite, 
granodiorite, diorite, and quartz monzonite (Rutman 2007, pp. 1-2).
    We applied this knowledge of the acu[ntilde]a cactus geologic 
habitat preference by analyzing geology features and known plant 
locations attained for populations occurring within the United States 
using Geographic Information Systems (GIS). We determined 11 geologic 
feature classes that occur within the known locations of the 
acu[ntilde]a cactus in the United States (Arizona State Land Department 
2012, GIS data layer). These feature classes can be summarized as 
volcanic rocks from the middle Miocene to Oligocene and from the 
Jurassic; granitoid rocks from the early Tertiary to Late Cretaceous 
and from the Jurassic; granitic rocks from the early Tertiary to Late 
Cretaceous; metamorphic rocks from the early Proterozoic; and surficial 
deposits from the Holocene to the latest Pliocene. Therefore, based on 
our review of the best available information regarding bedrock geology 
and associated soils required by the acu[ntilde]a cacti, we identify 
the presence of any one of these 11 feature classes as a physical or 
biological feature of acu[ntilde]a cactus habitat. These feature 
classes can be further summarized to include the following rock types 
as identified in the literature for this species: rhyolite, andesite, 
tuff, granite, granodiorite, diorite, or Cornelia quartz monzonite 
(Rutman 2007, pp. 1, 2).
    Topography--The acu[ntilde]a cactus is known to occur in valley 
bottoms and on ridge tops or small knolls, on slopes up to 30 percent 
(Phillips et al. 1982, p. 4; Geraghty and Miller 1997, p. 3). We 
applied this knowledge of the acu[ntilde]a topographic habitat 
preference by analyzing topography features using a digital elevation 
model in GIS. Therefore, based on our review of the best available 
information regarding topography, we identify valley bottoms, ridge 
tops, and small knolls with slopes of 30 percent or less as a physical 
or biological feature of acu[ntilde]a cactus habitat.
Appropriate Vegetation Community and Elevation Range That Support 
Individual Acu[ntilde]a Cactus Plants
    Nurse Plants--Known populations of acu[ntilde]a cactus have been 
reported from between 365 and 1,150 m (1,198 to 3,773 ft) elevation 
within the paloverde-cacti-mixed scrub series of the Arizona Upland 
Subdivision of the Sonoran Desert-scrub (Brown 1994, p. 200; Arizona 
Rare Plant Guide Committee 2001, unnumbered pages; Arizona Game and 
Fish Department (AGFD) 2011, entire). This scrubland or low woodland 
contains leguminous trees, shrubs, and succulents including palo verde, 
Olneya tesota (ironwood), Larrea tridentata var. tridentata (creosote 
bush), Ambrosia spp. (bursage), and Carnegia gigantea (saguaro). The 
acu[ntilde]a cactus seedlings benefit from the protection of these 
native Sonoran Desert trees and shrubs, as well as other larger 
acu[ntilde]a cacti that act as nurse plants by providing protection 
from temperature extremes and physical damage (Felger 2000, p. 208; 
Johnson et al. 1993, p. 178). The acu[ntilde]a cactus individuals are 
generally more robust next to nurse plants, as opposed to in open, 
exposed locations (Felger 2000, p. 208). Therefore, based on the 
information above, we identify the presence of creosote bush, ironwood, 
palo verde, and other native protective plants to be a physical or 
biological feature necessary for acu[ntilde]a cactus habitat.
    Native Vegetation Dominance--The acu[ntilde]a cactus habitat should 
be relatively free from perennial grass invaders as these alter 
structure, function, dominance, and disturbance regimes, and have been 
shown to drastically lower species diversity within the Sonoran Desert 
(Olsson et al. 2012, p. 10). Such changes have great potential to 
impact acu[ntilde]a cacti and their pollinators. In addition, such 
introduced grasses as Pennisetum ciliare (buffelgrass) form continuous 
mats and remove open bare ground for nesting bees such as Diadasia spp. 
(Buchmann 2007, p. 13). These bees move nesting sites yearly to shed 
parasites, thereby requiring the continued availability of sandy, well-
drained, bare ground available to create nests (Buchmann 2012, pers. 
comm.). Therefore, based on our review of the best available 
information, we identify Sonoran Desert-scrub habitat dominated by 
native plant species to be a physical or biological feature necessary 
for acu[ntilde]a cactus habitat.

Primary Constituent Elements for the Acu[ntilde]a Cactus

    Under the Act and its implementing regulations, we are required to 
identify the physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of acu[ntilde]a cactus in areas occupied at the time of 
listing, focusing on the features' primary constituent elements. We 
consider primary constituent elements to be the elements of physical or 
biological features that provide for a species' life-history processes 
and are essential to the conservation of the species.
    Based on our current knowledge of the physical or biological 
features and habitat characteristics required to sustain the species' 
life-history processes, we determine that the

[[Page 55275]]

primary constituent elements specific to the acu[ntilde]a cactus are:
    (i) Native vegetation within the Paloverde-Cacti-Mixed Scrub Series 
of the Arizona Upland Subdivision of the Sonoran Desert-scrub at 
elevations between 365 to 1,150 m (1,198 to 3,773 ft). This vegetation 
must contain predominantly native plant species that:
    a. Provide protection to the acu[ntilde]a cactus. Examples of such 
plants are creosote bush, ironwood, and palo verde.
    b. Provide for pollinator habitat with a radius of 900 m (2,953 ft) 
around each individual, reproducing acu[ntilde]a cactus.
    c. Allow for seed dispersal through the presence of bare soils 
immediately adjacent to and within 10 m (33 ft) of individual 
acu[ntilde]a cactus.
    (ii) Soils overlying rhyolite, andesite, tuff, granite, 
granodiorite, diorite, or Cornelia quartz monzonite bedrock that are in 
valley bottoms, on small knolls, or on ridgetops, and are generally on 
slopes of less than 30 percent.

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. All areas designated as critical habitat as described below 
may require some level of management to address the current and future 
threats to the physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of the acu[ntilde]a cactus. In all of the described units, 
special management may be required to ensure that the primary 
constituent elements for the cactus are conserved and the habitat 
provides for the biological needs of the cactus. Some of the management 
activities that could ameliorate these threats include, but are not 
limited to, those discussed below.
    (1) Practice livestock grazing in a manner that maintains, 
improves, and expands the quantity and quality of Sonoran desertscrub 
habitat. Special management considerations or protection may include 
the following: manage livestock grazing sustainably with the natural 
landscape by determining appropriate areas, seasons, and use consistent 
within the carrying capacity of rangeland in response to current and 
future drought and warming trends; improve monitoring and documentation 
of grazing practices; manage cattle and feral hoofed mammals 
(ungulates) (e.g., burros) to reduce the risk of plants trampled and 
soil compaction; and manage for other small mammal species to restore 
desired processes to increase habitat quality and quantity.
    (2) Minimize construction of new border control facilities, roads, 
towers, or fences. Special management considerations or protections may 
include the following: protect lands that support suitable habitat such 
that destruction of individual plants and their habitat is minimized 
and habitat is preserved.
    (3) Manage or protect native Sonoran desertscrub vegetation 
communities from recreational impacts. Special management 
considerations or protection may include the following: manage trails, 
campsites, and off-road vehicles (ORVs); reduce the likelihood of 
wildfires affecting the acu[ntilde]a cactus populations and nearby 
plant communities.
    (4) Protect suitable habitat from mineral development and 
associated infrastructure (new access roads). These activities could 
result in direct plant and habitat loss, or alteration by removing or 
degrading soils to such an extent that the soils would no longer 
support the growth of the acu[ntilde]a cactus. Special management 
considerations or protection may include the following: protect lands 
that support suitable habitat such that destruction is minimized and 
habitat is preserved.
    (5) Manage for nonnative, invasive species, such as buffelgrass, by 
minimizing conditions that may promote or encourage encroachment or 
establishment of nonnative, invasive species and restore or reestablish 
conditions that allow native plants to thrive. Within the range of the 
acu[ntilde]a cactus, the establishment and success of nonnative, 
invasive species has been a result of historic land use and management 
practices such as grazing, wildfire suppression actions, mining, and 
ORV use. Actions have been taken by some land management agencies to 
reduce the spread of invasive species and reduce the risk of wildfire 
they pose from creating fine fuel loads. Nonnative, invasive species 
occur near acu[ntilde]a cactus populations and may pose a threat 
through competition for resources or increase the risk of fire. Special 
management considerations or protection may include the following: 
Prevent or restrict establishment of nonnative, invasive species; 
minimize ground-disturbing activities that may facilitate their spread; 
conduct post-disturbance restoration activities such as native plant 
propagation; practice active removal of nonnative, invasive plant 
species and targeted herbicide application (provided herbicides can be 
shown not to negatively impact the acu[ntilde]a cactus or the native 
pollinators); and improve monitoring and documentation on a site-by-
site basis where nonnative, invasive species are present in occupied 
habitat to assess any effect (beneficial or negative) they pose of the 
cactus.
    These management activities will protect the physical or biological 
features essential to the conservation of the acu[ntilde]a cactus by 
reducing the direct and indirect effects of habitat loss, alteration, 
or fragmentation; preserving the geology and soils that form the basis 
of its habitat; and maintaining the native vegetation communities and 
pollinators.
    In summary, the primary constituent elements of the acu[ntilde]a 
cactus habitat may be impacted by livestock grazing; U.S.-Mexico border 
activities; recreational impacts; mineral development and associated 
transportation infrastructure; and nonnative, invasive species. 
Currently some of these threats are not identified to occur at a level 
that threatens populations with extirpation; however, without 
management of these threats, they could rise to this level. The units 
designated as critical habitat within the geographical area occupied by 
the species at the time of listing contain the physical or biological 
features essential to the conservation of the acu[ntilde]a cactus. 
Special management considerations or protection may be required to 
eliminate, or reduce to a negligible level, the threats affecting each 
unit or subunit and to preserve and maintain the essential features 
that the critical habitat units and subunits provide to the cactus.

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. We reviewed 
available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of the 
species. In accordance with the Act and its implementing regulations at 
50 CFR 424.12(b), we considered whether designating additional areas--
outside those currently occupied as well as those occupied at the time 
of listing--are necessary to ensure the conservation of the species. We 
are designating critical habitat in areas within the geographical area 
occupied by the species at the time of listing as described in the 
final rule to list the acu[ntilde]a cactus and the Fickeisen plains 
cactus (see the ``Distribution and Range'' section of the final listing 
rule (78 FR 60608, October 1, 2013)) and that contain one or more of 
the identified primary constituent elements. We are

[[Page 55276]]

not designating any additional areas outside those currently occupied 
by the species as critical habitat for acu[ntilde]a cactus.
    We reviewed available information and supporting data that pertain 
to the habitat requirements of the acu[ntilde]a cactus. This 
information included research published in peer-reviewed articles and 
presented in academic theses and agency reports, as well as data 
collected from long-term monitoring plots, interviews with experts, and 
regional climate data and GIS coverage. Sources of information include, 
but are not limited to: Brown 1994, Buchmann 2007, Butterwick 1982-
1992, Felger 2000, Holm 2006, Johnson 1992, Johnson et al. 1993, 
McDonald 2007, Olsson et al. 2012, Phillips et al. 1982, National Park 
Service 2011a, National Park Service 2011b, Rutman 2007, van Rheede van 
Oudtshorrn and van Rooyen 1999, and Western Regional Climate Center 
2012. Based on this information, we developed a strategy for 
determining which areas meet the definition of critical habitat for 
acu[ntilde]a cactus.
Occupied Area at the Time of Listing
    In identifying proposed critical habitat units for acu[ntilde]a 
cactus, we proceeded through a multi-step process. We obtained all 
records for acu[ntilde]a cactus distribution from AGFD, as well as both 
published and unpublished documentation from our files. There is no 
information on the historical range of this species; survey results 
confirm that plant distribution in the United States comprises disjunct 
occupied habitat in two general areas of south-central Arizona.
    Our approach to delineating critical habitat units was applied in 
the following manner:
    (1) We overlaid acu[ntilde]a cactus locations into a GIS database. 
This provided us with the ability to examine slope, aspect, elevation, 
geologic type, vegetation community, and topographic features. These 
data points verified and slightly expanded the previously recorded 
elevation ranges for acu[ntilde]a cactus.
    (2) In addition to the GIS layers listed above, we then included a 
900-m (2,953-ft) pollination area around known populations to ensure 
that all potential pollinators would have a sufficient land base to 
establish nesting sites and to provide pollinating services for 
acu[ntilde]a cactus, as described in Physical or Biological Features 
for the acu[ntilde]a cactus above.
    (3) We then drew critical habitat boundaries that captured the 
locations elucidated under (1) and (2) above. Critical habitat 
designations were then mapped using Albers Equal Area (Albers) North 
American Datum 83 (NAD 83) coordinates.
    We defined six critical habitat units and subunits within the 
current distribution of the species in two general areas of south-
central Arizona. The units and subunits contain approximately 2,580 
individuals. Within these units and subunits, several geologic, 
topographic, elevation, slope, and vegetation community features have 
been defined, which in combination create acu[ntilde]a cactus habitat 
that is essential to the conservation of the species, though not all 
lands containing this combination support the acu[ntilde]a cacti. 
Although we no longer regard additional unoccupied areas as essential 
for the conservation of the species (refer to the revised proposed 
critical habitat designation for the acu[ntilde]a cactus and the 
Fickeisen plains cactus (78 FR 40673, July 8, 2013), we recognize that 
areas containing the physical or biological features necessary for the 
acu[ntilde]a cactus and which receive higher precipitation levels may 
be useful for ex situ (offsite) conservation measures at a future time.
    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 for the acu[ntilde]a cactus. 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 final rule have been excluded by 
text and are not designated as critical habitat. Therefore, a Federal 
action involving these lands would not trigger section 7 consultation 
with respect to critical habitat and the requirement of no adverse 
modification unless the specific action would affect the physical or 
biological features in the adjacent critical habitat.
    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 in the rule portion. 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 http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2013-0025, on our Internet 
sites http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/, and at the field office 
responsible for the designation (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
above).

Critical Habitat Designation for the Acu[ntilde]a Cactus

    We are designating six units as critical habitat for the 
acu[ntilde]a cactus. The critical habitat areas we describe below 
constitute our current best assessment of areas that meet the 
definition of critical habitat for the acu[ntilde]a cactus. The six 
units we are designating as critical habitat are: (1) Organ Pipe Cactus 
National Monument, (2) Ajo, (3) Sauceda Mountains, (4) Sand Tank 
Mountains, (5) Mineral Mountain, and (6) Box O Wash. All six units were 
occupied by the acu[ntilde]a cactus at the time of listing. The 
approximate area of each critical habitat unit is shown in Table 1.

                     Table 1--Designated Critical Habitat Units for the Acu[ntilde]a Cactus
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Federal              State              Private              Total
         Unit or subunit         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Ha        Ac        Ha        Ac        Ha        Ac        Ha        Ac
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1--Organ Pipe Cactus National        2,416     5,971         0         0         0         0     2,416     5,971
 Monument Unit..................
2--Ajo Townsites Subunit........        89       220         0         0       330       815       419     1,035
2--Ajo Little Ajo Mountains            106       263         0         0       141       347       247       610
 Subunit........................
3--Sauceda Mountains Unit.......     1,102     2,724         0         0         0         0     1,102     2,724
4--Sand Tank Mountains Unit.....       549     1,355         0         0         0         0       549     1,355
5--Mineral Mountain Unit........       570     1,408       217       537         0         0       787     1,945
6--Box O Wash Subunit A.........         4         9     1,348     3,332       369       913     1,721     4,253
6--Box O Wash Subunit B.........         0         0       158       391       102       251       260       642
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 55277]]

 
    Total.......................     4,836    11,950     1,723     4,260       942     2,326     7,501    18,535
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.

    We present brief descriptions of all units, and reasons why they 
meet the definition of critical habitat for the acu[ntilde]a cactus, 
below.
Unit 1: Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument
    The unit consists of 2,416 ha (5,971 ac) within OPCNM in 
southwestern Pima County, Arizona. The unit is on federally owned land 
administered by the National Park Service. Land within this unit was 
occupied at the time of listing with the largest known population of 
the acu[ntilde]a cactus, approximately 2,000 individuals. This unit 
contains all of the primary constituent elements of the physical or 
biological features essential to the conservation of the acu[ntilde]a 
cactus. This unit helps to maintain the geographical range of the 
species and provide opportunity for population growth. This unit also 
provides a core population of the species.
    Grazing and mining are not permitted within OPCNM; however, 
nonnative, invasive species issues and off-road border-related 
activities do occur in OPCNM. Special management considerations or 
protection may be required within this unit to address off-road border-
related human disturbances or to prevent or remove nonnative, invasive 
species within the acu[ntilde]a cactus habitat.
Unit 2: Ajo
    Unit 2 is located in and near the town of Ajo in southwestern Pima 
County, Arizona. The unit consists of two subunits totaling 666 ha 
(1,645 ac). This unit contains 195 ha (483 ac) of federally owned land 
and 470 ha (1,162 ac) of private land. The Federal land is administered 
by the BLM. This entire unit helps to maintain the geographical range 
of the species and provide opportunity for population growth. This unit 
also provides a core population of the species.
    Subunit 2a: Townsites--Subunit 2a consists of 330 ha (815 ac) of 
private land and 89 ha (220 ac) of BLM land in and around the town of 
Ajo, Arizona. This subunit comprises four separate populations of the 
acu[ntilde]a cactus on private and BLM lands, which are close enough in 
proximity to be combined within the 900-m (2,953-ft) radius defined for 
pollinators. Lands within this subunit are occupied at the time of 
listing; the combined number of plants occurring within this subunit is 
70. This subunit contains all of the primary constituent elements of 
the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of 
the acu[ntilde]a cactus.
    Subunit 2b: Little Ajo Mountains--Subunit 2b consists of 106 ha 
(263 ac) of BLM lands and 141 ha (347 ac) of private lands south of the 
town of Ajo, Arizona. Lands within this subunit are occupied at the 
time of listing, containing seven individual plants. This subunit 
contains all of the primary constituent elements of the physical or 
biological features essential to the conservation of the acu[ntilde]a 
cactus.
    The features essential to the conservation of the species within 
both subunits are threatened by mining; urban development; off-road 
U.S.-Mexican border activities; and nonnative, invasive species issues. 
Special management considerations or protection may be required within 
the subunits to minimize habitat fragmentation; to minimize disturbance 
to acu[ntilde]a cactus individuals, soil, and associated native 
vegetation; and to prevent or remove nonnative, invasive species within 
the acu[ntilde]a cactus habitat.
Unit 3: Sauceda Mountains
    Unit 3 is located in the Sauceda Mountains of northwestern Pima and 
southwestern Maricopa Counties, Arizona. We are excluding approximately 
156 ha (385 ac) of Tohono O'odham land and exempting 378 ha (935 ac) of 
BMGR land from this unit, leaving 1,102 ha (2,724 ac) of federally 
owned land administered by the BLM (refer to the Exclusions and 
Exemptions sections of the preamble to this rule). This unit comprises 
four separate populations that are close enough in proximity as to be 
combined within the 900-m (2,953-ft) radius defined for pollinators. 
Lands within this unit were occupied at the time of listing; the 
combined number of plants occurring within this unit is 212. This 
subunit contains all of the primary constituent elements of the 
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the 
acu[ntilde]a cactus. This unit helps to maintain the geographical range 
of the species and provide opportunity for population growth. This unit 
also provides a core population of the species.
    The features essential to the conservation of the species within 
the unit are threatened by mining; grazing; nonnative, invasive species 
issues; and off-road U.S.-Mexican border activities. Special management 
considerations or protection may be required within the unit to 
minimize habitat fragmentation; to minimize disturbance to individual 
acu[ntilde]a cactus individuals, soil, and associated native 
vegetation; and to prevent or remove nonnative, invasive species within 
acu[ntilde]a cactus habitat.
Unit 4: Sand Tank Mountains
    Unit 4 consists of 549 ha (1,355 ac) within the Sonoran Desert 
National Monument of southwestern Maricopa County, Arizona. The unit is 
on federally owned land administered by the BLM. Land within this unit 
was occupied at the time of listing; the combined number of plants 
occurring within this unit is 200 individuals in 3 separate 
populations. This unit contains all of the primary constituent elements 
of the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of 
the acu[ntilde]a cactus. This unit helps to maintain the geographical 
range of the species and provide opportunity for population growth. 
This unit also provides a core population of the species.
    Grazing and mining are not permitted within the Sonoran Desert 
National Monument; however, off-road border-related activities; 
nonnative, invasive species issues; and trespass livestock grazing may 
occur in this unit. Special management considerations or protection may 
be required within this unit to minimize disturbance to acu[ntilde]a 
cactus individuals, the soil, and associated native vegetation; and to 
prevent or remove nonnative, invasive species within acu[ntilde]a 
cactus habitat.
Unit 5: Mineral Mountain
    Unit 5 consists of 787 ha (1,945 ac) on Mineral Mountain of north-
central Pinal County, Arizona. This unit contains 570 ha (1,408 ac) of 
federally owned land and 217 ha (537 ac) of State-owned

