[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 41 (Thursday, March 4, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12563-12591]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03705]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2020-0130; FF09E21000 FXES11110900000 212]
RIN 1018-BF21


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species 
Status for Arizona Eryngo and Designation of Critical Habitat

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 
12-month finding on a petition to list the Arizona eryngo (Eryngium 
sparganophyllum), a plant species native to Arizona and New Mexico in 
the United States, and to Sonora and Chihuahua in Mexico, as an 
endangered species and to designate critical habitat in Arizona under 
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). After a review of 
the best available scientific and commercial information,

[[Page 12564]]

we find that listing the species is warranted. Accordingly, we propose 
to list the Arizona eryngo as an endangered species under the Act. If 
we finalize this rule as proposed, it would add this species to the 
List of Endangered and Threatened Plants and extend the Act's 
protections to the species. We also propose to designate critical 
habitat for the Arizona eryngo under the Act. In total, approximately 
13.0 acres (5.3 hectares) in Pima and Cochise Counties, Arizona, fall 
within the boundaries of the proposed critical habitat designation. We 
also announce the availability of a draft economic analysis (DEA) of 
the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Arizona eryngo.

DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before May 
3, 2021. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal 
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59 
p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date. We must receive requests for a 
public hearing, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT by April 19, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
    (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
    http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R2-ES-
2020-0130, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click 
on the Search button. On the resulting page, in the Search panel on the 
left side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, check the 
Proposed Rule box to locate this document. You may submit a comment by 
clicking on ``Comment Now!''
    (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail to: Public Comments 
Processing, Attn: FWS-R2-ES-2020-0130, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
MS: PRB/3W, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
    We request that you send comments only by the methods described 
above. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This 
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide 
us (see Information Requested, below, for more information).
    Availability of supporting materials: For the critical habitat 
designation, the coordinates or plot points or both from which the maps 
are generated are included in the administrative record and are 
available at https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/, at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2020-0130. Any 
additional tools or supporting information that we may develop for the 
critical habitat designation will also be available at the Service 
website set out above and may also be included in the preamble and/or 
at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Humphrey, Arizona Ecological 
Services Field Office, 9828 North 31st Ave. C3, Phoenix, AZ 85051-2517; 
telephone 602-242-0210. Persons who use a telecommunications device for 
the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

    Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, if we determine that 
a species is an endangered or threatened species throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range, we are required to promptly publish a 
proposal in the Federal Register and make a determination on our 
proposal within 1 year. To the maximum extent prudent and determinable, 
we must designate critical habitat for any species that we determine to 
be an endangered or threatened species under the Act. Listing a species 
as an endangered or threatened species and designation of critical 
habitat can only be completed by issuing a rule.
    What this document does. We propose to list the Arizona eryngo as 
an endangered species under the Act, and we propose the designation of 
critical habitat for the species.
    The basis for our action. Under the Act, we may determine that a 
species is an endangered or threatened species because of any of five 
factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for 
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) 
disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory 
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its 
continued existence. We have determined that the Arizona eryngo is 
primarily at risk of extinction due to habitat changes: Physical 
alteration of cienegas, water loss, and changes in co-occurring 
vegetation, all of which are exacerbated by the effects of climate 
change.
    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires the Secretary of the Interior 
(Secretary) to designate critical habitat concurrent with listing to 
the maximum extent prudent and determinable. Section 3(5)(A) of the Act 
defines critical habitat as (i) the specific areas within the 
geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed, on 
which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to 
the conservation of the species and (II) which may require special 
management considerations or protections; and (ii) specific areas 
outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is 
listed, upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are 
essential for the conservation of the species. Section 4(b)(2) of the 
Act states that the Secretary must make the designation on the basis of 
the best scientific data available and after taking into consideration 
the economic impact, the impact on national security, and any other 
relevant impacts of specifying any particular area as critical habitat.
    Peer review. In accordance with our joint policy on peer review 
published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and 
our August 22, 2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of 
peer review of listing actions under the Act, we sought the expert 
opinions of eight appropriate specialists regarding the species status 
assessment report used to inform this proposed rule. We received 
responses from four specialists, which informed this proposed rule. The 
purpose of peer review is to ensure that our listing determinations and 
critical habitat designations are based on scientifically sound data, 
assumptions, and analyses. The peer reviewers have expertise in the 
biology, habitat, and threats to the species.