[[Page 55278]]

land. The Federal land is administered by the BLM (569 ha (1,406 ac)) 
and the Bureau of Reclamation (1 ha (2 ac)).
    This unit contains 5 separate known populations totaling 33 
individuals on lands administered by the BLM and the State of Arizona. 
This unit contains all of the primary constituent elements of the 
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the 
acu[ntilde]a cactus. This unit helps to maintain the geographical range 
of the species and provide opportunity for population growth. This unit 
also provides a core population of the species.
    Livestock grazing and ORV activity occur in this unit, and mining 
occurs nearby. Nonnative, invasive species issues may occur in or 
nearby this unit. Special management considerations or protection may 
be required within the unit to minimize habitat fragmentation; to 
minimize disturbance to acu[ntilde]a cactus individuals, soil, and 
associated native vegetation; and to prevent or remove nonnative, 
invasive species within acu[ntilde]a cactus habitat.
Unit 6: Box O Wash
    Unit 6 is located near Box O Wash of north-central Pinal County, 
Arizona. This unit consists of two subunits totaling 1,981 ha (4,895 
ac). This unit contains 4 ha (9 ac) of federally owned land, 1,506 ha 
(3,722 ac) of State-owned land, and 471 ha (1,164 ac) of privately 
owned land. The Federal land is administered by the BLM. This entire 
unit helps to maintain the geographical range of the species and 
provide opportunity for population growth. This unit also provides a 
core population of the species.
    Subunit 6a: Box O Wash A--Subunit 6a consists of 4 ha (9 ac) of BLM 
land, 369 ha (913 ac) of private land, and 1,348 ha (3,332 ac) of State 
land east of Florence, Arizona. This subunit comprises two separate 
populations of the acu[ntilde]a cactus on private and State-owned 
lands, which are close enough in proximity to be combined within the 
900-m (2,953-ft) radius defined for pollinators. Lands within this 
subunit were occupied at the time of listing; the combined number of 
plants occurring within this subunit is 11. This subunit contains all 
of the primary constituent elements of the physical or biological 
features essential to the conservation of the acu[ntilde]a cactus.
    Subunit 6b: Box O Wash B--Subunit 6b consists of 158 ha (391 ac) of 
State-owned land and 102 ha (251 ac) of private land east of Florence, 
Arizona. This subunit comprises one population of the acu[ntilde]a 
cactus on State-owned land; the 900-m (2,953-ft) radius defined for 
pollinators overlaps into private land. This area was surveyed twice in 
2008, with 32 living acu[ntilde]a cacti found in 1 survey and 45 in a 
second survey. A 2011 survey resulted in no living plants located; 
however, this was not a complete survey of the area. Since the 2011 
survey was not a comprehensive survey, and a relatively large number of 
plants were found here in 2008, we assume the plants still occur in 
this subunit. Therefore, we consider lands within this subunit occupied 
at the time of listing. This subunit contains all of the primary 
constituent elements of the physical or biological features essential 
to the conservation of the acu[ntilde]a cactus.
    Livestock grazing and ORV activity occur within both subunits, and 
mining occurs nearby. Nonnative, invasive species issues may occur in 
or nearby this unit. Special management considerations or protection 
may be required within the subunits to minimize habitat fragmentation; 
to minimize disturbance to acu[ntilde]a cactus individuals, soil, and 
associated native vegetation; and to prevent or remove nonnative, 
invasive species within acu[ntilde]a cactus habitat.

Fickeisen Plains Cactus

Physical or Biological Features

    We derive the specific physical or biological features required for 
the Fickeisen plains cactus from studies of the species' habitat, 
ecology, and life history as described below. We have determined that 
the Fickeisen plains cactus requires the following physical or 
biological features:
Appropriate Topography and Elevation Range That Support Individual 
Fickeisen Plains Cactus Plants
    The Fickeisen plains cactus is a narrow endemic with a wide 
distribution on the Colorado Plateau in Coconino and Mohave Counties, 
Arizona. Populations are found at elevations from 1,280 to 1,814 m 
(4,200 to 5,950 ft) with approximately 1,132 plants in 33 populations 
documented within an 8,668-square-kilometer (sq km) (3,347-square-mile 
(sq mi)) range. About 90 percent of individuals occur in Coconino 
County.
    The Colorado Plateau consists of a series of subplateaus that are 
dissected by major structural features (Foos 1999, pp. 2-4). The 
Fickeisen plains cactus is found on several subplateaus and tablelands 
including the Coconino, Kaibab, Kanab, Shivwits, and Uinkaret Plateaus, 
and House Rock Valley. These landforms are characterized by normal 
faults (Hurricane, Toroweap, and Sevier Faults), monoclines (Grandview 
and Black Point Monoclines), synclines (Cataract Syncline), deep-seated 
canyons (Marble Canyon, Cataract Canyon of the Grand Canyon), and deep 
washes (Mays Wash) (Billingsley and Dyer 2003, p. 3; Billingsley et al. 
2006, pp. 1-3; Billingsley et al. 2007, pp. 2-3), which form boundaries 
separating the subplateaus, and act as topographic barriers isolating 
populations of the Fickeisen plains cactus.
    The Fickeisen plains cactus is found exclusively on limestone soils 
derived predominantly from the Harrisburg Member of the Kaibab 
Formation. The Harrisburg Member consists of reddish-gray and brownish-
gray, slope-forming gypsum, siltstone, sandstone, and limestone; and 
includes an upper, middle, and lower part. The upper bed consists of 
gray, cherty limestone that forms the bedrock surface while the middle 
unit comprises thick, cliff-forming limestone beds and the lower bed 
consists of slope-forming gypsiferous siltstone, sandstone, limestone, 
and gypsum (Billingsley 2000, pp. 3-4).
    Folding and uplifting of bedrock, basalt flows, and erosional 
processes across the Colorado Plateau exposes other sedimentary rock 
formations found in occupied habitat.
    The Hurricane Cliffs exposes the Kaibab Formation on the upper part 
and much of the bedrock surface of the Shivwits and Uinkaret Plateaus, 
while siltstone, sandstone, and limestone of the Toroweap Formation is 
well exposed on the lower steep slopes and ledges (Billingsley and Dyer 
2003, pp. 3-4). East of the Hurricane Cliffs and in the habitat of the 
Clayhole Wash population, ledge-forming limestone beds that are 
separated by slopes of gypsiferous siltsone of the Moenkopi Formation 
are exposed under Quarterary basalt flows (Billingsley 1994, p. 2). 
Erosional unconformities separate the Kaibab and Moenkopi Formations in 
this area (Billingsley et al. 2002, p. 3). In House Rock Valley, the 
Kaibab Formation forms most of the bedrock surface and rims along 
Marble Canyon. In some places, the Kaibab Formation is covered by 
siltstone and sandstone of the Moenkopi Formation (Billingsley and 
Priest 2010, p. 5).
    Exposed limestone surfaces include mesas, plateaus, fan terraces, 
flat to gentle sloping hills, along canyon rims, and washes, which 
provide habitat to support the cactus. Individuals are found on the 
western, southwestern, and southern-facing exposures with slopes less 
than 20 percent (Arizona Rare Plant Committee 2001; AGFD 2011a, p. 2), 
although most plants are

[[Page 55279]]

observed on slopes less than 10 percent. The surface material is 
derived from the erosion of limestone and sandstone in the form of 
alluvium, colluvium, or eolian deposits.
    Based on the above information, we identify mesas, plateaus, 
terraces, flat to gently sloping hills less than 20 percent slope; 
margins of canyon rims and desert washes that are overlain with 
alluvium, colluvium, or eolian deposits, or eolian sand over alluvium; 
alluvium derived predominantly from limestone of the Harrisburg Member 
of the Kaibab Formation; and limestone, siltstone, and sandstone of the 
Toroweap and Moenkopi Formations as a physical or biological feature 
essential to the conservation of the Fickeisen plains cactus.
Appropriate Soil Structure and Vegetation Community That Support 
Individual Fickeisen Plains Cactus Plants
    The presence of unique soil structure and chemistry may determine 
where a rare plant species exits. The Fickeisen plains cactus is found 
on gravelly limestone soils underlain by alluvium. There are several 
soil series associations that support the Fickeisen plains cactus 
(Table 2). These share common properties or characteristics of soil 
that is well-drained, nonsaline to slightly saline with a soil pH from 
7.9 to 8.4 (NatureServe 2011; Natural Resources Conservation Service 
(NRCS) 2012), and shallow (15 to 51 cm (6 to 20 in) to bedrock), 
although some are moderately deep to very deep (more than 203 cm (80 
in) to bedrock). Most Fickeisen plains cacti are found in shallow 
soils. Fewer plants are found on deeper soils, but these plants may not 
persist long-term from being water logged after rainstorms or subjected 
to debris flows. The texture of the surface layer includes gravelly 
loam, fine sandy loam, gravelly sandy loam, clay loam, cobbly loam, and 
stony loam (NRCS 2012). The fine-textured and very loose soil texture 
may enable the plant to be completely buried once retracted (Navajo 
National Heritage Program (NNHP) 1994, p. 3), thereby protecting the 
apex from exposure to low temperatures during the winter season. The 
habitat is also stable with little soil movement following runoff 
events.

 Table 2--Soil Class Associated With the Fickeisen Plains Cactus Habitat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Soil series classification                  Percent slope
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dutchman-McCullan complex.............................              1-10
Kinan gravelly loam...................................              1-15
Kinan-Pennell complex.................................              4-15
Mellenthin very gravelly loam.........................              1-25
Mellenthin-Progresso complex..........................               1-7
Mellenthin-Rock outcrop-Torriorthents complex.........             10-70
Mellenthin-Tanbark complex............................              5-50
Moenkopie-Goblin complex..............................              5-50
Monierco clay loam....................................              2-15
Monue-Seeg complex....................................               1-6
Pennell cobbly loam...................................              3-10
Pennell gravelly sandy loam...........................             20-45
Saido-Brinkerhoff complex.............................               1-5
Strych very gravelly loam.............................              2-10
Twist sandy loam......................................              2-10
Winona gravelly loam..................................               0-8
Winona stony loam.....................................               0-8
Winona-Boysag gravelly loams..........................               0-8
Winona-Rock outcrop complex...........................         15-30 and
                                                                   30-70
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Fickeisen plains cactus is primarily found in sparsely 
vegetated areas in full sun. However, habitat in Mohave County, 
Arizona, supports dense patches of grasses and desert shrubs. Adult 
Fickeisen plains cacti that are growing underneath a shrub canopy or in 
partially shaded clumps of grama grass have been observed to be larger 
and fuller than those growing in fully open areas (Robertson 2011, p. 
1). Similar observations have been reported on the Navajo Nation (NNHP 
1994, p. 4). Some amount of canopy cover may create suitable 
microhabitat conditions that enhance Fickeisen plains cactus' survival 
by providing protection from the sun and wind, and by decreasing the 
rate of evapotranspiration (Milne 1987, p. 34).
    Microbiologic soil crusts are present across areas of the Colorado 
Plateau and occur near the Fickeisen plains cactus (United States 
Forest Service (USFS) 1999, entire; BLM 2007a, pp. 3-15). Biological 
soil crusts are formed by a community of living organisms that can 
include cyanobacteria, green algae, microfungi, mosses, liverworts, and 
lichens (Belnap 2006, pp. 361-362). These crusts provide many positive 
benefits to the larger vegetation community by providing fixed carbon 
and nitrogen on sparsely vegetated soils, soil stabilization and 
erosion control, water infiltration, improved plant growth, and 
seedling germination (Rychert et al. 1978, entire; NRCS 1997, pp. 8-10; 
Floyd et al. 2003, p. 1704; Belnap 2006, entire). Although there is no 
information indicating a relationship between the Fickeisen plains 
cactus and benefits derived from the soil crust, their presence 
supports native desert vegetation that also supports the Fickeisen 
plains cactus habitat.
    The specific physiological and soil nutritional needs of the 
Fickeisen plains cactus are not known at this time. Locations 
containing apparently suitable habitat on the Arizona Strip have been 
searched between the years of 1986 and 2010, and no additional 
individuals or populations have been found to date. The factors 
limiting the taxon's distribution are unknown, but could be related to 
microsite differences (such as nutrient availability, soil microflora, 
soil texture, or moisture). Although we do not have information to 
fully explain what components the plant prefers, a preliminary soil 
study on the Kaibab National Forest suggested that sites having higher 
density of plants occur in gravelly soils and these have higher levels 
of micro and macro nutrients compared to sandier soils where fewer 
plants are found. The higher amounts of potassium, nitrate,

[[Page 55280]]

sodium, zinc, copper, and soluble phosphate in the gravelly soil may be 
a result of weathering over time (MacDonald (USFS) 2013, pers. comm.). 
While further investigation is warranted at other populations, it may 
help distinguish the quality of habitat for the taxon across its range.
    Based on the above information, we identify soils from the 
appropriate soil series that are well-drained, shallow to moderately 
deep, stable, and consist of gravelly loam, fine sandy loam, gravelly 
sandy loam, clay loam, and cobbly loam with limestone and chert gravel 
as a physical or biological feature essential to the conservation of 
the Fickeisen plains cactus.
Habitat for Individual and Population Growth, Including Sites for 
Germination, Pollination, Reproduction, Pollen and Seed Dispersal, and 
Seed Banks
    The Fickeisen plains cactus habitat is found within the Great Basin 
Desert and is associated with the Plains and Great Basin grasslands and 
Great Basin desertscrub (Benson 1982, p. 764; NatureServe 2011). 
Dominant native plant species that are commonly associated with these 
biotic communities include: Artemisia tridentata (sagebrush), Atriplex 
canescens (four-wing saltbush), Atriplex confertifolia (shadscale), 
Bouteloua eriopoda (black grama), Bouteloua gracilis (blue grama), 
Bromus spp. (brome), Chrysothamnus spp. (rabbit-bush), Ephedra 
torreyana (Mormon tea), Kraschenninikovia lanata (winterfat), 
Gutierrezia sarothrae (broom snakeweed), Pleuraphis jamesii (James's 
galleta), Achnatherum hymenoides (Indian ricegrass), Sphaeralcea spp. 
(globe-mallow), and Stipa spp. (needlegrass). Other native species that 
are commonly found include Agave utahensis (century plants), 
Echinocactus polycephalus spp. and Escobaria vivipara var. rosea 
(foxtail cactus) (Brown 1994, pp. 115-121; Turner 1994, pp. 145-155; 
Hughes 1996b, p. 2; Goodwin 2011a, p. 4; NatureServe 2011).
    These grasslands also support native annuals and perennial 
flowering plants that support a diversity of native bees and insect 
pollinators, which are essential for Fickeisen plains cactus 
reproduction. Reproduction for plant species within the genera of 
Pediocactus occurs by cross-pollination (Pimienta-Barrios and del 
Castillo 2002, p. 79). Pollinators observed visiting flowers of the 
Fickeisen plains cactus include hover flies (family Syrphidae), bee 
flies (family Bombyliidae), mining bees (family Andrenidae), and sweat 
bees (family Halictidae) (Milne 1987, p. 21; NNHP 1994, p. 3). Although 
flies may pollinate flowers of the Fickeisen plains cactus when they 
eat pollen or nectar, the primary pollinators for the Fickeisen plains 
cactus are believed to be halictid bees from the genera Lasioglossum, 
Halictus, and Agapostemon, based on several studied species of 
Pediocactus (Tepedino 2012, pers. comm.).
    Since pollination is essential to the conservation of the Fickeisen 
plains cactus, we evaluated alternatives for determining the effective 
pollinator distance for the taxon. Foraging distances vary by species 
and body size (Greenleaf et al. 2007, p. 592), but the typical flight 
distances of halictid bees in the genera Lasioglossum are 10 to 410 m 
(33 to 1,345 ft). The foraging distance for the largest bodied bee in 
the genera Agapostemon (sweat bees in the Family Halictidae) is 
approximately 1,000 m (3,280 ft) (Tepedino 2012, pers. comm.). We 
believe 1,000 m (3,280 ft) represents a reasonable estimate of the area 
needed around the Fickeisen plains cactus population to provide 
sufficient habitat for the pollinator community. As noted above, many 
other insects likely contribute to the pollination of this species, and 
some may travel greater distances than others. However, these 
pollinators may also forage, nest, overwinter, or reproduce within 
1,000 m (3,280 ft) of Fickeisen plains cactus. As a result, we 
considered the Fickeisen plains cactus pollinator area to be 1,000 m 
(3,280 ft) around individual plants, based on the rationale that 
pollinators using habitat farther away may not be as likely to 
contribute to the conservation and recovery of this species.
    The Fickeisen plains cactus relies solely on the production of seed 
for reproduction (Pimienta-Barrios and del Castillo 2002, p. 79). 
Optimal seed set occurs through visitation and pollination by native 
bees and other insect pollinators. Seed production in the Fickeisen 
plains cactus is considered to be low (Hughes 2011, pers. comm.), and 
most species of Pediocactus have poor seed dispersal mechanisms (Benson 
1982, p. 750). We do not know the soil moisture, nutrient, or 
temperature requirements for Fickeisen plains cactus germination. 
Seedlings are often observed near the parent plant (Goodwin 2011a, p. 
9) and do better when shade is provided by a parent or nurse rock 
(Nobel 1984, p. 316; Milne 1987, p. 34).
    Maintaining genetic diversity is essential for persistence of the 
Fickeisen plains cactus because of its endemism, small population size, 
and disjunct populations (Tepedino et al. 1996, p. 245). In general, 
maintaining adequate populations of the Fickeisen plains cactus' 
primary pollinators, which likely depends on the presence and diversity 
of other native plant species in sufficient numbers within, near, and 
between populations, is essential to facilitate gene flow (NatureServe 
2011). Moreover, maintaining areas with a high diversity of native 
plant species is necessary to sustain populations of native pollinators 
(Peach et al. 1993, p. 314). Low numbers of abundant flowers offering 
little reward can lead to low rates of plants visited by pollinators 
(Wilcox and Neiland 2002, pp. 272-273). As the Fickeisen plains cactus 
does not reproduce vegetatively, pollination is highly linked to their 
survival. A lack of pollinators would gradually decrease the number of 
seeds in the seed bank and the conservation potential for the Fickeisen 
plains cactus (Wilcock and Neiland 2002, p. 276).
    Therefore, based on the best available information above, we 
identify a pollination area with a radius of 1,000 m (3,280 ft) around 
each Fickeisen plains cactus that includes native vegetation of the 
Great Basin desertscrub and Plains and Great Basin grasslands, and 
habitat for pollinators as a physical or biological feature essential 
to the conservation of the Fickeisen plains cactus.
Habitats That Are Protected From Disturbance or Representative of the 
Historical, Geographical, and Ecological Distribution of the Species
    The Fickeisen plains cactus has a restricted geographical 
distribution. Endemic species whose populations exhibit a high degree 
of isolation are extremely susceptible to extinction from random and 
non-random, catastrophic, natural or human-caused events. Therefore, 
the conservation of the Fickeisen plains cactus is dependent on several 
factors, including, but not limited to: (1) Maintenance of areas of 
sufficient size and configuration to sustain natural ecosystem 
components, functions, and processes (such as sun exposure, native 
shrubs or grasses that provide microhabitats for seedlings, natural 
fire and hydrologic regimes, preservation of biological soil crusts 
that support the surrounding vegetation community, and adequate biotic 
balance to prevent excessive herbivory); (2) protection of the existing 
substrate continuity and structure; (3) connectivity among clusters of 
plants within geographic proximity to facilitate gene flow among these 
sites through pollination activity and seed dispersal; and (4) 
sufficient adjacent suitable habitat for reproduction and population 
expansion.

[[Page 55281]]

    A natural, generally intact surface and subsurface that is free of 
inappropriate disturbance associated with land use activities (such as 
trampling and soil compaction from livestock grazing) and associated 
physical processes such as the hydrologic regime are necessary to 
provide water, minerals, and other physiological needs for the 
Fickeisen plains cactus. A natural intact surface and subsurface 
includes the preservation of soil qualities (texture, slope, rooting 
depth) to enable the seasonal ability of plants to retract below the 
subsurface to enter dormancy, but emerge when conditions are favorable. 
A natural hydrologic regime includes the seasonal retention of soil 
moisture followed by the drying out of the substrate to promote growth 
of plants for the following season. These processes enable populations 
to develop and maintain seed banks, and to provide for successful 
seedling survival, adult growth, and expansion of populations. The 
Fickeisen plains cactus must sustain and expand in number if ecological 
representation of this species is to be ensured. Therefore, based on 
the information above, we identify natural, generally intact surface 
and subsurface that preserves the physical processes, such as soil 
quality and the natural hydrology of a natural vegetation community, to 
be physical or biological features for this species.

Primary Constituent Elements for the Fickeisen Plains Cactus

    Based on our current knowledge of the physical or biological 
features and habitat characteristics required to sustain the species' 
life-history processes, we determine that the primary constituent 
elements specific to the Fickeisen plains cactus are:
    1. Soils derived from limestone that are found on mesas, plateaus, 
terraces, the toe of gently sloping hills with up to 20 percent slope, 
margins of canyon rims, and desert washes. These soils have the 
following features:
    a. They occur on the Colorado Plateau in Coconino and Mohave 
Counties of northern Arizona and are within the appropriate series 
found in occupied areas;
    b. They are derived from alluvium, colluvium, or eolian deposits of 
limestone from the Harrisburg Member of the Kaibab Formation and 
limestone, siltstone, and sandstone of the Toroweap and Moenkopi 
Formations;
    c. They are nonsaline to slightly saline, gravelly, shallow to 
moderately deep, and well-drained with little signs of soil movement. 
Soil texture consists of gravelly loam, fine sandy loam, gravelly sandy 
loam, very gravelly sandy loam, clay loam, and cobbly loam.
    2. Native vegetation within the Plains and Great Basin grassland 
and Great Basin desertscrub vegetation communities from 1,310 to 1,813 
m (4,200 to 5,950 ft) in elevation that has a natural, generally intact 
surface and subsurface that preserves the bedrock substrate and are 
supportive of microbiotic soil crusts where they are naturally found.
    3. Native vegetation that provides for habitat of identified 
pollinators within the effective pollinator distance of 1,000 m (3,280 
ft) around each individual Fickeisen plains cactus.

Special Management Considerations or Protections

    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. All areas designated as critical habitat as described below 
may require some level of management to address the current and future 
threats to the physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of the Fickeisen plains cactus. In all of the described 
units, special management may be required to ensure that the primary 
constituent elements for the cactus are conserved and the habitat 
provides for the biological needs of the cactus. Some of the management 
activities that could ameliorate these threats include, but are not 
limited to, those discussed below.
    (1) Practice livestock grazing in a manner that maintains, 
improves, and expands the quantity and quality of desertscrub and 
grassland habitat. Special management considerations or protection may 
include the following: Manage livestock grazing sustainably with the 
natural landscape by determining appropriate areas, seasons, and use 
consistent within the carrying capacity of rangeland in response to 
current and future drought and warming trends; improve monitoring and 
documentation of grazing practices; manage cattle and feral hoofed 
mammals (ungulates) (e.g., horses, burros) to reduce the risk of plants 
trampled and soil compaction; and manage for other small mammal species 
to restore desired processes to increase habitat quality and quantity.
    (2) Manage for nonnative, invasive species, such as Bromus tectorum 
(cheatgrass), Bromus rubens (red brome), or Erodium cicutarium (redstem 
filaree), by minimizing conditions that may promote or encourage 
encroachment or establishment of nonnative, invasive species and 
restore or reestablish conditions that allow native plants to thrive. 
Within the range of the Fickeisen plains cactus, the establishment and 
success of nonnative, invasive species has been a result of historic 
land use and management practices such as logging, grazing, wildfire 
suppression actions, mining, and ORV use. Actions have been taken by 
land management agencies to reduce the spread of invasive species and 
reduce the risk of wildfire they pose from creating fine fuel loads. 
Nonnative, invasive species occur near Fickeisen plains cactus habitat 
and may pose a threat through competition for resources or increase the 
risk of fire. Special management considerations or protection may 
include the following: Prevent or restrict establishment of nonnative, 
invasive species; minimize ground-disturbing activities that may 
facilitate their spread; implement post-disturbance restoration 
activities such as native plant propagation; practice active removal of 
nonnative, invasive plant species and targeted herbicide application 
(provided herbicides can be shown not to negatively impact the 
Fickeisen plains cactus or the native pollinators); and improve 
monitoring and documentation on a site-by-site basis where nonnative, 
invasive species are present in occupied habitat to assess any effect 
(beneficial or negative) they pose of the cactus.
    (3) Protect bedrock surfaces and associated limestone soils that 
provide suitable habitat from mineral development and associated 
infrastructure (new roads). Numerous breccia pipes (vertical, pipe-
shaped bodies of highly fractured rock that collapsed into voids 
created by dissolution of underlying rock) are located across the 
Colorado Plateau and are expressed as circular collapse structures, 
minor folds, and other surface irregularities associated with the 
Kaibab and Toroweap Formations. Exploration and development of uranium 
has peaked and waned in accordance with market values. Areas of 
interest and oil and gas leasing/exploration overlap Fickeisen plains 
cactus habitat. These activities could result in direct habitat loss or 
alteration by removing or degrading limestone soils to such an extent 
that the soils would no longer support the growth of the Fickeisen 
plains cactus. Special management considerations or protection may 
include the following: Protect lands that support suitable habitat and 
site future development

[[Page 55282]]

such that the destruction or removal of limestone from the Kaibab, 
Toroweap, and Moenkopi formations is minimized and depositional areas 
are preserved.
    (4) Manage or protect native desertscrub and plains grassland 
vegetation communities from recreational impacts. Special management 
considerations or protections may include the following: Managing 
trails, campsites, and ORVs; and reduce the likelihood of wildfires 
affecting the population and nearby plant community.
    These management activities will protect the physical or biological 
features essential to the conservation of the Fickeisen plains cactus 
by reducing the direct and indirect effects of habitat loss, 
alteration, or fragmentation; preserving the bedrock surfaces and 
associated limestone soils that form the basis of its habitat; and 
maintaining the native vegetation communities and its pollinators.
    In summary, the primary constituent elements of the Fickeisen 
plains cactus habitat may be impacted by livestock grazing; nonnative, 
invasive species; mineral development and associated transportation 
infrastructure; and recreation. We find that these activities may not 
be direct threats to the species as a whole, but may negatively impact 
the primary constituent elements. The areas designated as critical 
habitat within the geographical area occupied by the taxon at the time 
of listing contain the physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of the Fickeisen plains cactus. Special management 
considerations or protection may be required to eliminate, or reduce to 
a negligible level, the threats affecting each unit or subunit and to 
preserve and maintain the essential features that the critical habitat 
units and subunits provide to the cactus.

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. We review 
available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of the 
species. In accordance with the Act and its implementing regulation at 
50 CFR 424.12(e), we consider whether designating additional areas--
outside those currently occupied as well as those occupied at the time 
of listing--are necessary to ensure the conservation of the species. We 
have determined that all areas we are designating as critical habitat 
are within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of 
listing (see the ``Abundance and Trends'' section in the final listing 
rule (78 FR 60608, October 1, 2013) for more information).
    Based on the best available information, we conclude that the six 
critical habitat units are occupied by the Fickeisen plains cactus. We 
acknowledge that several of the populations have not been visited for 
more than 18 years, but we have determined they should be considered 
occupied at the time of listing. We are making this conclusion because 
the unvisited populations are within close proximity to other occupied 
areas within suitable habitat that includes monitored sites; they occur 
in areas with the same geology, elevation, and vegetation community as 
nearby known occupied sites; the environmental conditions at these 
sites have not been severe enough to result in loss of habitat, thereby 
causing possible extirpation of cactus from these areas or impeded 
establishment; information is insufficient to suggest that populations 
no longer are viable (lack of observations does not mean those 
populations have been extirpated); and the cactus has a lifespan of 10 
to 15 years. The best available science indicates that there were once 
small populations of the cactus at these sites, and there is no 
evidence known to indicate otherwise. Please refer to the proposed 
listing and critical habitat rule (77 FR 60509, October 3, 2012) for 
more information on our rationale for including them within the final 
designation of critical habitat.
    We considered areas outside the geographical area occupied by the 
Fickeisen plains cactus at the time of listing, but we are not 
designating any areas outside the geographical area occupied by the 
Fickeisen plains cactus. In our review, the Fickeisen plains cactus 
occurs across a broad range with different topography, large 
elevational gradients, and vegetation communities (AGFD 2011b, entire). 
Due to the vastness and diversity of the range, there are areas within 
its geographical range that provides for in-situ (on-site) conservation 
if needed in the future. Therefore, we determined that a subset of 
occupied lands within the species' current range is adequate to ensure 
the conservation of the Fickeisen plains cactus.
    We reviewed available information and supporting data that pertains 
to the habitat requirements of the Fickeisen plains cactus. This 
information included research published in peer-reviewed articles, soil 
surveys, agency reports, special land assessments, and data collected 
from long-term monitoring plots, interviews with experts, and regional 
climate data and GIS coverage. Sources of information include, but are 
not limited to: AGFD 2011b, AZGS 2011, Billingsley et al. 2002, 
Billingsley and Dyer 2003, Billingsley et al. 2006, Billingsley et al. 
2007, Billingsley and Priest 2010, BLM 2007a, Calico 2012, Goodwin 
2011a, Hazelton 2012a, Milne 1987, NNHP 2011a, NRCS 2012, Phillips et 
al. 1982, Travis 1987, and Western Regional Climate Center 2012. Based 
on this information, we developed a strategy for determining which 
areas meet the definition of critical habitat for the Fickeisen plains 
cactus.
    In identifying critical habitat units for the Fickeisen plains 
cactus, we proceeded through a multi-step process. We obtained all 
records for the distribution of the Fickeisen plains cactus from AGFD, 
as well as both published and unpublished documentation from our files. 
Recent survey results confirm that current plant distribution is 
similar to documented distribution records with the exception that 
additional populations have been found following survey efforts.
    Our approach to delineating critical habitat units was applied in 
the following manner:
    (1) We overlaid locations of the Fickeisen plains cactus into a GIS 
database. This provided us with the ability to examine slope, 
elevation, geologic type, vegetation community, and topographic 
features. These data points verified and slightly expanded the 
previously recorded elevation ranges for the Fickeisen plains cactus.
    (2) In addition to the GIS layers listed above, we then included a 
1,000-m (3,280-ft) pollination area around known individual Fickeisen 
plains cacti to encompass native vegetation surrounding individual 
Fickeisen plains cacti, as described in Primary Constituent Elements 
for the Fickeisen Plains Cactus, above.
    (3) We then drew critical habitat boundaries that captured the 
locations elucidated under (1) and (2) above. Critical habitat 
designations were then mapped using Albers Equal Area (Albers) North 
American Datum 83 (NAD 83) coordinates.
Occupied Area at the Time of Listing
    Areas where plants are or have been documented within the species' 
described range were considered to be occupied at the time of listing. 
The known range of the Fickeisen plains cactus is in Arizona from 
Mainstreet Valley and Hurricane Valley in Mohave County to House Rock 
Valley in Coconino County on the Arizona Strip; along the canyon rims 
of the Colorado

[[Page 55283]]

River and Little Colorado River to the area of Gray Mountain; and along 
the rims of Cataract Canyon on the Coconino Plateau.
    Occupied occurrences or clusters of the Fickeisen plains cactus 
that were located in proximity to one another, but distributed within a 
large area, were grouped into one unit (e.g., Hurricane Cliffs and 
House Rock Valley). Areas where individual plants are distributed over 
a large distance (e.g., Cataract Ranch) were also categorized into one 
unit. All of the units contained all of the identified elements of 
physical or biological features and support multiple life-history 
processes.
    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 in the rule portion. 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 http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2013-0025, on our Internet 
sites http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/, and at the field office 
responsible for the designation (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
above).

Critical Habitat Designation for the Fickeisen Plains Cactus

    We are designating six units as critical habitat for the Fickeisen 
plains cactus. The critical habitat areas we describe below constitute 
our current best assessment of areas that meet the definition of 
critical habitat for the Fickeisen plains cactus. The six units we are 
designating as critical habitat are: (1) Hurricane Cliffs; (2) Sunshine 
Ridge; (3) Clayhole Valley; (4) South Canyon; (5) House Rock Valley; 
and (6) Gray Mountain. All of the six critical habitat units were 
occupied by the Fickeisen plains cactus at the time of listing. The 
approximate area of each critical habitat unit is shown in Table 3.

                   Table 3--Designated Critical Habitat Units for the Fickeisen Plains Cactus
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Federal              State              Private              Total
      Critical habitat unit      -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Ha        Ac        Ha        Ac        Ha        Ac        Ha        Ac
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Hurricane Cliffs:
    1a. Dutchman Draw...........     1,525     3,769         0         0         2         5     1,527     3,774
    1b. Salaratus Draw..........       445     1,098       266       658        13        33       724     1,789
    1c. Temple Trail............       443     1,096         0         0         0         0       443     1,096
    1d. Toquer Tank.............       350       865         0         0         0         0       350       865
2. Sunshine Ridge...............       612     1,512       142       351         0         0       754     1,863
3. Clayhole Valley..............       338       836        76       188         0         0       414     1,024
4. South Canyon.................       110       272         0         0         0         0       110       272
5. House Rock Valley:
    5a. Beanhole Well...........       745     1,841       126       312         0         0       871     2,153
    5b. North Canyon Wash.......       472     1,166         0         0         0         0       472     1,166
    5c. Marble Canyon...........       214       528         0         0         0         0       214       528
    5d. South Canyon............       336       831         0         0         0         0       336       831
6. Gray Mountain:
    6a. Mays Wash...............       246       609        80       198         0         0       326       807
    6b. Gray Mountain...........         0         0         7        17       514     1,271       521     1,288
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total...................     5,836    14,423       697     1,724       529     1,309     7,062    17,456
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.

    We present brief descriptions of all units, and reasons why they 
meet the definition of critical habitat for the Fickeisen plains 
cactus, below.
Unit 1: Hurricane Cliffs
    The Hurricane Cliffs Unit is located on the Arizona Strip in the 
north-central area of Mohave County, Arizona. The unit lies 
predominantly on the Shivwits Plateau and is bounded to the west by 
Mainstreet Valley and to the east by the Hurricane Cliffs. The unit 
consists of four subunits totaling 3,044 ha (7,524 ac) and includes 
small areas of private land, lands owned by the State of Arizona, and 
federally owned land managed by the BLM. The entire unit occurs within 
the area referred as the Arizona Strip that is managed by the BLM for 
multiple land use purposes such as livestock grazing, fuels management, 
energy, and recreation. The BLM manages grazing leases for large 
allotments comprised of a mix of their lands as well as State lands. 
Occupancy of the Hurricane Cliffs Unit by the Fickeisen plains cactus 
has been documented since 1986 (BLM 1986, p. 1). The taxon was 
considered generally rare, but in abundant numbers at Dutchman Draw 
with a few scattered individuals located in small clusters adjacent to 
Dutchman Draw populations. These smaller clusters include the Navajo, 
Ward, Salaratus Draw I, Salaratus Draw II, Temple Trail, and Toquer 
Tank populations. This entire unit helps to maintain the geographical 
range of the species and provide opportunity for population growth. 
This unit also provides a core population of the species.
    Subunit 1a: Dutchman Draw--Subunit 1a consists of 1,527 ha (3,774 
ac) of land near Dutchman Draw in Mainstreet Valley. The subunit occurs 
within the Shivwits Plateau and along an exposed fault. Lands within 
this subunit were occupied at the time of listing. A monitoring plot 
was established at this site in 1986. The BLM has visited the plot 
regularly since then. Monitoring information has shown fluctuations in 
plant numbers between years, but among all years, there is an overall 
decline in plant numbers from a peak of 219 individuals in 1992 to 5 
individuals in 2012. This subunit also includes the Navajo and Ward 
cluster plots that were established to note presence or absence of the 
cactus. These small plots were last visited in 2001, and 10 plants were 
found at each of the plots.
    This subunit contains all of the primary constituent elements of 
the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of 
the Fickeisen plains cactus. Occupied habitat areas in this subunit 
occur predominantly within the Plains and Great Basin