Information Requested

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule 
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and 
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request 
comments or information from other concerned governmental agencies, 
Native American tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any 
other interested parties concerning this proposed rule.
    We particularly seek comments concerning:
    (1) The species' biology, range, and population trends, including:
    (a) Biological or ecological requirements of the species, including 
habitat requirements for nutrition, reproduction, or pollination;
    (b) Genetics and taxonomy;
    (c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns;
    (d) Historical and current population levels, and current and 
projected trends; and

[[Page 12565]]

    (e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, its 
habitat, or both.
    (2) Factors that may affect the continued existence of the species, 
which may include habitat modification or destruction, overutilization, 
disease, predation, the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, 
or other natural or manmade factors.
    (3) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning 
any threats (or lack thereof) to this species and existing regulations 
that may be addressing those threats.
    (4) Additional information concerning the historical and current 
status, range, distribution, and population size of this species, 
including the locations of any additional populations of this species.
    (5) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as 
``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
seq.), including information to inform the following factors that the 
regulations identify as reasons why designation of critical habitat may 
be not prudent:
    (a) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity and 
identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the 
degree of such threat to the species;
    (b) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of a species' habitat or range is not a threat to the 
species, or threats to the species' habitat stem solely from causes 
that cannot be addressed through management actions resulting from 
consultations under section 7(a)(2) of the Act;
    (c) Areas within the jurisdiction of the United States provide no 
more than negligible conservation value, if any, for a species 
occurring primarily outside the jurisdiction of the United States; or
    (d) No areas meet the definition of critical habitat.
    (6) Specific information on:
    (a) The amount and distribution of Arizona eryngo habitat;
    (b) What areas, that were occupied at the time of listing and that 
contain the physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of the species, should be included in the designation and 
why;
    (c) Special management considerations or protection that may be 
needed in critical habitat areas we are proposing, including managing 
for the potential effects of climate change; and
    (d) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential 
for the conservation of the species. We particularly seek comments:
    (i) Regarding whether occupied areas are adequate for the 
conservation of the species; and
    (ii) Providing specific information regarding whether or not 
unoccupied areas would, with reasonable certainty, contribute to the 
conservation of the species and contain at least one physical or 
biological feature essential to the conservation of the species.
    (7) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the 
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
    (8) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant 
impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final 
designation, and the related benefits of including or excluding 
specific areas.
    (9) Information on the extent to which the description of probable 
economic impacts in the draft economic analysis is a reasonable 
estimate of the likely economic impacts.
    (10) Whether any specific areas we are proposing for critical 
habitat designation should be considered for exclusion under section 
4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether the benefits of potentially excluding 
any specific area outweigh the benefits of including that area under 
section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
    (11) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating 
critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation 
and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and 
comments.
    Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as 
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to 
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
    Please note that submissions merely stating support for, or 
opposition to, the action under consideration without providing 
supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in 
making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that 
determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or a 
threatened species must be made ``solely on the basis of the best 
scientific and commercial data available.''
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed 
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you 
send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
    If you submit information via http://www.regulations.gov, your 
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will 
be posted on the website. If your submission is made via a hardcopy 
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the 
top of your document that we withhold this information from public 
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We 
will post all hardcopy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov.
    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be 
available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov.
    Because we will consider all comments and information we receive 
during the comment period, our final determinations may differ from 
this proposal. Based on the new information we receive (and any 
comments on that new information), we may conclude that the species is 
threatened instead of endangered, or we may conclude that the species 
does not warrant listing as either an endangered species or a 
threatened species. For critical habitat, our final designation may not 
include all areas proposed, may include some additional areas that meet 
the definition of critical habitat, and may exclude some areas if we 
find the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion.