[[Page 55284]]

grassland with a small portion in the Great Basin desertscrub 
vegetation communities. Plants occur amongst tall, dense clumps of 
grama grass with some desert shrubs. The subunit is located at the foot 
of a gently sloping hill in fine alluvium deposits. Most of the bedrock 
surface is limestone, siltstone, and gypsum of the Kaibab Formation.
    Subunit 1b: Salaratus Draw--Subunit 1b consists of 724 ha (1,789 
ac) of land near Salaratus Draw. The subunit overlies an active fault 
on the Shivwits Plateau. Lands within this subunit were occupied at the 
time of listing and include Salaratus Draw I and Salaratus Draw II 
populations. This site was visited only three times between 1986 and 
2001. At most, 44 plants were located in this subunit when last visited 
in 1994. This subunit contains all of the primary constituent elements 
of the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of 
the Fickeisen plains cactus.
    Subunit 1c: Temple Trail--Subunit 1c consists of 443 ha (1,096 ac) 
of land in Lower Hurricane Valley. This subunit lies on the Hurricane 
Cliffs. It is bounded by the Shivwits Plateau to the west and the 
Uinkaret Plateau to the east, separated by an active fault that runs 
north along the Hurricane Cliffs. Lands within this subunit were 
occupied at the time of listing. This site was last visited in 2001 
when seven individuals were found. This subunit contains all of the 
primary constituent elements of the physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the Fickeisen plains cactus.
    Subunit 1d: Toquer Tank--Subunit 1d consists of 350 ha (865 ac) of 
land in Lower Hurricane Valley. Lands within this subunit were occupied 
at the time of listing. This site was regularly monitored from 1986 to 
1991, when abundance counts ranged from 7 to 13 plants. This site was 
last visited in 1994, and seven individuals were found. This subunit 
contains all of the primary constituent elements of the physical or 
biological features essential to the conservation of the Fickeisen 
plains cactus.
    The features essential to the conservation of the species within 
this unit are threatened by livestock grazing; nonnative, invasive 
species issues; small mammal predation on the cactus; and long-term 
drought coupled with increased minimum winter temperatures. Special 
management considerations or protection may be required to minimize 
habitat disturbance to Fickeisen plains cactus individuals, soil, and 
associated native vegetation; and to prevent or remove nonnative, 
invasive species within its habitat.
Unit 2: Sunshine Ridge
    The Sunshine Ridge Unit is located on the Arizona Strip and lies on 
the Kanab Plateau in Mohave County, Arizona. The unit totals 754 ha 
(1,863 ac). This unit contains land that is federally and State owned. 
The entire unit is managed primarily by the BLM for multiple land use 
purposes such as livestock grazing, fuels management, energy, and 
recreation. Plants are located east of the Uinkaret Plateau and east of 
the range of the Pediocactus sileri (Siler pincushion cactus). 
Occupancy of the Sunshine Ridge Unit by the Fickeisen plains cactus has 
been documented since 1977 (AGFD 2011b, entire). This population has 
been regularly monitored since 1986, and has 34 plants as of 2011. Land 
within this unit was occupied at the time of listing and contains all 
of the primary constituent elements of the physical or biological 
features essential to the conservation of the Fickeisen plains cactus. 
This unit helps to maintain the geographical range of the species and 
provide opportunity for population growth. This unit also provides a 
core population of the species.
    The features essential to the conservation of the species within 
this unit are threatened by livestock grazing; nonnative, invasive 
species issues; small mammal predation on the cactus; and long-term 
drought coupled with increased minimum winter temperatures. Special 
management considerations or protection may be required to minimize 
habitat disturbance to Fickeisen plains cactus individuals, soil, and 
associated native vegetation; and to prevent or remove nonnative, 
invasive species within its habitat.
Unit 3: Clayhole Valley
    The Clayhole Valley Unit is located in Upper Clayhole Valley on the 
Arizona Strip and lies within the Uinkaret Plateau in Mohave County, 
Arizona. The unit consists of 414 ha (1,024 ac) of land that is 
federally and State owned. The entire unit is managed primarily by the 
BLM for multiple land use purposes including livestock grazing. 
Occupancy of the Clayhole Valley Unit by the Fickeisen plains cactus 
has been documented since 1980 (AGFD 2011b, entire). The population has 
been monitored annually since 1986. As of 2011, the population contains 
42 plants. Land within this unit was occupied at the time of listing 
and contains all of the primary constituent elements of the physical or 
biological features essential to the conservation of the Fickeisen 
plains cactus. This unit helps to maintain the geographical range of 
the species and provide opportunity for population growth. This unit 
also provides a core population of the species.
    The features essential to the conservation of the species within 
this unit are threatened by livestock grazing; nonnative, invasive 
species issues; small mammal predation on the cactus; and long-term 
drought coupled with increased minimum winter temperatures. Special 
management considerations or protection may be required to minimize 
habitat disturbance to Fickeisen plains cactus individuals, soil, and 
associated native vegetation; and to prevent or remove nonnative, 
invasive species within its habitat.
Unit 4: South Canyon
    The South Canyon is located on the eastern boundary of the North 
Kaibab Ranger District of the Kaibab National Forest in Coconino 
County, Arizona. It is bounded by the Colorado River near Marble Canyon 
at House Rock Valley. It includes land originally designated as the 
Grand Canyon National Game Preserve that is now referred to as the 
Buffalo Ranch Management Area. It contains 110 ha (272 ac) of federally 
owned land that is administered by the Kaibab National Forest. This 
unit contains at least 62 individual Fickeisen plains cactus scattered 
among 6 areas along the rim of South Canyon Point. This unit contains 
all of the primary constituent elements of the physical or biological 
features essential to the conservation of the Fickeisen plains cactus. 
This unit helps to maintain the geographical range of the species and 
provide opportunity for population growth. This unit also provides a 
core population of the species.
    The primary land uses within this unit include big game hunting and 
recreational activities throughout the year. The area is very remote 
and may receive limited numbers of hikers, hunters, or campers. Under a 
memorandum of understanding, the Kaibab National Forest and the AGFD 
commit to managing the natural resources of this area, mainly big game 
species, to ensure that sensitive resources are not impacted and 
desired conditions are achieved (USFS 2012, p. 92). Livestock grazing 
by cattle and mining activities are not authorized within the Buffalo 
Ranch Management Area. Special management considerations or protection 
may be required within the unit to minimize habitat disturbance to the 
soil and

[[Page 55285]]

associated native vegetation, and prevent invasion of nonnative plants.
    The features essential to the conservation of the species within 
this unit are threatened by nonnative, invasive species issues and 
long-term drought coupled with increased minimum winter temperatures. 
Special management considerations or protection may be required to 
minimize conditions that may promote or encourage encroachment and 
establishment of nonnative, invasive species; and reduce the likelihood 
of wildfires affecting the population and nearby plant community.
Unit 5: House Rock Valley
    The House Rock Valley is located on the eastern edge of the Arizona 
Strip near the North Rim of the Grand Canyon National Park in Coconino 
County, Arizona. The unit consists of four subunits totaling 1,893 ha 
(4,678 ac) of land. The unit consists of land that is federally and 
State owned. The entire unit is managed primarily by the BLM, mainly 
for livestock grazing. Lands within this unit were occupied at the time 
of listing and contain all of the primary constituent elements of the 
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the 
Fickeisen plains cactus. This entire unit helps to maintain the 
geographical range of the species and provide opportunity for 
population growth. This unit also provides a core population of the 
species.
    Occupancy of the Fickeisen plains cactus in the House Rock Valley 
Unit was first documented in 1979 (Phillips 1979, entire; AGFD 2011b, 
entire), at Beanhole Well, Marble Canyon, and South Canyon. These sites 
have not been visited for more than 21 years. However, we have no 
reason to believe these sites were not occupied at the time of listing 
for reasons provided in the ``Distribution and Range'' section of the 
final listing rule (78 FR 60608). Occupancy at the North Canyon Wash 
site was documented in 1986, and it has been regularly monitored since. 
The House Rock Valley Unit is bounded by the Colorado River to the 
east, U.S. Highway 89A to the north, and the Kaibab National Forest to 
the west.
    Subunit 5a: Beanhole Well--Subunit 5a consists of 745 ha (1,841 ac) 
of federally owned land that is managed by the BLM, and 126 ha (312 ac) 
of State-owned land. Lands within this subunit were occupied at the 
time of listing. Three plants were documented at Beanhole Well in 1979, 
and the site has been visited by Hughes since then, and while occupied 
habitat was observed, no plant numbers were reported to us (Calico 
2012, pers. comm.). This subunit contains all of the primary 
constituent elements of the physical or biological features essential 
to the conservation of the Fickeisen plains cactus.
    Subunit 5b: North Canyon Wash--Subunit 5b consists of 472 ha (1,166 
ac) of federally owned land that is managed by the BLM. Lands within 
this subunit were occupied at the time of listing. This site has been 
regularly monitored since 1986. As of 2011, the site contains 39 
Fickeisen plains cacti. This subunit contains all of the primary 
constituent elements of the physical or biological features essential 
to the conservation of the Fickeisen plains cactus.
    Subunit 5c: Marble Canyon--Subunit 5c consists of 214 ha (528 ac) 
of federally owned land that is managed by the BLM. Lands within this 
subunit were occupied at the time of listing. Eight plants were 
documented at Marble Canyon in 1979. This site has not been visited for 
many years. This subunit contains all of the primary constituent 
elements of the physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of the Fickeisen plains cactus.
    Subunit 5d: South Canyon--Subunit 5d consists of 336 ha (831 ac) of 
Federal land in House Rock Valley along the rim of Marble Canyon. Lands 
within this subunit were occupied at the time of listing. A total of 52 
plants have been documented at this site historically. This subunit 
contains all of the primary constituent elements of the physical or 
biological features essential to the conservation of the Fickeisen 
plains cactus.
    The features essential to the conservation of the species within 
this unit are threatened by livestock grazing; nonnative, invasive 
species issues; small mammal predation on the cactus; and long-term 
drought coupled with increased minimum winter temperatures. Special 
management considerations or protection may be required to minimize 
habitat disturbance to Fickeisen plains cactus individuals, soil, and 
associated native vegetation; and to prevent or remove nonnative, 
invasive species within its habitat.
Unit 6: Gray Mountain
    The Gray Mountain Unit is located in the vicinity of the town of 
Gray Mountain, Arizona, on Highway 89 in Coconino County. The unit 
consists of two subunits totaling 847 ha (2,095 ac). The unit includes 
a checkerboard mix of private land, lands owned by the State, and 
federally owned land managed by the BLM. Lands within this unit are 
considered occupied at the time of listing. Occupancy at the Gray 
Mountain unit was first documented in 1962, and consists of two very 
small populations on both sides of Highway 89. Occupied sites were 
visited in 2013, and a few plants in flower were observed. This unit 
contains all of the primary constituent elements of the physical or 
biological features essential to the conservation of the Fickeisen 
plains cactus. This entire unit helps to maintain the geographical 
range of the species and provide opportunity for population growth. 
This unit also provides a core population of the species.
    Subunit 6a: Mays Wash--Subunit 6a is located southeast of Highway 
89 and consists of 326 ha (807 ac) of land. The subunit includes 
private land, land owned by the State, and federally owned land managed 
by the BLM. The entire subunit lies within a cattle ranch and is 
managed privately for livestock grazing. Lands in this subunit are 
considered occupied at the time of listing. Occupancy at this site was 
documented in 1981 and 1984, when 31 plants were found (AGFD 2011b, 
entire). A site visit to BLM land in 2013 located a few plants in 
flower. This subunit contains all of the primary constituent elements 
of the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of 
the Fickeisen plains cactus.
    Subunit 6b: Gray Mountain--Subunit 6b is located west of Highway 89 
and borders the boundary of the Navajo Nation. This subunit consists of 
521 ha (1,288 ac) of land that is owned by the State and privately 
owned land. The entire subunit lies within a cattle ranch and is 
managed privately for livestock grazing. Lands in this subunit are 
considered occupied at the time of listing. Occupancy was documented in 
2009 when three individuals were found (NNHP 2011a, p. 2). An 
individual in bloom was observed in 2013. This subunit contains all of 
the primary constituent elements of the physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the Fickeisen plains cactus.
    The features essential to the conservation of the species within 
this unit are threatened by livestock grazing by horses and sheep; 
nonnative, invasive species issues; mineral development and associated 
infrastructure; and long-term drought coupled with increased minimum 
winter temperatures. Special management considerations or protection 
may be required to minimize disturbance or destruction to the bedrock 
substrate and associated limestone soils; to prevent or remove 
nonnative, invasive species within its

[[Page 55286]]

habitat; and protect the native vegetation communities.

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation for Acu[ntilde]a Cactus and 
Fickeisen Plains Cactus

Section 7 Consultation

    Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the 
Service, to ensure that any action they fund, authorize, or carry out 
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered 
species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of designated critical habitat of such species. In 
addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to 
confer with the Service on any agency action which is likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed 
under the Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of 
proposed critical habitat.
    We published a final regulation with a new definition of 
destruction or adverse modification on February 11, 2016 (81 FR 7214) 
which becomes effective on March 14, 2016. Destruction or adverse 
modification means a direct or indirect alteration that appreciably 
diminishes the value of critical habitat for the conservation of a 
listed species. Such alterations may include, but are not limited to, 
those that alter the physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of a species or that preclude or significantly delay 
development of such features.
    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 
or authorized, do not require section 7 consultation.
    As a result of section 7 consultation, we document compliance with 
the requirements of section 7(a)(2) 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 Director's opinion, avoid the likelihood of 
jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species and/or avoid 
the likelihood of destroying or adversely modifying critical habitat.
    Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project 
modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs 
associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are 
similarly variable.
    Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate 
consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where we have 
listed a new species or subsequently designated critical habitat that 
may be affected and the Federal agency has retained discretionary 
involvement or control over the action (or the agency's discretionary 
involvement or control is authorized by law). Consequently, Federal 
agencies sometimes may need to request reinitiation of consultation 
with us on actions for which formal consultation has been completed, if 
those actions with discretionary involvement or control may affect 
subsequently listed species or designated critical habitat.

Application of the ``Adverse Modification'' Standard

    The key factor related to the adverse modification determination is 
whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the 
affected critical habitat would continue to serve its intended 
conservation role for the species. Activities that may destroy or 
adversely modify critical habitat are those that result in a direct or 
indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical 
habitat for the conservation of the the acu[ntilde]a cactus or the 
Fickeisen plains cactus. Such alterations may include, but are not 
limited to, those that alter the physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of these species or that preclude or 
significantly delay development of such features. 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 destroy or 
adversely modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such 
designation.
    Activities that may affect critical habitat, when carried out, 
funded, or authorized by a Federal agency, should result in 
consultation for the acu[ntilde]a cactus or the Fickeisen plains 
cactus. These activities include, but are not limited to, actions that 
would adversely affect the composition and structure of soil within the 
designated critical habitat for the acu[ntilde]a cactus or Fickeisen 
plains cactus through land disturbances that result in soil compaction 
or erosion, removal or degradation of native vegetation, or 
fragmentation of the acu[ntilde]a cactus or Fickeisen plains cactus 
populations or their pollinators.
    Such activities within the designated critical habitat for the 
acu[ntilde]a cactus could include, but are not limited to:
    (1) Actions within or near designated critical habitat areas that 
would result in the loss, disturbance, or compaction of soils. Such 
activities could include, but are not limited to: livestock grazing; 
U.S.-Mexican border activities; recreational or other ORV use; mining 
operations; fire management, including clearing of vegetation for fuel 
management; and road construction.
    (2) Activities that would result in changes in the vegetation 
composition, such as a reduction in nurse plants or an introduction or 
proliferation of invasive, nonnative plant cover that may lead to 
unnatural fires or competition for nutrients, water, or space, 
resulting in decreased density or vigor of individual acu[ntilde]a 
cactus.
    (3) Actions within or near designated critical habitat that would 
significantly

[[Page 55287]]

reduce pollination or seed set (reproduction). Such activities could 
include, but are not limited to: Use of pesticides; herbicides; mowing; 
fuels management projects such as prescribed burning; and post-wildfire 
rehabilitation activities using plant species that may compete with the 
acu[ntilde]a cactus.
    (4) Actions within or near designated critical habitat areas that 
would result in the significant alteration of intact, native, Sonoran 
desertscrub vegetation communities within the range of the acu[ntilde]a 
cactus. Such activities could include: ORV activities and dispersed 
recreation; U.S.-Mexico border activities; new road construction or 
widening or existing road maintenance; new energy transmission lines or 
expansion of existing energy transmission lines; new border 
infrastructure; maintenance of any existing energy transmission line 
corridors or border infrastructure; fuels management projects such as 
prescribed burning; and rehabilitation or restoration activities using 
plant species that may compete with the acu[ntilde]a cactus.
    These activities could result in the replacement or fragmentation 
of Sonoran desertscrub vegetation communities through the degradation 
or loss of native shrubs, grasses, and forbs in a manner that promotes 
increased wildfire frequency and intensity, and an increase in the 
cover of invasive, nonnative plant species that would compete for soil 
matrix components and moisture necessary to support the growth and 
reproduction of the acu[ntilde]a cactus.
    For the Fickeisen plains cactus these activities could include, but 
are not limited to:
    (1) Actions within or near designated critical habitat areas that 
would result in the loss, degradation, or compaction of soils along 
canyon rims, mesa tops or ridge tops, terraces, or other areas of 
suitable habitat (e.g., near the base of gently sloping hills). Such 
activities could include, but are not limited to: Livestock grazing; 
recreational or other ORV use; fire management, including clearing of 
vegetation for fuel management; and road construction.
    (2) Actions that would result in the loss of limestone substrate or 
limestone-derived soils. Such activities could include, but are not 
limited to mineral development; development for infrastructure (roads); 
or changes in land-use practices such as conversion of native 
grasslands or desertscrub communities to residential or commercial 
development.
    (3) Activities that would result in changes in soil composition 
leading to changes in the vegetation composition, such as an 
introduction or proliferation of invasive, nonnative plant cover that 
may lead to competition for nutrients, water, or space, resulting in 
decreased density or vigor of individual Fickeisen plains cactus.
    (4) Actions within or near designated critical habitat that would 
significantly reduce pollination or seed set (reproduction). Such 
activities could include, but are not limited to: use of pesticides; 
herbicides; mowing; fuels management projects such as prescribed 
burning; and post-wildfire rehabilitation activities using plant 
species that may compete with the Fickeisen plains cactus.
    (5) Actions within or near designated critical habitat areas that 
would result in the significant alteration of intact, native, 
desertscrub and grassland habitat within the range of the Fickeisen 
plains cactus. Such activities could include: ORV activities and 
dispersed recreation; new road construction or widening or existing 
road maintenance; new energy transmission lines or expansion of 
existing energy transmission lines; maintenance of any existing energy 
transmission line corridors; fuels management projects such as 
prescribed burning; and rehabilitation or restoration activities using 
plant species that may compete with the Fickeisen plains cactus.
    These activities could result in the replacement or fragmentation 
of desertscrub and grassland habitat through the degradation or loss of 
native shrubs, grasses, and forbs in a manner that promotes increased 
wildfire frequency and intensity, and an increase in the cover of 
invasive, nonnative plant species that would compete for soil matrix 
components and moisture necessary to support the growth and 
reproduction of the Fickeisen plains cactus.

Exemptions

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

    The Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a) 
required each military installation that includes land and water 
suitable for the conservation and management of natural resources to 
complete an Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP) by 
November 17, 2001. An INRMP integrates implementation of the military 
mission of the installation with stewardship of the natural resources 
found on the base. Each INRMP includes:
    (1) An assessment of the ecological needs on the installation, 
including the need to provide for the conservation of listed species;
    (2) A statement of goals and priorities;
    (3) A detailed description of management actions to be implemented 
to provide for these ecological needs; and
    (4) A monitoring and adaptive management plan.
    Among other things, each INRMP must, to the extent appropriate and 
applicable, provide for fish and wildlife management; fish and wildlife 
habitat enhancement or modification; wetland protection, enhancement, 
and restoration where necessary to support fish and wildlife; and 
enforcement of applicable natural resource laws.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. 
L. 108-136) amended the Act to limit areas eligible for designation as 
critical habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 
U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) now provides: ``The Secretary shall not 
designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographical areas 
owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for its 
use, that are subject to an integrated natural resources management 
plan 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.''
    We consult with the military on the development and implementation 
of INRMPs for installations with listed species. We analyzed INRMPs 
developed by military installations located within the range of the 
critical habitat designation for the acu[ntilde]a cactus to determine 
if they meet the criteria for exemption from critical habitat under 
section 4(a)(3) of the Act. The following areas are Department of 
Defense lands with completed, Service-approved INRMPs within the 
proposed revised critical habitat designation.
Approved INRMP for the Acu[ntilde]a Cactus
Barry M. Goldwater Gunnery Range--Arizona
    The BMGR has an approved INRMP and is committed to working closely 
with the Service to continually refine the existing INRMP as part of 
the Sikes Act's INRMP review process. Based on our review of the INRMP 
for this military installation, and in accordance with section 
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have determined that the portion of the 
acu[ntilde]a cactus habitat within this installation, identified as 
meeting the definition of critical habitat, is subject to the INRMP, 
and that conservation efforts identified in this INRMP will

[[Page 55288]]

provide a benefit to the acu[ntilde]a cactus. Therefore, lands within 
this installation are exempt from critical habitat designation under 
section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act. We are not including 378 ha (935 ac) 
of habitat on BMGR in the critical habitat designation because of this 
exemption.
    The BMGR completed a revision to the INRMP in relation to ongoing 
and planned conservation efforts for the acu[ntilde]a cactus and 
provided this revision to us during the public comment period. The 
benefits for acu[ntilde]a cactus from this revised INRMP include: 
avoiding disturbance of vegetation and pollinators within 900 m (2,953 
ft) of known acu[ntilde]a cactus plants; developing and implementing 
procedures to control trespass livestock; monitoring illegal 
immigration, contraband trafficking, and border-related enforcement; 
and continuing to monitor and control invasive plant species to 
maintain quality habitat and prevent unnatural fire. Further, BMGR's 
environmental staff reviews projects and enforces existing regulations 
and orders that, through their implementation, projects avoid and 
minimize impacts to natural resources, including acu[ntilde]a cacti and 
their habitat. In addition, BMGR's INRMP provides protection to 
acu[ntilde]a cactus habitat by prohibiting both mining and agriculture 
on their lands. The BMGR INRMP specifies periodic monitoring of the 
distribution and abundance of acu[ntilde]a cacti populations on the 
range.
    Based on the above considerations, and in accordance with section 
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have determined that conservation efforts 
for the acu[ntilde]a cactus identified in the BMGR's INRMP provide a 
benefit to the acu[ntilde]a cactus and its habitat. Therefore, lands 
subject to the INRMP for BMGR, which includes the lands leased from the 
Department of Defense by other parties, are exempt from critical 
habitat designation under section 4(a)(3) of the Act, and we are not 
including approximately 378 ha (935 ac) of habitat in this 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 that determination, the statute on its face, as well 
as the legislative history are clear that the Secretary has broad 
discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and how much weight to give 
to any factor.
    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 of 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 identifying the benefits of exclusion, we consider, among 
other things, whether exclusion of a specific area is likely to result 
in conservation; the continuation, strengthening, or encouragement of 
partnerships; or implementation of a management plan that provides 
equal to or more conservation than a critical habitat designation would 
provide.
    In the case of both cactus species, the benefits of critical 
habitat include public awareness of the two cactus species' presence 
and the importance of habitat protection. Where a Federal nexus exists, 
the designations of critical habitat may also increase habitat 
protection for the two cactus species due to the protection from 
adverse modification or destruction of critical habitat.
    In practice, a Federal nexus exists primarily on Federal lands or 
for projects undertaken by Federal agencies or permits issued by 
Federal agencies. Because the Service finalized the listing rules for 
these species on October 1, 2013, we have not been regularly consulting 
with Federal agencies on their effects to the cacti for projects on 
Federal lands, or for projects on privately owned lands that had a 
Federal nexus to trigger consultation under section 7 of the Act. We 
found one project that considered effects to the acu[ntilde]a cactus 
and eight projects that considered effects to the Fickeisen plains 
cactus over the past 20 years. In these cases, the Federal action 
agency requested our technical assistance in developing conservation 
recommendations aimed at minimizing or reducing effects to the species 
in order to preclude the need for listing and in furtherance of their 
authorities under section 7(a)(1) of the Act.
    When we evaluate the existence of a conservation plan when 
considering the benefits of exclusion, we consider a variety of 
factors, including but not limited to, whether the plan is finalized; 
how it provides for the conservation of the essential physical or 
biological features; whether there is a reasonable expectation that the 
conservation management strategies and actions contained in a 
management plan will be implemented into the future; whether the 
conservation strategies in the plan are likely to be effective; and 
whether the plan contains a monitoring program or adaptive management 
to ensure that the conservation measures are effective and can be 
adapted in the future in response to new information.
    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 by entities seeking exclusion, as 
well as any additional public comments received, we considered whether 
certain lands in the proposed acu[ntilde]a cactus critical habitat Unit 
3 and proposed Fickeisen plains cactus critical habitat Units 6, 7, 8, 
and 9 were appropriate for exclusion from this final designation 
pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act. In particular, we considered 
whether the following were appropriate for exclusion: 156 ha (385 ac) 
of Tohono O'odham Nation land in Unit 3 of acu[ntilde]a cactus proposed 
critical habitat; 3,865 ha (9,554 ac) of Navajo Nation land in proposed 
Fickeisen plains cactus critical habitat Units 6, 7, and 8 (Subunit 
8b); and 8,139 ha (20,113 ac) of Babbitt Ranch, LLC, lands in proposed 
Fickeisen plains cactus critical habitat Units 8 (Subunit 8a) and Unit 
9, respectively, of the Fickeisen plains cactus proposed critical 
habitat. Table 4 below provides approximate areas (ac, ha) of lands 
that meet the definition of critical habitat but are being excluded 
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act from the final critical habitat rule. 
In the sections that follow, we present our discretionary exclusion 
analysis under section 4(b)(2) of the Act for those areas listed in 
Table 4.

[[Page 55289]]



               Table 4--Areas Excluded From Critical Habitat Designation by Critical Habitat Unit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Areas meeting the
                                                                             definition of      Areas excluded
      Proposed critical habitat unit                Specific area          critical habitat,     from critical
                                                                              in hectares         habitat, in
                                                                                (acres)        hectares  (acres)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Acu[ntilde]a Cactus
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3--Sauceda Mountains Unit.................  Sauceda Mountains...........       1,637 (4,044)           156 (385)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Proposed critical habitat unit                Specific area          Areas proposed as    Areas excluded
                                                                           critical habitat,     from critical
                                                                              in hectares         habitat, in
                                                                                (acres)        hectares (acres)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Fickeisen Plains Cactus
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6--Tiger Wash Unit........................  Tiger Wash 1 Subunit........           380 (940)           380 (940)
                                            Tiger Wash 2 Subunit........       1,497 (3,700)       1,497 (3,700)
                                            Shinumo Wash Subunit........           380 (940)           380 (940)
7--Little Colorado River Overlook Unit....  Little Colorado River              1,170 (2,891)       1,170 (2,891)
                                             Overlook.
8--Gray Mountain Unit.....................  Mays Wash Subunit...........         697 (1,724)           371 (917)
                                            Gray Mountain Subunit.......         960 (2,371)         438 (1,083)
9--Cataract Canyon Unit...................  Cataract Canyon.............     7, 768 (19,196)      7,768 (19,196)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consideration of Economic Impacts

    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider the economic impacts 
of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. In order to 
consider economic impacts, we prepared a DEA of the proposed critical 
habitat designation (which included areas we were considering for 
exclusion) and related factors (Industrial Economics 2012, entire). The 
draft analysis, dated February 22, 2013, was made available for public 
review from March 28, 2013, through April 29, 2013 (78 FR 18938). 
Following the close of the comment period, a final economic analysis 
(FEA, dated August 23, 2013) of the potential economic effects of the 
designation was developed taking into consideration the public comments 
and any new information (IEc 2013, entire).
    The intent of the FEA is to quantify the economic impacts of all 
potential conservation efforts for the acu[ntilde]a cactus and the 
Fickeisen plains cactus; some of these costs will likely be incurred 
regardless of whether we designate critical habitat (baseline). The 
economic impact of the final critical habitat designation is analyzed 
by comparing scenarios both ``with critical habitat'' and ``without 
critical habitat.'' The ``without critical habitat'' scenario 
represents the baseline for the analysis, considering protections 
already in place for the species (e.g., under the Federal listing and 
other Federal, State, and local regulations). The baseline, therefore, 
represents the costs incurred regardless of whether critical habitat is 
designated. The ``with critical habitat'' scenario describes the 
incremental impacts associated specifically with the designation of 
critical habitat for the species. The incremental conservation efforts 
and associated impacts are those not expected to occur absent the 
designation of critical habitat for the species. In other words, the 
incremental costs are those attributable solely to the designation of 
critical habitat above and beyond the baseline costs; these are the 
costs we consider in the final designation of critical habitat. The 
analysis looks retrospectively at baseline impacts incurred since the 
species was listed, and forecasts both baseline and incremental impacts 
likely to occur with the designation of critical habitat. For a further 
description of the methodology of the analysis, see Chapter 2, 
``Framework for the Analysis,'' of the FEA.
    The FEA also addresses how potential economic impacts are likely to 
be distributed, including an assessment of any local or regional 
impacts of habitat conservation and the potential effects of 
conservation activities on government agencies, private businesses, and 
individuals. The FEA measures lost economic efficiency associated with 
residential and commercial development and public projects and 
activities, such as economic impacts on water management and 
transportation projects, Federal lands, small entities, and the energy 
industry. Decision-makers can use this information to assess whether 
the effects of the designation might unduly burden a particular group 
or economic sector. The economic analysis provides estimated costs of 
the foreseeable potential economic impacts of the critical habitat 
designation for the two cacti over the next 20 years (2013 to 2032), 
which was determined to be the appropriate period for analysis. This is 
because limited planning information is available for most activities 
to forecast activity levels for projects beyond a 20-year timeframe.
    The FEA quantifies economic impacts of the acu[ntilde]a cactus and 
Fickeisen plains cactus conservation efforts associated with the 
following categories of activity: (1) U.S.-Mexican border activities; 
(2) livestock grazing; (3) uranium mining; (4) commercial development; 
(5) recreational activities; (6) road construction and maintenance; and 
(7) species and habitat management. The total potential incremental 
economic impacts for all of the categories in areas proposed as 
acu[ntilde]a cactus critical habitat over the next 20 years is $34,000, 
an annualized impact of $2,200 (assuming a 7 percent discount rate). 
The total potential incremental economic impacts for the Fickeisen 
plains cactus are forecast to be $39,000, an annualized impact of 
$2,500, in areas proposed for critical habitat designation and $22,000, 
an annualized impact of $1,400, in areas considered for exclusion.
    The Service considered the economic impacts of the critical habitat 
designation and the Secretary is not exercising her discretion to 
exclude any areas from this designation of critical habitat for the 
acu[ntilde]a cactus and Fickeisen plains cactus based on economic 
impacts.
    A copy of the FEA with supporting documents may be obtained by 
contacting the Arizona Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES) 
or by downloading from the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

[[Page 55290]]

Exclusions Based on National Security Impacts or Homeland Security 
Impacts

    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider whether there are 
lands where a national security impact might exist. Department of 
Defense lands that are exempted from critical habitat designation for 
the acu[ntilde]a cactus in this final rule include the BMGR, as 
discussed above in Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, above. 
Additionally, there are specific areas of acu[ntilde]a cactus habitat 
included in this final rule that are not owned or managed by the 
Department of Defense, but on which the U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) operates along the U.S.-Mexico border. The U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection is tasked with maintaining national 
security interests along the nation's international borders. In order 
to achieve and maintain effective control of the United States border, 
CBP, through its component, the U.S. Border Patrol, requires continuing 
and regular access to certain portions of the area designated as 
critical habitat. Because CBP's border security mission has an 
important link to national security, CBP may identify impacts to 
national security that may result from designating critical habitat. We 
do not have information currently indicating that lands within the 
designation of critical habitat for the acu[ntilde]a cactus will have 
an impact on national security.
    We also anticipate no impact on national security from the final 
designation of critical habitat for the Fickeisen plains cactus. 
Therefore, we did not propose an exclusion on this basis.

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, 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.

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 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; and
    (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.

Babbitt Ranches, LLC, Partnership

    We have determined that the private lands owned by the Babbitt 
Ranches, LLC, and State land with a land closure in place that is 
managed by the Babbitt Ranches, LLC, warrant exclusion from the final 
designation of critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. We 
made this determination because the benefits of exclusion outweigh the 
benefits of including those lands in critical habitat based on our 
conservation partnership with the Babbitt Ranches, LLC, and their 
efforts to preserve the integrity of the cactus' habitat as evidenced 
by their management plan. The following represents our rationale for 
excluding certain lands owned or managed by the Babbitt Ranches, LLC, 
that are within the proposed Cataract Canyon Unit and Gray Mountain 
Unit from the final designated critical habitat for the Fickeisen 
plains cactus.
    The Babbitt Ranches, LLC, is a family-owned business that has been 
in operation for over 120 years. It has dedicated itself to managing 
large landholdings in northern Arizona while raising cattle and 
American Quarter Horses in a sustainable manner. They own and operate 
three cattle ranches in northern Arizona--the Cataract, CO Bar, and 
Espee Ranches. The Cataract and CO Bar Ranch include areas occupied by 
the Fickeisen plains cactus and areas proposed as critical habitat (as 
described above). Besides cattle ranching, the Babbitt Ranches, LLC, 
support public recreational opportunities, wildlife conservation, and 
scientific research on the lands they own or manage.
    We proposed to designate Fickeisen plains cactus critical habitat 
in the proposed Cataract Canyon Unit and Gray Mountain Unit, both of 
which are located on a mix of State trust land, Federal land, and 
private land owned by the Babbitt Ranches. The proposed Cataract Canyon 
Unit is located on the Cataract Ranch. It contains 7,768 ha (19,196 ac) 
of State trust and private land that is managed collectively as an 
active cattle ranch. The Gray Mountain Unit (Unit 6) contains two 
subunits that straddle both sides of Highway 89 and total 1,656 ha 
(4,095 ac), and the unit are within the CO Bar Ranch. These subunits 
are located by the town of Gray Mountain and are adjacent to the 
boundary of the Navajo Nation. The proposed Mays Wash Subunit 6a 
contains 697 ha (1,724 ac) and is a checkerboard of Federal, State 
trust, and private parcels within the CO Bar

[[Page 55291]]

Ranch. The proposed Gray Mountain Subunit 6b contains 960 ha (2,371 ac) 
of State trust and private parcels with a small number of acres owned 
by the Babbitt Ranches, LLC, and the remainder to another private 
landowner.
    The Babbitt Ranches, LLC, has a strong record of land stewardship, 
and they have developed a strong partnership with the Service as a 
result. Their commitment to conserving species is supported by their 
cooperative efforts with other private organizations, State, and other 
Federal agencies to better understand and preserve natural resources. 
For example, the Babbitt Ranches, LLC, participated with AGFD in the 
release of federally endangered black-footed ferrets (Mustela nigripes) 
on their ranch. In support of the ferret release program, the Babbitt 
Ranches, LLC, also invited AGFD to annually map and monitor Gunnison's 
prairie dog (Cynomes gunnissioni) colonies. Another example of the 
Babbitt Ranches, LLC, commitment to conservation is their gift of a 24-
acre parcel of land to Northern Arizona University for an ecological 
center to be used by faculty and students.
    The Fickeisen plains cactus has been documented on all three of the 
cattle ranches where critical habitat was proposed. The second largest 
population of Fickeisen plains cactus in existence occurs on the 
Cataract Ranch, which supports 66 percent of the 466 individual 
Fickeisen plains cacti in the rangewide population. Individual cacti 
were first documented on Cataract Ranch in 2006. The population 
appeared to be healthy and viable by the different age classes 
observed, and the surrounding habitat showed little disturbance with 
the natural vegetative community intact. Thus, the status of this 
population further confirms that the holistic management of Cataract 
Ranch has been beneficial to the Fickeisen plains cactus.
    On the State lands that are part of the Cataract Ranch, a land 
closure order was put in place in 1986. The order states: ``The State 
land commissioner has determined that the best interests of the State 
trust would be served by closing the State land described in the 
caption of this Order to mineral claim location, new mineral 
prospecting permit applications, and new mineral lease applications.'' 
In 2011, a second closure order was enacted in which the State land 
commissioner determined that the best interests of the Trust would be 
served by closing ``the State subsurface land to mineral claim 
location, new mineral exploration permits applications and new mineral 
lease applications.''
    The Babbitt Ranches, LLC, also submitted to the Service a Draft 
Fickeisen Plains Cactus Management Plan for Cataract Ranch and the 
Draft Espee Ranch Regional Conservation and Land Use Plan. Although the 
latter incorporates the Fickeisen Plains Cactus Management Plan into a 
broader, regional vision and focuses on conservation actions across all 
of the Babbitt Ranches, we focused our review on the commitments 
described for the Fickeisen plains cactus on Cataract Ranch because the 
majority of the proposed critical habitat occurs there. The Draft 
Fickeisen Plains Cactus Management Plan for Cataract Ranch commits to 
continuing to sustain healthy ecosystems, wildlife habitats, and 
biological diversity. As an active ranching operation, they have 
practiced this philosophy in the past, and will continue to adhere to 
their land ethics, which have preserved native grasslands and shrub-
steppe habitats that incidentally benefit the Fickeisen plains cactus 
and its pollinators. They have a commitment to managing the ranches in 
an ecologically responsible fashion, which is evident in The Nature 
Conservancy's assessment of the land for a conservation easement, and 
by NRCS' rangeland inventory. Additional conservation measures for the 
Fickeisen plains cactus and its habitat within lands owned or managed 
by the Babbitt Ranches, LLC, include:
     A commitment to continuing surveys for the Fickeisen 
plains cactus on the three ranches and to working with the Service and 
others to develop Fickeisen plains cactus survey and monitoring 
protocols that can be employed rangewide.
     Utilizing the best grazing management practices to sustain 
rangeland health and Fickeisen plains cactus habitat over time through 
a rest rotation grazing system and by moving livestock among pastures 
based upon forage utilization and seasonal moisture. By this method, 
the timing, intensity, and frequency of grazing is controlled to allow 
forage and rangeland habitats to recover between grazing periods. 
Depending upon range conditions and the terms of grazing leases, 
maximum utilization of the forage production can range from roughly 35 
to 50 percent. Babbitt Ranches, LLC, generally keeps their stocking 
rates below standard Animal Unit Months and grazing lease maximums. 
Although a written prescription is not followed for determining the 
number of cattle to keep on a pasture and length of time, livestock 
will continue to be managed to sustain productive forage and an intact 
ecosystem that integrates their commitment to conservation and healthy 
landscapes.
     Willingness to participate in any study or program related 
to collection, propagation, banking, and translocation of the Fickeisen 
plains cactus if such measures are considered feasible or desirable for 
survival and recovery of the taxon in response to climate change and 
extended droughts.
     Collecting information on small mammal predation during 
monitoring, and if it becomes an issue on lands owned or managed by the 
Babbitt Ranches, LLC, measures designed to exclude predators from 
Fickeisen plains cactus populations will be investigated.
Benefits of Inclusion--Babbitt Ranches, LLC
    As discussed above under Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act, 
the primary effect of designating any particular area as critical 
habitat is the requirement for Federal agencies to consult with us 
under section 7 of the Act to ensure actions they carry out, authorize, 
or fund do not adversely modify designated critical habitat. Absent 
critical habitat designation in occupied areas, Federal agencies remain 
obligated under section 7 of the Act to consult with us on actions that 
may affect a federally listed species to ensure such actions do not 
jeopardize the species' continued existence. 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. The 
regulatory standard is different, as the jeopardy analysis investigates 
the action's impact on the survival and recovery of the species, while 
the adverse modification analysis focuses on the action's effects on 
the designated habitat's contribution to conservation. This will, in 
many instances, lead to different results and different regulatory 
requirements. Thus, critical habitat designations may provide greater 
benefits to the recovery of the species than listing alone.
    For some species (including Fickeisen plains cactus), and in some 
locations (in particular, those occupied by the taxon), the outcome of 
these analyses will be similar, because effects to habitat will often 
also result in effects to the species, and it is often difficult or 
impossible to differentiate between actions that avoid jeopardy to the 
species and actions needed solely to avoid destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat. Although all of the land excluded in 
this critical habitat designation is occupied by the taxon, the taxon 
occurs in low densities with individuals