Public Hearing

    Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for a public hearing on this 
proposal, if requested. Requests must be received by the date specified 
in DATES. Such requests must be sent to the address shown in FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule a public hearing on this 
proposal, if requested, and announce the date, time, and place of the 
hearing, as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in the 
Federal Register and local newspapers at least 15 days before the 
hearing. For the immediate future, we will provide these public 
hearings using webinars that will be announced on the Service's 
website, in addition to the Federal Register. The use of these virtual 
public hearings is consistent with our regulations at 50 CFR 
424.16(c)(3).

Previous Federal Actions

    On April 9, 2018, we received a petition from the Center for 
Biological Diversity, requesting that the Arizona eryngo be listed as 
endangered or threatened and critical habitat be designated for this 
species under the Act. On April 26, 2019, we published our 90-day 
finding that the petition presented substantial scientific information 
indicating that listing the Arizona eryngo under the Act may be 
warranted (84 FR 17768). This document constitutes our 12-month

[[Page 12566]]

warranted petition finding for the Arizona eryngo.

Supporting Documents

    A species status assessment (SSA) team prepared an SSA report for 
the Arizona eryngo. The SSA team was composed of Service biologists, in 
consultation with other species experts. The SSA report represents a 
compilation of the best scientific and commercial data available 
concerning the status of the species, including the impacts of past, 
present, and future factors (both negative and beneficial) affecting 
the species. The Service sent the SSA report to eight independent peer 
reviewers and received four responses. The Service also sent the SSA 
report to 16 partners, including scientists with expertise in wetland 
management and conservation and plant ecology, for review. We received 
review from eight partners (Federal, State, and County governments, and 
universities).