[[Page 55292]]

commonly spaced far apart. In some areas, impacts to critical habitat 
or, more specifically, the primary constituent elements will not result 
in direct impacts to the Fickeisen plains cactus. Therefore, the 
outcome of an adverse modification analysis in these areas would differ 
from the outcome of a jeopardy analysis.
    Critical habitat may provide a regulatory benefit for the Fickeisen 
plains cactus when there is a Federal nexus present for a project that 
might adversely modify critical habitat. A Federal nexus generally 
exists where land is federally owned, or where actions proposed on non-
Federal lands require a Federal permit or Federal funding. In the 
absence of a Federal nexus, the regulatory benefit provided through 
section 7 consultation under the Act does not exist. Any activities 
over which a Federal agency has discretionary involvement or control 
affecting designated critical habitat on Federal land would trigger a 
requirement to consult under section 7 of the Act. The Mays Wash 
subunit contains Federal land; the remainder of the proposed critical 
habitat in the proposed Cataract Canyon Unit and Gray Mountain Unit 
comprise State trust land and private land.
    On the CO Bar Ranch, there are 87 ha (215 ac) of State trust land 
and 246 ha (609 ac) of BLM land that are split estate with BLM having 
subsurface mineral rights. These lands were included in the Gray 
Mountain Unit in the proposed critical habitat designation. On these 
lands, there is the potential for subsurface mineral operations, which 
would be outside of the management control of the Babbitt Ranches, LLC. 
Inclusion of these lands in a critical habitat designation would 
require the BLM to consult with the Service in order to ensure that the 
primary constituent elements are not adversely modified or destroyed. 
These regulatory benefits of inclusion are limited to areas with the 
potential to have a Federal nexus, and, thus, generally limited to 
these 87 ha (215 ac) of split estate State trust land and 246 ha (609 
ac) of BLM land.
    Although no Federal land exists within the proposed Cataract Canyon 
Unit, there is potential for a Federal nexus for activities proposed on 
the Cataract Ranch due to Federal funding. The Babbitt Ranches, LLC, 
have partnered with the NRCS in the past and may again in the future. 
Most Federal actions would be beneficial such as rangeland 
improvements, invasive plant eradication, and wildlife habitat 
enhancements. However, as a result of the establishment and 
implementation of protections associated with a 13,953-ha (34,480-ac) 
conservation easement referred to as the Coconino Plateau Natural 
Reserve Lands, it is unlikely that future Federal actions would impact 
the overall goal of the easement. The land was placed under the 
easement for the goal of protecting and preserving the historical and 
cultural aspects of the property as an active agricultural and 
livestock operation; and to preserve the conservation and open space 
values of the property by continuing to establish, define, and promote 
private land stewardship and a historical sense of obligation and 
responsibility for the land and its ecology. Because of protection of 
these lands, it is unlikely that future Federal actions would cause 
adverse modification of Fickeisen plains cactus critical habitat. If 
actions that could affect Fickeisen plains cacti and their habitat do 
occur, it is likely that the protections provided the taxon and its 
habitat under section 7(a)(2) of the Act would be largely redundant 
with the protections offered by the conservation easement.
    Additionally, lands in the proposed Cataract Canyon Unit may have 
additional conservation value because the Babbitt Ranches, LLC, 
practice sustainable cattle ranching to maintain native vegetation 
communities and to improve and protect overall rangeland health. These 
efforts promote the conservation of suitable Fickeisen plains cactus 
habitat. The established purpose of the conservation easement is 
intended to protect the existing functional values of the native biotic 
communities, which sustain the cactus. Therefore, it is unlikely that 
Federal actions or actions conducted by the Babbitt Ranches, LLC, would 
result in depreciable diminishment or a long-term reduction of the 
capability of Fickeisen plains cactus habitat to recover. As a result, 
any rare Federal action that may result in formal consultation will 
likely result in only discretionary conservation recommendations (i.e., 
adverse modification threshold is not likely to be reached). We believe 
there is an extremely low probability of mandatory elements (i.e., 
reasonable and prudent alternatives) arising from formal section 7 
consultations that include consideration of designated Fickeisen plains 
cactus critical habitat. As a result, the benefits of including these 
lands in the final critical habitat designation are reduced.
    The designation of critical habitat for the Fickeisen plains cactus 
on Babbitt Ranches, LLC, would bring awareness of the cactus' presence 
to the State of Arizona during their review of mining leases, 
exploratory permits, or other land use activities under State control. 
Prior to any land-disturbing activity on State trust land by a project 
proponent, the Arizona State Land Department requires a pre-
construction native plant survey. The required native plan survey would 
determine the compensation that must be paid to the Arizona State Land 
Department for the removal of specific cacti, including the Fickeisen 
plains cactus, which is currently considered a ``highly safeguarded 
protected'' plant. However, any action taken between the State and an 
application to protect or conserve the Fickeisen plains cactus or 
designated critical habitat from mineral activities would be at their 
discretion. Because it is unlikely that there would be a Federal nexus 
on State trust land unless a permit is required from a Federal agency 
or funding is appropriated, the educational benefits of including these 
lands in the final designation of critical habitat is minimized.
    Another important benefit of including Babbitt Ranches, LLC, lands 
in a critical habitat designation is that the designation can serve to 
educate other landowners, agencies, neighboring tribes, and the public 
regarding the potential conservation value of an area, and may help 
focus conservation efforts on areas of high conservation value for 
certain species. Any information about the Fickeisen plains cactus, its 
endemism, and its rarity, that reaches a wide audience, including 
parties engaged in conservation activities, is valuable. However, the 
educational benefits of designating critical habitat for the Fickeisen 
plains cactus on the Babbitt Ranches, LLC, are small compared to those 
derived through conservation efforts currently being implemented.
Benefits of Exclusion--Babbitt Ranches, LLC
    The benefits of excluding land owned by the Babbitt Ranches, LLC, 
from the designation of critical habitat for the Fickeisen plains 
cactus are substantial and include: (1) Continuance and strengthening 
of our effective working relationship with the Babbitt Ranches, LLC, 
NRCS, and the Arizona State Land Department to promote voluntary, 
proactive conservation of the Fickeisen plains cactus and its habitat 
as opposed to reactive regulation; (2) allowance for continued 
meaningful collaboration and cooperation in working toward species 
recovery, including conservation benefits that might not otherwise 
occur; and (3) encouragement of developing additional conservation 
easements and

[[Page 55293]]

other conservation and management plans in the future for other 
federally listed and sensitive 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 judicious 
exclusion of specific areas of non-federally owned lands from critical 
habitat designations can contribute to species recovery and provide a 
superior level of conservation than critical habitat alone. The Service 
believes that, where consistent with the discretion provided by the 
Act, it is necessary to implement policies that provide positive 
incentives to private 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).
    We believe it is essential for the recovery of the Fickeisen plains 
cactus to build on continued conservation activities such as these with 
proven partners like the Babbitt Ranches, LLC. Exclusion of the entire 
Cataract Ranch (on the proposed Cataract Canyon Unit) will help 
preserve the partnership that we have established with the Babbitt 
Ranches, LLC, and with State agencies and local governments to foster 
future partnerships and encourage the establishment of future 
conservation and management of habitat for the Fickeisen plains cactus 
and other sensitive taxa. Furthermore, exclusion of the portions of the 
proposed Mays Wash subunit that are privately owned and managed by the 
Babbitt Ranches, LLC, will help preserve our partnership.
    The Babbitt Ranches, LLC, have maintained an effective working 
relationship with many public and government entities including the 
Service for many years for the purpose of achieving their own values as 
agricultural landowners, which are described in the Constitution of 
Babbitt Ranches and evidenced by their management actions. The Babbitt 
Ranches, LLC, management plan and the conservation easement 
establishing the Coconino Plateau Natural Reserve Lands provides 
substantial protection and management for the Fickeisen plains cactus. 
Specifically, both the management plan and easement provide protection 
and management of the physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of the taxon, and address conservation issues from a 
coordinated, integrated perspective. Therefore, the management plan and 
easement are expected to result in coordinated landscape-scale 
conservation that can contribute to genetic diversity by preserving the 
population, habitat, and native pollinators and their habitat that 
support recovery of the cactus and other endemic wildlife species.
    In summary, we believe excluding State trust land (subject to land 
closure) managed by the Babbitt Ranches, LLC, and lands owned by the 
Babbitt Ranches, LLC, from the critical habitat designation will 
provide the significant benefit of maintaining our existing partnership 
and fostering new ones.
Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Inclusion
    We evaluated the exclusion of approximately 7,768 ha (19,196 ac) of 
private and State land within the boundaries of the proposed Cataract 
Canyon Unit from our proposed designation of critical habitat, and we 
determined the benefits of excluding all of these lands outweigh the 
benefits of including them as critical habitat for the Fickeisen plains 
cactus. We also evaluated the exclusion of approximately 1,656 ha 
(4,095 ac) of private, State, and Federal land managed by the Babbitt 
Ranches, LLC, within the boundaries of the proposed Gray Mountain Unit 
from our proposed designation of critical habitat. We have determined 
the benefits of excluding 371 ha (917 ac) of private land within the 
Mays Wash Subunit of the Gray Mountain Unit outweigh the benefits of 
including the area as critical habitat for the Fickeisen plains cactus.
    The Babbitt Ranches have been and will continue to be managed to 
support sustainable cattle operations in response to variable annual 
climatic conditions and long-term shifts in global temperatures and 
precipitation, and in a manner that is consistent with the philosophy 
and land ethic of Babbitt Ranches, LLC, that is formalized in their 
constitution. Their holistic approach to managing their land use 
activities with the economic and social communities has contributed to 
the existence of a large, reproducing Fickeisen plains cactus 
population, which we recognized in the October 1, 2013, final listing 
rule (78 FR 60608).
    The Service believes 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 the private 
and State trust lands within the proposed critical habitat designation. 
These benefits are further reduced by the existence of a 13,953-ha 
(34,480-ac) conservation easement on the Cataract Ranch that contains 
2,848 ha (7,037 ac) of proposed critical habitat. We anticipate that 
there will be little additional Federal regulatory benefit to the taxon 
on State trust land because there is a low likelihood that those 
parcels 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.
    All areas that were proposed for critical habitat on the Babbitt 
Ranches, LLC, are occupied by the taxon. The educational benefits of 
including these lands are small. The designation of critical habitat 
can serve to educate the general public as well as conservation 
organizations regarding the potential conservation value of an area, 
but this goal is already being accomplished. Through the identification 
of deeded land as the Coconino Plateau Natural Reserve Lands and the 
Babbitt Ranches Land Steward Institute, an educational and research 
platform is already established for partners wishing to collaborate 
with the Babbitt Ranches on ecological research needs. Given the 
history of collaborating and partnering with Federal and State 
agencies, local governments, research institutions, and other partners 
to sustain native grasslands and wildlife conservation, the Service 
anticipates that the conservation strategies described in the Babbitt 
Ranches draft Fickeisen Plains Cactus Management Plan will be 
implemented in the future.
    In summary, we find that excluding areas from critical habitat that 
are receiving both long-term conservation and management for the 
purpose of protecting the native grassland ecosystem, and thus the 
habitat that supports the Fickeisen plains cactus, will preserve our 
partnership with the Babbitt Ranches, LLC, 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 final critical habitat for the Fickeisen plains cactus. 
Therefore, the conservation easement and the overall management of 
Babbitt Ranches, LLC,

[[Page 55294]]

provides greater protection of habitat for the Fickeisen plains cactus 
than could be gained through the project-by-project analysis of a 
critical habitat designation.
Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Species--Babbitt 
Ranches, LLC
    We determined that the exclusion of 7,768 ha (19,196 ac) of land 
within the boundaries of the proposed Cataract Canyon Unit and 371 ha 
(917 ac) of private land within Mays Wash Subunit of the Gray Mountain 
Unit for the Fickeisen plains cactus will not result in extinction of 
the taxon. Protections afforded the taxon and its habitat by the 
conservation easement and the history of land stewardship of Babbitt 
Ranches, LLC, as described in the Babbitt Ranches Draft Fickeisen 
Plains Cactus Management Plan, provide assurances that the taxon will 
not go extinct as a result of excluding these lands from the critical 
habitat designation. 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 8,139 ha (20,113 ac) of land from 
the designation of critical habitat for Fickeisen plains cactus.
Tribal Lands
    There are several Executive Orders, Secretarial Orders, and 
policies that relate to working with Tribes. These guidance documents 
generally confirm our trust responsibilities to Tribes, recognize that 
Tribes have sovereign authority to control Tribal lands, emphasize the 
importance of developing partnerships with Tribal governments, and 
directs the Service to consult with Tribes on a government-to-
government basis.
    A joint Secretarial Order that applies to both FWS and NMFS, 
Secretarial Order 3206, American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal 
Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act (June 5, 1997) 
(S.O. 3206), is the most comprehensive of the various guidance 
documents related to Tribal relationships and Act implementation, and 
it provides the most detail directly relevant to the designation of 
critical habitat. In addition to the general direction discussed above, 
S.O. 3206 explicitly recognizes the right of Tribes to participate 
fully in the listing process, including designation of critical 
habitat. The Order also states: ``Critical habitat shall not be 
designated in such areas unless it is determined essential to conserve 
a listed species. In designating critical habitat, the Services shall 
evaluate and document the extent to which the conservation needs of the 
listed species can be achieved by limiting the designation to other 
lands.'' In light of this instruction, when we undertake a 
discretionary 4(b)(2) exclusion analysis, we will always consider 
exclusions of Tribal lands under section 4(b)(2) of the Act prior to 
finalizing a designation of critical habitat, and will give great 
weight to Tribal concerns in analyzing the benefits of exclusion.
    However, S.O. 3206 does not preclude us from designating Tribal 
lands or waters as critical habitat, nor does it state that Tribal 
lands or waters cannot meet the Act's definition of ``critical 
habitat.'' We are directed by the Act to identify areas that meet the 
definition of ``critical habitat'' (i.e., areas occupied at the time of 
listing that contain the essential physical or biological features that 
may require special management or protection and unoccupied areas that 
are essential to the conservation of a species), without regard to 
landownership. While S.O. 3206 provides important direction, it 
expressly states that it does not modify the Secretaries' statutory 
authority.
Tohono O'odham Nation
    We have worked with the Tohono O'odham Nation to consolidate 
information on their past, present, and future voluntary measures and 
management to conserve the acu[ntilde]a cactus and its habitat on their 
lands. We have determined, pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act, that 
we will exclude approximately 156 ha (385 ac) of Tohono O'odham Nation 
land in Unit 3 from the final designation of critical habitat for the 
acu[ntilde]a cactus. As described in our discretionary exclusion 
analysis below, we have reached this determination because the benefits 
of excluding their lands from the final critical habitat designation 
outweigh the benefits of including their lands in the designation due 
to our ongoing and effective working partnership with the Tohono 
O'odham Nation.
    The Tohono O'odham Nation is located in southern Arizona on lands 
in Pima, Pinal, and Maricopa Counties. The Tohono O'odham Nation 
encompasses 1,133,120 ha (2,800,000 ac) of land and is divided into 11 
districts. The Tohono O'odham Nation's eastern boundary is located 
approximately 24 kilometers (km) (15 miles (mi)) west of the city of 
Tucson, and the administrative center is in the town of Sells, 
approximately 89 km (55 mi) southwest of Tucson. We continue to work 
with the Tohono O'odham Nation and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 
on wildlife and plant-related projects including recovery efforts for 
Sonoran pronghorn (Antilocapra americana sonoriensis) and jaguar 
(Panthera onca) as well as surveys and monitoring for Pima pineapple 
cactus, jaguar, ocelot (Leopardus pardalis), lesser long-nosed bat 
(Leptonycteris curasoae yerbabuenae), and cactus ferruginous pygmy owls 
(Glaucidium brasilianum cactorum). We have established and maintain a 
cooperative working relationship with the Tohono O'odham Nation and the 
BIA when they request review of environmental assessments, seek 
technical advice, and conduct consultations for Tohono O'odham Nation 
projects. Surveys for any listed species are conducted by the BIA or 
Tohono O'odham Nation personnel prior to implementation of projects. In 
April of 2003, the Tohono O'odham Nation and the Service signed a 
Statement of Relationship that indicates the Tohono O'odham Nation, 
through its Natural Resources Department, will work in close 
collaboration with the Service to provide effective protections for 
listed species. In addition, the Service awarded a Tribal Wildlife 
Grant to the Tohono O'odham Nation in 2010 to conduct an inventory of 
the flora and fauna of the Baboquivari Mountains on Tribal lands. This 
information will be used to inform the management and conservation of 
wildlife and plant resources on Tribal lands in this area, including 
listed and sensitive species.
    As a sovereign entity, the Tohono O'odham Nation seeks to continue 
to protect and manage their resources according to their traditional 
and cultural practices. The Tohono O'odham Nation requested that their 
land be excluded from the designation of critical habitat for the 
acu[ntilde]a cactus due to their sovereign status and their right to 
manage their own resources. They are concerned that critical habitat 
designation on their land would limit the Nation's right to self-
determination and self-governance. The Tohono O'odham Nation recognizes 
that their land contains acu[ntilde]a cactus individuals and habitat, 
and they consider acu[ntilde]a cactus, like all cacti, to be culturally 
significant. Tohono O'odham Nation conservation measures to protect the 
acu[ntilde]a cactus include project review prior to ground-disturbing 
activity and surveys.
Benefits of Inclusion--Tohono O'odham Nation
    Federal agencies, in consultation with the Service, must ensure 
that their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence 
of any listed

[[Page 55295]]

species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of any 
designated critical habitat of such species. The difference in the 
outcomes of the jeopardy analysis and the adverse modification analysis 
represents the regulatory benefit and costs of critical habitat. The 
areas proposed as critical habitat that occur within the Tohono O'odham 
Nation are occupied by the acu[ntilde]a cactus and, therefore, if a 
Federal action or permitting occurs, there is a catalyst for evaluation 
under section 7 of the Act whether or not the area is designated as 
critical habitat.
    Few regulatory benefits to the acu[ntilde]a cactus would be gained 
from a designation of critical habitat on the Tohono O'odham Nation 
lands, because the Nation already requires project review prior to any 
ground-disturbing activity due to the recognition of the cactus as a 
culturally significant plant and because the species is already listed. 
Because these conservation measures are already in place, it would be 
highly unlikely that any consultation would result in a determination 
of adverse modification. In addition, during coordination with the 
Tohono O'odham Nation, the Tribe indicated that they are not 
considering any project actions in the area where acu[ntilde]a cactus 
occur. Therefore, we also do not anticipate that Tribal actions would 
be likely to result in adverse impacts to acu[ntilde]a cactus requiring 
formal section 7 consultations. For these reasons, the regulatory 
benefit of a critical habitat designation on these lands is minimized.
    There is the possible benefit that additional funding could be 
generated for habitat improvement in an area being designated as 
critical habitat. Tribes often seek additional sources of funding in 
order to conduct wildlife-related conservation activities. Therefore, 
having an area designated as critical habitat could improve the chances 
of receiving funding for acu[ntilde]a cactus habitat-related projects.
    Another possible benefit of including lands in a critical habitat 
designation is that the designation can serve to educate the public 
regarding the potential conservation value of an area, and this may 
focus conservation efforts on areas of high conservation value for 
certain species. However, the Tohono O'odham Nation lands were included 
in the proposed designation of critical habitat; the proposal itself 
has reached a wide audience and has, thus, provided information to the 
broader public, as well as the BIA and the Tribe, about the 
conservation value of this area. Since publication of the proposed 
critical habitat designation, the Tribe has conducted a survey to 
locate acu[ntilde]a cactus within areas proposed as critical habitat. 
Therefore, additional educational benefits of an acu[ntilde]a cactus 
critical habitat designation on Tohono O'odham Nation lands are 
minimized.
Benefits of Exclusion--Tohono O'odham Nation
    The proposed critical habitat designation includes approximately 
156 ha (385 ac) of Sonoran desert-scrub habitat with the Tohono O'odham 
Nation boundaries. Benefits of excluding these Tribal lands from 
designated critical habitat include the continuance and strengthening 
of our ongoing and effective working relationship with Tohono O'odham 
Nation to promote the conservation of listed species, including the 
acu[ntilde]a cactus and its habitat. We recognize and endorse the 
resource management activities of the Nation with regard to listed 
species and have been informed of the development of a draft land 
management plan for the Tohono O'odham Nation, which will include 
conservation measures for the acu[ntilde]a cactus. We have established 
a working relationship with Tohono O'odham Nation through informal and 
formal meetings that offered information sharing, technical advice, 
assistance, and recommended conservation measures for acu[ntilde]a 
cactus and its habitat. We find that conservation benefits (e.g., 
acu[ntilde]a cactus surveys and project review) are being provided to 
the acu[ntilde]a cactus and its habitat through our cooperative working 
relationship with the Tohono O'odham Nation.
    We assign great weight to the benefits of excluding Tribal lands, 
which would honor our cooperative partnership with the Tribe. During 
our discussions with the Tohono O'odham Nation and through a letter 
received during our first public comment period, we were informed that 
the designation of critical habitat on Tribal land would be viewed as 
an intrusion on their sovereign ability to manage natural resources in 
accordance with their own policies, customs, and laws. To this end, we 
found that the Tohono O'odham Nation would prefer to work with us on a 
government-to-government basis. For these reasons, we believe that our 
working relationship with the Tohono O'odham Nation would be better 
maintained and more effective if they are excluded from the designation 
of critical habitat for the acu[ntilde]a cactus. The benefits of 
excluding this area from critical habitat will encourage the continued 
cooperation and development of data-sharing and management plans for 
this and other listed species. If this area is designated as critical 
habitat, we believe it is unlikely that sharing of information related 
to the acu[ntilde]a cactus would occur.
Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Inclusion--Tohono 
O'odham Nation
    The benefits of including the Tohono O'odham Nation in critical 
habitat are small and are limited to educational and regulatory 
benefits. However, as discussed above, these educational benefits are 
minimized because they have been provided for already through including 
lands on the Nation in the proposed critical habitat designation. 
Similarly, the regulatory benefits are minimized because all areas 
proposed as critical habitat within the Tohono O'odham Nation are 
occupied and, thus, already subject to section 7 of the Act regardless 
of a critical habitat designation. Therefore, it is highly unlikely 
that any consultation would result in a determination of adverse 
modification. Alternatively, the benefits of excluding these areas from 
critical habitat for the acu[ntilde]a cactus are more significant and 
include encouraging the continued partnership with the Tribe as well as 
development and implementation of special management measures such as 
project review prior to ground-disturbing activity and surveys. These 
activities will allow the Tohono O'odham Nation to manage their natural 
resources to benefit the acu[ntilde]a cactus without the perception of 
Federal government intrusion that would occur if we designated critical 
habitat on their land. This philosophy is also consistent with our 
published policies on Native American natural resource management. The 
exclusion of this area will likely also provide additional benefits to 
the species that would not otherwise be available to encourage and 
maintain cooperative working relationships. Therefore, we find that the 
benefits of excluding Tohono O'odham Nation lands from critical habitat 
designation outweigh the benefits of including this area.
Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Species--Tohono O'odham 
Nation
    As noted above, the Secretary, under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, 
may exclude areas from the critical habitat designation unless it is 
determined, ``based on the best scientific and commercial data 
available, that the failure to designate such area as critical habitat 
will result in the extinction of the species concerned.'' We have 
determined that exclusion of the Tohono O'odham Nation from the

[[Page 55296]]

critical habitat designation will not result in the extinction of the 
acu[ntilde]a cactus. The Tohono O'odham Nation has committed to 
protecting and managing the acu[ntilde]a cactus and is in the process 
of creating a natural resources management plan, which will include the 
acu[ntilde]a cactus as well as all listed plant and animal species 
found on their lands. In summary, the Tohono O'odham Nation has 
committed to conservation measures for the acu[ntilde]a cactus on their 
land that are at least equal to the conservation value that would be 
available through the designation of critical habitat. With the 
implementation of these conservation measures and ongoing coordination 
with the Tribe with regard to conservation of the acu[ntilde]a cactus, 
the exclusion of Tohono O'odham Nation land from proposed critical 
habitat will not result in extinction of the species. Accordingly, we 
have determined that the Tohono O'odham Nation should be excluded from 
acu[ntilde]a cactus critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) 
of the Act, because the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of 
inclusion and will not cause the extinction of the species.
Navajo Nation
    We have determined, pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act, that we 
will exclude approximately 3,865 ha (9,554 ac) of Navajo Nation land in 
proposed Fickeisen plains cactus critical habitat Units 6 (Tiger Wash 
Unit), 7 (Little Colorado River Overlook Unit), and Subunit 8b (Gray 
Mountain Subunit) from the final designation of critical habitat for 
the Fickeisen plains cactus. We are excluding the entire Unit 6 and 7, 
along with all portions of Subunit 8b on Navajo Nation lands. As 
described in our discretionary exclusion analysis below, we have 
reached this determination because the benefits of excluding their 
lands from the final critical habitat designation outweigh the benefits 
of including their lands in the designation due to our ongoing and 
effective working relationship with the Navajo Nation.
    The Navajo Nation recognizes the Fickeisen plains cactus as a 
species in need of protection and special management on lands they 
administer (RCF-014-91) (Navajo Nation 2013, p. 5). Their management 
plan would serve as a tool for conserving the cactus and its habitat on 
the Navajo Nation. The Navajo Nation Department of Fish and Wildlife 
(NNDFW) will review their management plan for effectiveness and make 
revisions according to the current status of the cactus under Navajo 
and Federal law. Reviews will be conducted every 5 years or when new, 
significant information about threats or management becomes available 
for the Fickeisen plains cactus.
    The Navajo Nation Code, at 17 NNC section 507, recognizes the 
importance of endangered species, establishes a penalty for the 
disturbance of these species, and charges the Director, NNDFW, with the 
responsibility to recommend to the Resources Committee of the Navajo 
Nation Council updates to the Navajo Endangered Species List (NESL). 
The first record of the Fickeisen plains cactus on the Navajo Nation is 
from 1956 (Navajo Nation 2013, p.10). The Navajo Nation listed the 
Fickeisen plains cactus as a Group 3 endangered species on the NESL in 
1991 (RCF-014-91). A Group 3 species is a species or subspecies whose 
prospects of survival or recruitment are likely to be in jeopardy in 
the foreseeable future. The cactus was included on the NESL due to its 
limited geographic range, specificity of habitat requirements, low 
recruitment rate and decline in numbers, and threats from livestock 
grazing, ORV use, potential for recreational development within its 
habit, and illegal collection. There are 15 known occurrences of the 
Fickeisen plains cactus on the Navajo Nation with an estimated total 
population of 506 individuals.
    The NNDFW has management authority for fish, wildlife, and native 
plants with regard to endangered and threatened species protection; and 
all temporary and permanent developments must receive clearance from 
the NNDFW. The NNDFW reviews a project's potential impact on protected 
wildlife or their habitat by using their Natural Heritage Database and 
various Tribal and Federal wildlife protection regulations, and 
recommends approval, disapproval, or conditional approval to the 
Resources and Development Committee. As a species included on the NESL, 
the Fickeisen plains cactus is protected from disturbance, and 
conservation of the cactus and its habitat will be facilitated 
primarily through the Navajo Nation's existing policies for managing 
and conserving natural resources.
    In 2003, the Resources Committee of the Navajo Nation Council, by 
Resolution No. RCMA-34-03, approved the Biological Resources Land Use 
Clearance Policies and Procedures, also known as the Navajo Nation 
Resource Conservation Plan (RCP). The RCP is a tool used by the Navajo 
Nation, local chapters, and developers to guide environmentally 
responsible development and to protect resources of high conservation 
value, including habitats of listed species. The RCP is based on 
comprehensive rare and threatened species data held in a NNDFW NNHP 
database and identifies and defines habitats and landscapes on the 
Navajo Nation based on their conservation value. The RCP divides the 
Navajo Nation into six land status categories based on their biological 
sensitivity and uses these categories to manage actions in a way that 
minimizes impacts to sensitive species and habitats. The Fickeisen 
plains cactus is located in areas designated as Area 5 (biological 
preserves), Area 2 (medium sensitivity) and Area 3 (low sensitivity). 
Documentation of impacts that a proposed project may have on biological 
resources is required for each of these areas. The NNDFW provides 
technical assistance to the Nation, chapters, and developers in 
following the RCP, and assesses adherence to the RCP during project 
review for making recommendations to the Resources and Development 
Committee.
    Area 5 lands (biological preserves) are landscapes of high wildlife 
value and little or no current development or disturbance, or are 
particularly important for one or more protected species. Permanent or 
temporary development within biological preserves is prohibited unless 
it is compatible with the management of those areas as wildlife 
habitat. For development in biological preserves, the standard process 
for planning and approval of development, as described in the RCP, must 
be implemented. The NNDFW is committed to ensuring that any development 
that occurs in biological preserves is consistent with ecotourism 
principles.
    The proposed Tiger Wash Unit, proposed Little Colorado River 
Overlook Unit, and portions of the proposed Gray Mountain Subunit occur 
on the Navajo Nation. These 3 proposed critical habitat units, 
including 9 of the 15 Fickeisen plains cactus populations on the Navajo 
Nation, are located within 2 biological preserves. These biological 
preserves are the Little Colorado River and Marble Canyon Preserves 
(Navajo Nation 2013, p. 17). The RCP thus creates an avenue for the 
NNDFW to recommend conservation measures to avoid or minimize impacts 
to plants and its habitat. Proposed development projects must 
demonstrate that impacts to protected species will be minimal, and the 
NNDFW strongly urges relocating projects to less sensitive habitats if 
possible.
    Although NNDFW makes a strong effort to avoid impacts to habitats 
of sensitive species through project evaluation, some necessary

[[Page 55297]]

developments may occur and efforts will be made to reduce, minimize, or 
mitigate potential project impacts. When a project could disturb 
Fickeisen plains cactus habitat, NNDFW requires the project sponsor to 
adhere to protocol surveys and avoidance restrictions. Projects with 
the potential to disturb or affect its habitat require a 61-m (200-ft) 
avoidance buffer from known plants. The size of the buffer is more or 
less dependent on the scope and scale of the proposed project.
    The NNDFW recognizes the impact nonnative, invasive species have on 
the native vegetation community and to other listed species they manage 
on their land. They are uncertain whether exotic annual species 
negatively impact the Fickeisen plains cactus and its habitat. The 
Navajo Nation will monitor the presence of exotic annual species within 
occupied habitat and document any effects exotics may pose, including 
effects from a potential fire caused by overabundance of these species. 
The NNHP staff will incorporate a plant community survey into their 
monitoring efforts to record if there is a relationship between weed 
abundance and the status of the cactus population. If studies establish 
a causal relationship between abundance of exotics and declines in the 
Fickeisen plains cactus, they will implement conservation measures to 
control weed abundance. Proposed research with the Navajo Nation and 
other partners would examine potential effects of invasive species on 
the germination and establishment of the Pediocactus bradyi (Brady 
pincushion cactus). The results of the study, if conducted, could be 
applicable to the Fickeisen plains cactus since both Pediocactus 
species share similar habitats and have similar life-history traits. 
The Navajo Nation is working with the BIA and other partners to develop 
an Integrated Weed Management Plan for the Navajo Nation.
    While livestock grazing is a traditional way of life for the Navajo 
people, the Navajo Nation recognizes that management is needed to 
address impacts that grazing has on the entire ecosystem, which 
supports habitat the Fickeisen plains cactus relies upon for survival. 
Efforts are under way by Navajo policy makers and agencies to address 
past grazing impacts on the Navajo Nation and to improve grazing 
enforcement and protection of Navajo resources and ecosystems. For 
example, this year the Navajo Departments of Resource Enforcement and 
Agriculture, in the Division of Natural Resources, partnering with 
local chapters (municipal subdivisions of the Navajo government), have 
been conducting roundups to reduce overgrazing by stray, feral, and 
unpermitted livestock. Additionally, the Navajo Nation and BIA have 
been conducting public outreach regarding grazing impacts and the 
necessity of immediate and proactive steps to be taken to reduce 
grazing pressure and restore productivity of Navajo Nation rangelands.
Benefits of Inclusion--Navajo Nation
    As discussed above under Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act, 
Federal agencies, in consultation with the Service, must ensure that 
their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of 
any listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification 
of any designated critical habitat of such species. The difference in 
the outcomes of the jeopardy analysis and the adverse modification 
analysis represents the regulatory benefit and cost of critical habitat 
designation.
    One important benefit of including lands in a critical habitat 
designation is that the designation can serve to educate the public 
regarding the potential conservation value of an area, and it may help 
focus management efforts on areas of high value for certain species. 
Any information about the Fickeisen plains cactus that reaches a wide 
audience, including parties engaged in conservation activities, is 
valuable. The Navajo Nation is currently working with the Service to 
address Fickeisen plains cactus habitat and conservation, participate 
in research on the taxon to further our knowledge and recovery 
objectives, and exchange management information. Because the Navajo 
Nation has developed a Fickeisen Plains Cactus Management Plan, has 
been involved with the critical habitat designation process, and is 
aware of the value of their lands for conservation of the plant, the 
educational benefits of a Fickeisen plains cactus critical habitat 
designation on the Navajo Nation are minimized.
    There is the possible benefit that additional funding could be 
generated for habitat improvement in an area being designated as 
critical habitat. Tribes often seek additional sources of funding in 
order to conduct wildlife-related conservation activities. Therefore, 
having an area designated as critical habitat could improve the chances 
of receiving funding for Fickeisen plains cactus habitat-related 
projects.
    Therefore, because of the implementation of their tribal management 
plan, rare initiation of formal section 7 consultations for listed 
plants and other listed species, and overall coordination with the 
Navajo Nation on the Fickeisen plains cactus, it is anticipated that 
there may be some, but limited, benefits from including tribal land in 
a Fickeisen plains cactus critical habitat designation. The principal 
benefit of any designated critical habitat is that activities in and 
affecting such habitat require consultation under section 7 of the Act. 
Such consultation would ensure that adequate protection is provided to 
avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. However, 
with the Navajo Nation implementing the RCP, which acts already to 
conserve Fickeisen plains cactus habitat combined with the rarity of 
Federal actions resulting in formal section 7 consultations, the 
benefits of a critical habitat designation are minimized.
Benefits of Exclusion--Navajo Nation
    The proposed critical habitat designation includes approximately 
3,865 ha (9,554 ac) of habitat within the Navajo Nation boundaries. 
Benefits of excluding these Tribal lands from designated critical 
habitat include the continuance and strengthening of our ongoing and 
effective working relationship with Navajo Nation to promote the 
conservation of listed species, including the Fickeisen plains cactus 
and its habitat. We recognize and endorse the resource management 
activities of the Tribe with regard to listed species and have 
collaborated with the Tribe in the development of a Fickeisen plains 
cactus management plan. We have established a working relationship with 
the Navajo Nation through informal and formal meetings that offered 
information sharing, technical advice, assistance, and recommended 
conservation measures for the Fickeisen plains cactus and its habitat. 
We find that conservation benefits are being provided to the Fickeisen 
plains cactus and its habitat through our cooperative working 
relationship with the Navajo Nation.
    As evidence of this partnership, during the development of the 
Fickeisen plains cactus critical habitat proposal, we met informally 
and communicated with staff of the NNDFW and NNHP to discuss how the 
Navajo Nation might be affected by the regulations associated with 
Fickeisen plains cactus management, recovery, and the designation of 
critical habitat. As such, we established a relationship specific to 
Fickeisen plains cactus listing. As part of our relationship, we 
provided technical assistance to them in their development of a 
Fickeisen plains cactus management plan, which documented measures they 
have been