I. Proposed Listing Determination

Background

    A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, and ecology of the 
Arizona eryngo (Eryngium sparganophyllum) is presented in the SSA 
report (Service 2020). The Arizona eryngo is an herbaceous perennial 
flowering plant in the Apiaceae (carrot) family that is native to 
Arizona and New Mexico in the United States, and to Sonora and 
Chihuahua in Mexico. The species requires moist, organic alkali soils 
found in spring-fed cienegas (aridland wetlands) supported by adequate 
groundwater.
    Arizona eryngo grows to a height of about 1.5 meters (m) (~5 feet 
(ft)) with long, linear, parallel-veined leaves that emerge from a 
basal rosette. The plant is conspicuous when flowering in June through 
September (Stromberg et al. 2019, p. 8; New Mexico Rare Plants 2013, p. 
1). The flowers are cream-colored and clustered in dense heads. Dry 
fruits ripen in September and October. The species is believed to live 
well over 10 years, and many pollinators have been documented 
interacting with the species. Arizona eryngo reproduces through 
pollination, creating genetically unique individuals, as well as 
vegetatively via rhizomes (underground stems) producing clones, which 
are genetically identical (Stromberg et al. 2019, p. 8).
    The Arizona eryngo only occurs in spring-fed cienega wetlands and 
grows best in full sun in areas with few nonnative plant species, 
limited woody vegetation, or other vegetation that may shade or 
otherwise outcompete them. The species has been found in conditions 
from standing water up to 2 centimeters (cm) (0.8 inches (in)) deep to 
soil that is dry at the surface but is moist to saturated several cm 
into the soil (Stromberg et al. 2019, pp. 6, 8). It is hypothesized 
that flowering is determined, in part, by soil moisture availability 
(i.e., plants do not flower in drier conditions when the plants are 
more stressed) and that ramets (clones) are produced during drier 
periods (Li 2019, p. 8; Stromberg et al. 2019, p. 8). Spatial 
distribution of Arizona eryngo within cienegas appears to be associated 
with water availability; drier conditions favor the growth of trees 
that outcompete the species, and very wet conditions (i.e., perennially 
standing water) favor the growth of bulrush (Schoenoplectus americanus) 
that similarly outcompetes Arizona eryngo (Li 2019, p. 4). Soils 
inhabited by Arizona eryngo are high in organic matter, saline, 
alkaline, and have salts on soil surfaces in the seasonally dry 
periphery (Stromberg et al. 2019, pp. 6, 14).
    The Arizona eryngo is known historically from six sites: Three 
sites in Arizona and one in New Mexico in the United States, and one 
site in Sonora and one site in Chihuahua in Mexico (S[aacute]nchez 
Escalante et al. 2019, pp. 16-17; Stromberg et al. 2019, pp. 3-8). 
Given the historical distribution of functional aridland cienegas 
(greater than 95 percent of the historical area of cienegas is now dry 
(Cole and Cole 2015, p. 36)), it is likely that Arizona eryngo 
populations were historically more abundant, occurred closer to one 
another, and were more connected (through pollination) than they are 
currently. The species has been extirpated from one site in Arizona and 
one site in New Mexico but remains extant at the other four sites (two 
in Arizona; one in Sonora, Mexico; and one in Chihuahua, Mexico). 
Additionally, efforts are underway to reintroduce the species to the 
historical site in Arizona from which it was extirpated (Agua Caliente) 
and to introduce the species to a new site (Historic Canoa Ranch in 
Pima County, Arizona) within its general historical range. A handful of 
plants now exist at these reintroduction sites, but these efforts have 
not yet been successful at establishing viable populations. With the 
exception of the reintroduced plants at Agua Caliente, which is about 6 
kilometers (km) (3.7 miles (mi)) from the La Cebadilla population, 
other populations are about 90 to 335 km (56 to 208 mi) apart from one 
another.
    Reports of the species farther south in the Mexican states of 
Durango, Jalisco, Nayarit, Zacatecas, Michoac[aacute]n, and Guerrero 
are likely not valid because the herbarium specimen from Durango, 
Mexico, is morphologically different from northern specimens (Stomberg 
et al. 2019, p. 7). Additionally, a report of the species occurring in 
Zacatecas, Nayarit, and Jalisco lacks supporting herbaria records 
(Stromberg et al. 2019, p. 7), and specimens collected from 
Michoac[aacute]n and Guerrero appear to be a distinct taxon due to 
differences in flower color, habitat, elevation, and flowering time 
(Stromberg et al. 2019, p. 8). Because the species is obvious (tall 
with conspicuous flowers and locally abundant) and most cienegas, 
particularly ones still extant in Arizona and New Mexico, have been 
surveyed (AGFD 2019, p. 7), it is unlikely that new populations will be 
found. The six historical and current populations are discussed in 
greater detail below:
    Las Playas, New Mexico, United States (Extirpated)--The species 
historically occurred at Playas or Las Playas Springs in the Playas 
Basin, east of the Animas Mountains in Hidalgo County, but it has not 
been found since 1851 and is believed to be extirpated (Sivinski 2018, 
p. 21; Stromberg et al. 2019, p. 4). The springs were diminished and 
Las Playas was found primarily dry by the mid to late 1950s (Sivinski 
2018, p. 27; Stromberg et al. 2019, p. 5). The cienega at Las Playas is 
now considered dead (Sivinski 2018, p. 8) due to agricultural and 
industrial (i.e., copper mining) dewatering (Stromberg et al. 2019, p. 
5). ``Dead cienegas'' are historical cienegas that no longer have 
groundwater at or near the ground surface and likely have water tables 
so severely depleted that restoration, given today's techniques and 
economics, is not feasible (Sivinksi 2019, p. 14).
    Agua Caliente, Arizona, United States (Extirpated)--Arizona eryngo 
historically occurred at the Agua Caliente Ranch east of Tucson in Pima 
County, Arizona, within the Santa Cruz River Basin (Stromberg et al. 
2019, p. 5). This population was extirpated likely due to multiple 
manipulations of the site, including spring modification (Stromberg et 
al., p. 5; SWCA 2002, pp. 1-2) and pond impoundment. Two springs (a hot 
spring and a cold spring) were blasted with explosives in the 1930s, 
and again in the 1960s, to increase water flow for resort development. 
Instead, the blasting significantly reduced water flow (Friends of Agua 
Caliente 2020, entire). The flow rate from the springs has varied from 
as high as 500 gallons per minute historically, to an immeasurable seep 
in recent years (Pima County 2020, entire).