[[Page 55298]]

implementing for the conservation of this species and its habitat on 
their lands. This plan is in our supporting record for this decision. 
Consistent with long-standing tribal sovereignty concepts and past 
consultations with tribes, the Navajo Nation expressed that they have 
an inherent right to sovereignty and self-determination over their own 
lands and natural resources. Additionally, their lands are connected to 
their cultural and religious beliefs, and as a result they have a 
strong commitment and reverence toward its stewardship and 
conservation. They recognize that promoting healthy ecosystems and 
protecting the Fickeisen plains cactus and its habitat are common goals 
they share with the Service.
    As described above, the Navajo Nation has a project-by-project 
review process in place that allows evaluation and implementation of 
conservation measures to minimize, or eliminate adverse impacts to the 
Fickeisen plains cactus and its habitat. The NNHP conduct surveys for 
the Fickeisen plains cactus and maintains a database on the quality of 
its habitat throughout Navajo Nation lands that includes the status and 
occurrence of the cactus. Having this information available creates 
effective conservation through any project review process. The 
implementation of their RCP has been coordinated and approved through 
appropriate Tribal processes. Overall, the commitment toward management 
of the Fickeisen plains cactus habitat likely accomplishes greater 
conservation than would be available through the implementation of a 
designation of critical habitat on a project-by-project basis.
    We have an established and effective working relationship with the 
Navajo Nation spanning several decades. This relationship has resulted 
in the implementation or facilitation of actions and plans that have 
benefited the conservation of numerous candidate and listed species on 
the Navajo Nation, including preparation of a recovery plan and status 
reviews for the Service, section 6 funding for inventory and 
monitoring, conservation projects, cooperative enforcement efforts, 
ongoing sharing of information, permitting Service personnel to conduct 
recovery activates on the Navajo Nation, and cooperation in section 7 
consultations.
    We assign great weight to the benefits of excluding Navajo Nation 
lands, which would honor our cooperative partnership with this Tribe. 
The Navajo Nation submitted comments in the second comment period 
stating that in weighing critical habitat exclusions the Service should 
consider the working relationship we have with tribes and the potential 
damage to the relationship if the Service intrudes on the sovereign 
authority of Tribal natural resource programs and Tribal plans for 
managing species. Furthermore, the Navajo Nation stated that Tribal 
trust lands are not public lands and are not subjected to the same 
Federal regulations or cultural context as those on public lands. 
Therefore, designation of critical habitat on their land may undermine 
internal efforts by the Navajo Nation to address impacts to the 
Fickeisen plains cactus through comprehensive reform (NNDFW 2012, pp. 
4-5).
    Evidence of this partnership is the Fickeisen Plains Cactus 
Management Plan, and the Navajo Nation has developed management plans 
to include conservation efforts for other listed species and their 
habitats. We believe that the Navajo Nation is willing to continue 
working cooperatively with us and others to benefit other listed 
species, but only if they view the relationship as mutually beneficial. 
Consequently, the development of future voluntary management actions 
for other listed species may be compromised if the Navajo Tribal lands 
are designated as critical habitat for the Fickeisen plains cactus. 
Thus, we place great weight on the benefits of excluding these lands 
due to this partnership in light of the future conservation efforts 
that would benefit Fickeisen plains cactus and other listed species.
Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Inclusion--Navajo Nation
    The benefits of including the Navajo Nation in the critical habitat 
designation are the incremental benefits gained through the regulatory 
requirement to consult under section 7 and consideration of the need to 
avoid adverse modification of critical habitat, agency and educational 
awareness, potential additional grant funding, and the implementation 
of other laws and regulations. However, as discussed in detail above, 
we believe these benefits are minimized because they are provided for 
through other mechanisms, such as: (1) The advancement of our Federal 
Indian Trust obligations; (2) the conservation benefits to the 
Fickeisen plains cactus and its habitat from implementation of the 
Navajo Nation Fickeisen plains cactus management plan; and (3) the 
maintenance of effective collaboration and cooperation to promote the 
conservation of the cactus and its habitat.
    If there is a Federal nexus for a project on the Navajo Nation, the 
action agency would be required to consult under section 7 of the Act 
to ensure the actions they fund, authorize, or carry out would not 
jeopardize the continued existence of the listed species. For critical 
habitat, projects undergoing section 7 consultation would need to 
evaluate effects to the primary constituent elements within the 
critical habitat unit, but there is no prohibition for take for plants, 
only recommended conservation measures. This consultation requirement 
appears to be comparable to requirements the Navajo Nation already has 
for project review, development of biological evaluations, and 
mitigation or avoidance to minimize negative effects to NESL-listed 
species, including plants. Navajo Nation policies offer additional or 
stricter protection over those defined in the Act such as a penalty for 
take of listed plants and a general avoidance distance of 61 m (200 
ft).
    Not all projects occurring on the Navajo Nation would have a 
Federal nexus. For those projects proposed by the Tribe or a non-
Federal entity, for which section 7 would not apply, Tribal policies 
would be in effect. Overlaying the requirements for section 7 of the 
Act on top of the requirements in the RCP would not provide additional 
benefits to conserve the Fickeisen plains cactus. Therefore, the 
regulatory and conservation benefits of a critical habitat designation 
on these lands are minimized.
    The benefits of excluding these areas from critical habitat 
designation are more significant and include recognition and fostering 
of the partnership with the Navajo Nation, which is evidenced by the 
continued implementation of Tribal management and conservation measures 
such as monitoring, survey, habitat management and protection, and 
development of in-situ (on-site) conservation activities that are 
planned for future recovery of the taxon. Through these measures the 
Navajo Nation will continue to manage their natural resources to 
benefit habitat along canyon rims of the Colorado and Little Colorado 
Rivers for the Fickeisen plains cactus, without the perception of 
Federal Government intrusion. This philosophy is also consistent with 
our published policies on Native American natural resource management. 
The exclusion of these areas will likely also provide additional 
benefits to the Fickeisen plains cactus that would not otherwise be 
available without the Service's maintaining a cooperative working 
relationship with the Tribe. In conclusion, we find that the benefits 
of excluding Tribal land on the Navajo Nation in Arizona from critical 
habitat

[[Page 55299]]

designation for the Fickeisen plains cactus outweigh the benefits of 
including those areas.
Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Species--Navajo Nation
    As noted above, the Secretary, under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, 
may exclude areas from the critical habitat designation unless it is 
determined, ``based on the best scientific and commercial data 
available, that the failure to designate such area as critical habitat 
will result in the extinction of the species concerned.'' We have 
determined that exclusion of the Navajo Nation from the critical 
habitat designation will not result in the extinction of the Fickeisen 
plains cactus. Federal activities on these areas that may affect the 
Fickeisen plains cactus will still require consultation under section 7 
of the Act. 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 listed species.
    Therefore, even without critical habitat designation on the Navajo 
Nation lands, activities that occur on these lands cannot jeopardize 
the continued existence of the Fickeisen plains cactus. Even so, our 
record demonstrates that formal section 7 consultations rarely occur on 
tribal lands, which is likely a result of existing conservation 
planning. Second, the Navajo Nation has committed to protecting and 
managing its habitat according to their management plan and natural 
resource management objectives. We believe this commitment, in 
conjunction with listing of the plant on the NESL, accomplishes greater 
conservation than would be available through the designation of 
critical habitat. With the implementation of their RCP and their 
protection of the Fickeisen plains cactus, we have concluded that this 
exclusion from critical habitat will not result in the extinction of 
the cactus. Accordingly, we have determined that the Navajo Nation 
should be excluded under subsection 4(b)(2) of the Act, because the 
benefits of excluding these lands from critical habitat for the 
Fickeisen plains cactus outweigh the benefits of inclusion, and the 
exclusion of these lands from the designation will not result in the 
extinction of the taxon.

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review--Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant rules. The Office 
of Information and Regulatory Affairs 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 (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.
    The Service's current understanding of the requirements under the 
RFA, as amended, and following recent court decisions, is that Federal 
agencies are only required to evaluate the potential incremental 
impacts of rulemaking on those entities directly regulated by the 
rulemaking itself, and therefore, not required 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 by the Agency is not likely to destroy or adversely modify 
critical habitat. Therefore, under section 7 only Federal action 
agencies are directly subject to the specific regulatory requirement 
(avoiding destruction and adverse modification) imposed by critical 
habitat designation. Consequently, it is our position that only Federal 
action agencies will be directly regulated by this designation. There 
is no requirement under RFA to evaluate the potential impacts to 
entities not directly regulated. Moreover, Federal agencies are not 
small entities. Therefore, because no small entities are directly 
regulated by this rulemaking, the Service certifies that, if 
promulgated, the final critical habitat designation will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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. The Office of Management and Budget indicates that 
this statement is required only when a rulemaking is both significant 
under E.O. 12866 and exceeds one or more of the nine threshold levels 
outlined in their guidance on implementation of E.O.

[[Page 55300]]

13211. The critical habitat designation for Fickeisen plains cactus is 
not a significant rulemaking under E.O. 12866. Critical habitat 
designation for the Fickeisen plains cactus is anticipated to affect 
uranium mining. Impacts to uranium mining, however, are limited to the 
administrative costs of one formal consultation for the EZ Mine, 
totaling less than $900 in costs for the managing company, Energy Fuels 
Inc., over the 20-year period of analysis. The magnitude of these 
consultation costs is not anticipated to reduce fuel production or 
energy production, or increase the cost of energy production or 
distribution in the United States in excess of one percent. Thus, none 
of the nine threshold levels outlined by the Office of Management and 
Budget's guidance for implementing this Executive Order is exceeded. 
Therefore, we do not expect the designation of this final critical 
habitat to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. 
Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action, and no 
Statement of Energy Effects is required.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 
et seq.), we make the following findings:
    (1) This rule would not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a 
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation 
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal 
governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.'' 
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose 
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments'' with two 
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also 
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal 
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal 
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, 
local, and Tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the 
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance'' 
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's 
responsibility to provide funding,'' and the State, local, or Tribal 
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of 
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families 
with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; 
Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; 
Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family 
Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal 
private sector mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an 
enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of 
Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a 
voluntary Federal program.''
    The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally 
binding duty on non-Federal government entities or private parties. 
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must 
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat under section 7. While 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 would significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments. The lands being designated for 
critical habitat are predominantly owned by the BLM, Bureau of 
Reclamation, U.S. Military, USFS, National Park Service, State of 
Arizona, and Tohono O'odham and Navajo Nations. None of these 
government entities fit the definition of ``small governmental 
jurisdiction.'' 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 acu[ntilde]a cactus and Fickeisen plains cactus in a 
takings implications assessment. The Act does not authorize the Service 
to regulate private actions on private lands or confiscate private 
property as a result of critical habitat designation. Designation of 
critical habitat does not affect land ownership, or establish any 
closures, or restrictions on use of or access to the designated areas. 
Furthermore, the designation of critical habitat does not affect 
landowner actions that do not require Federal funding or permits, nor 
does it preclude development of habitat conservation programs or 
issuance of incidental take permits to permit actions that do require 
Federal funding or permits to go forward. However, Federal agencies are 
prohibited from carrying out, funding, or authorizing actions that 
would destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. A takings 
implications assessment has been completed and concludes that this 
designation of critical habitat for the acu[ntilde]a cactus and 
Fickeisen plains cactus does not pose significant takings implications 
for lands within or affected by the designation.

Federalism--Executive Order 13132

    In accordance with Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), this final 
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 final critical habitat 
designation with appropriate State resource agencies in Arizona. The 
designation of critical habitat in areas currently occupied by the 
acu[ntilde]a cactus or the Fickeisen plains cactus may impose nominal 
additional regulatory restrictions to those currently in place and, 
therefore, may have little incremental impact on State and local 
governments and their activities. The designation may have some benefit 
to these governments because the areas that contain the physical or 
biological features essential to the conservation of the species are 
more clearly defined, and the elements of the features of the habitat 
necessary to the conservation of the species are specifically 
identified. This information does not alter where and what federally 
sponsored activities may occur. However, it may assist local 
governments in long-range planning (rather than having them 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) would be required. While non-Federal 
entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that 
otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for 
an action, may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical 
habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid

[[Page 55301]]

destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely 
on the Federal agency.

Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988

    In accordance with Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), 
the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not 
unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of 
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We have designated critical 
habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Act. This final rule 
uses standard property descriptions and identifies the elements of 
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the 
acu[ntilde]a cactus and Fickeisen plains cactus within the designated 
areas to assist the public in understanding the habitat needs of the 
species.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

    This rule does not contain any new collections of information that 
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This rule will not impose recordkeeping or 
reporting requirements on state or local governments, individuals, 
businesses, or organizations. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and 
a person is 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 designating 
critical habitat under the Act. We published a notice outlining our 
reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 
1983 (48 FR 49244). This position was upheld by the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 
(9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)).

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994 
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and 
Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the 
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our 
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal 
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with 
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, 
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), 
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with 
tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge 
that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal 
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make 
information available to tribes.
    We included some Tohono O'odham Nation lands in Pima County, 
Arizona, in the proposed designation of acu[ntilde]a cactus critical 
habitat and Navajo Nation lands in Coconino County, Arizona, in the 
proposed designation of Fickeisen plains cactus critical habitat. Less 
than one percent of all known acu[ntilde]a cacti occur on Tohono 
O'odham Nation lands; 15 percent of all known Fickeisen plains cactus 
occur on Navajo Nation lands. Using the criteria found in the Criteria 
Used To Identify Critical Habitat section, we determined that all of 
the areas proposed for designation on tribal lands were essential to 
the conservation of the acu[ntilde]a cactus and Fickeisen plains 
cactus. We sought government-to-government consultation with the Tohono 
O'odham and the Navajo Nations throughout the proposal and development 
of this final designation of acu[ntilde]a cactus and Fickeisen plains 
cactus critical habitat, and we spoke to tribal representatives at 
meetings about the designation. We communicated with tribes through 
letters, electronic messages, and telephone calls about our exclusion 
process under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, and we provided information 
to develop management plans, technical assistance and review of 
management plans, and critical habitat designation information and 
schedule updates. We considered these tribal areas for exclusion from 
final critical habitat designation to the extent consistent with the 
requirements of section 4(b)(2) of the Act, and subsequently, excluded 
all tribal lands from this final designation.

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited in this final rulemaking is 
available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and upon 
request from the Arizona Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Authors

    The primary authors of this package are the staff members of the 
Arizona Ecological Services Field Office.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Regulation Promulgation

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

PART 17--[AMENDED]

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

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


0
2. Amend Sec.  17.12(h), the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants, 
by revising the entries for ``Echinomastus erectocentrus var. 
acunensis'' and ``Pediocactus peeblesianus var. fickeiseniae'' under 
FLOWERING PLANTS, to read as follows:


Sec.  17.12  Endangered and threatened plants.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

[[Page 55302]]



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           Listing citations and
        Scientific name              Common name        Where listed          Status         applicable rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flowering Plants
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Echinomastus erectocentrus var.  Acu[ntilde]a        Wherever found....               E   78 FR 60607; 10/1/2013
 acunensis.                       cactus.                                                 50 CFR 17.96(a)\CH\
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Pediocactus peeblesianus var.    Fickeisen plains    Wherever found....               E   78 FR 60607; 10/1/2013
 fickeiseniae.                    cactus.                                                 50 CFR 17.96(a)\CH\
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
3. Amend Sec.  17.96(a) by adding entries for ``Echinomastus 
erectocentrus var. acunensis (acu[ntilde]a cactus)'' and ``Pediocactus 
peeblesianus var. fickeiseniae (Fickeisen plains cactus),'' in 
alphabetical order under the family Cactaceae, to read as follows:


Sec.  17.96  Critical habitat--plants.

    (a) Flowering plants.
* * * * *
    Family Cactaceae: Echinomastus erectocentrus var. acunensis 
(acu[ntilde]a cactus)
    (1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Maricopa, Pima, and 
Pinal Counties, Arizona, on the maps below.
    (2) Within these areas, the primary constituent elements of the 
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the 
acu[ntilde]a cactus consist of:
    (i) Native vegetation within the Paloverde-Cacti-Mixed-Scrub Series 
of the Arizona Upland Subdivision of the Sonoran Desert-scrub at 
elevations between 365 to 1,150 m (1,198 to 3,773 ft). This vegetation 
must contain predominantly native plant species that:
    (A) Provide protection to the acu[ntilde]a cactus (Examples of such 
plants are creosote bush, ironwood, and palo verde.);
    (B) Provide for pollinator habitat with a radius of 900 m (2,953 
ft) around each individual reproducing acu[ntilde]a cactus;
    (C) Allow for seed dispersal through the presence of bare soils 
immediately adjacent to and within 10 m (33 ft) of individual 
acu[ntilde]a cactus.
    (ii) Soils overlying rhyolite, andesite, tuff, granite, 
granodiorite, diorite, or Cornelia quartz monzonite bedrock that are in 
valley bottoms, on small knolls, or on ridgetops, and are generally on 
slopes of less than 30 percent.
    (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 
September 19, 2016.
    (4) Critical habitat map units. Digital data layers defining map 
units were created using geology, topography, elevation, vegetation 
community, mean annual precipitation from the 1971 to 2000 period of 
record, and acu[ntilde]a cactus herbarium and site visit records from 
1952 to the present; these were mapped using Universal Transverse 
Mercator 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 (http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/), http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2013-0025, 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) Index map follows:

[[Page 55303]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR18AU16.000

BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
    (6) Unit 1: Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Pima County, AZ. 
Map of Unit 1 follows:

[[Page 55304]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR18AU16.001

    (7) Unit 2: Ajo Unit, Pima County, AZ. Map of Unit 2 follows:

[[Page 55305]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR18AU16.002

    (8) Unit 3: Sauceda Mountains Unit, Maricopa and Pima Counties, AZ. 
Map of Unit 3 is provided at paragraph (7) of this entry.
    (9) Unit 4: Sand Tank Mountains Unit, Maricopa County, AZ. Map of 
Unit 4 follows:

[[Page 55306]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR18AU16.003

    (10) Unit 5: Mineral Mountain Unit, Pinal County, AZ. Map of Units 
5 and 6 follows:

[[Page 55307]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR18AU16.004

    (11) Unit 6: Box O Wash Unit, Pinal County, AZ. Map of Unit 6 is 
provided at paragraph (10) of this entry.
* * * * *
    Family Cactaceae: Pediocactus peeblesianus var. fickeiseniae 
(Fickeisen plains cactus)
    (1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Mohave and Coconino 
Counties, Arizona, on the maps below.
    (2) Within these areas, the primary constituent elements of the 
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the 
Fickeisen plains cactus consist of:
    (i) Soils derived from limestone that are found on mesas, plateaus, 
terraces, the toe of gentle sloping hills with up to 20 percent slope, 
margins of canyon rims, and desert washes. These soils have the 
following features:
    (A) They occur on the Colorado Plateau in Coconino and Mohave 
Counties of northern Arizona and are within the appropriate series 
found in occupied areas;
    (B) They are derived from alluvium, colluvium, or eolian deposits 
of limestone from the Harrisburg member of the Kaibab Formation and 
limestone, siltstone, and sandstone of the Toroweap and Moenkopi 
Formations;

[[Page 55308]]

    (C) They are nonsaline to slightly saline, gravelly, shallow to 
moderately deep, and well-drained with little signs of soil movement. 
Soil texture consists of gravelly loam, fine sandy loam, gravelly sandy 
loam, very gravelly sandy loam, clay loam, and cobbly loam.
    (ii) Native vegetation within the Plains and Great Basin grassland 
and Great Basin desertscrub vegetation communities from 1,310 to 1,813 
m (4,200 to 5,950 ft) in elevation that has a natural, generally intact 
surface and subsurface that preserves the bedrock substrate and is 
supportive of microbiotic soil crusts where they are naturally found.
    (iii) Native vegetation that provides for habitat of identified 
pollinators within the effective pollinator distance of 1,000 m (3,280 
ft) around each individual Fickeisen plains cactus.
    (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 
September 19, 2016.
    (4) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining map units were 
created using a base of U.S. Geological Survey 7.5' quadrangle maps. 
Critical habitat units were then mapped using Universal Transverse 
Mercator zone 11, North American Datum 1983 coordinates.
    (5) Note: Index map follows:

[[Page 55309]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR18AU16.005

    (6) Unit 1: Hurricane Cliffs Unit, Mohave County, AZ. Map of Unit 1 
follows:

[[Page 55310]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR18AU16.006

    (7) Unit 2: Sunshine Ridge Unit, Mohave County, AZ. Map of Units 2 
and 3 follows:

[[Page 55311]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR18AU16.007

    (8) Unit 3: Clayhole Valley Unit, Mohave County, AZ. Map of Unit 3 
is provided at paragraph (7) of this entry.
    (9) Unit 4: South Canyon Unit, Coconino County, AZ. Map of Unit 4 
follows:

[[Page 55312]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR18AU16.008

    (10) Unit 5: House Rock Valley Unit, Coconino County, AZ. Map of 
Unit 5 is provided at paragraph (9) of this entry.
    (11) Unit 6: Gray Mountain Unit, Coconino County, AZ. Map of Unit 6 
follows:

[[Page 55313]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR18AU16.009

* * * * *

    Dated: July 22, 2016.
Michael J. Bean,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2016-19159 Filed 8-17-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4333-15-C