[[Page 12567]]

    The property is now owned by Pima County Natural Resources, Parks 
and Recreation and is managed as a regional park (Friends of Agua 
Caliente 2020, entire). Restoration of one of the ponds (Pond 1) began 
in 2019, and was completed in 2020 (Pima County 2020, entire). This 
pond is maintained by pumped groundwater, but soil sealant was used to 
reduce seepage and conserve water. As part of the restoration, select 
palm trees (Phoenix spp.) and invasive cattails (Typha spp.) were 
removed to encourage growth of native species, and a small wetland on 
the northwest side of Pond 1 was created (Pima County 2020, entire).
    Experimental reintroductions of Arizona eryngo began in 2017, using 
plants grown in a nursery with seeds collected from La Cebadilla 
(Fonseca 2018, entire; Stromberg et al. 2019, pp. 5, 10). The initial 
reintroduction effort in 2017 of 20 plants had limited success due to 
javelina (Tayassu tajacu) damage, as well as placement of the plants at 
sites where they experienced water stress (Fonseca 2018, entire). The 
second effort in 2018 of 15 plants had improved success, but a number 
of plants were eaten by gophers (Thomomys bottae) (Li 2019, p. 6) or 
died of other causes. More recent reintroductions have resulted in the 
establishment of additional plants, including in the small wetland and 
wildlife island of Pond 1; however, efforts have not yet resulted in 
the establishment of a self-sustaining Arizona eryngo population.
    La Cebadilla, Arizona, United States (Extant)--Arizona eryngo 
occurs in the La Cebadilla Cienega adjacent to the Tanque Verde Wash 
east of Tucson in Pima County, Arizona, within the Santa Cruz River 
basin (Stromberg et al. 2019, p. 5). The cienega is located on lands 
owned by La Cebadilla Estates and the Pima County Regional Flood 
Control District; the majority of plants occur on the privately owned 
portion of the cienega. In 2019, Arizona eryngo was documented in a 
number of colonies with a total spatial extent of 0.4 hectares (1.11 
acres) (Li 2020a, p. 1). Some colony boundaries are defined by the 
presence of bulrush and tree canopy (Li 2019, p. 1).
    The Arizona eryngo population at La Cebadilla is estimated to be 
about 30,000 aggregates--groups of clones, which are genetically 
identical individuals that result from vegetative reproduction (Li 
2020b, p. 1). Each clone has a unique basal stem, and multiple clones 
can form a clustered aggregate that resembles an individual plant (Li 
2020a, p. 2). While this is the largest of the four extant populations, 
the plants occur in a very confined space.
    The homeowners association of La Cebadilla Estates manages the 
cienega (the portion not owned by the Pima County Regional Flood 
Control District) and nearby La Cebadilla Lake (also referred to as a 
pond, to the west of the cienega). The homeowners association has 
enacted covenants that prevent development of the cienega or sale to 
private developers (La Cebadilla Estates 2005, entire). The spring is 
located on the western edge of the cienega and a concrete spring box 
diverts some water to sustain the lake (Fonseca 2019, p. 2; Stromberg 
et al. 2019, p. 5).
    Lewis Springs, Arizona, United States (Extant)--Arizona eryngo 
occurs in the Lewis Springs Cienega just to the east of the San Pedro 
River in Cochise County, within the San Pedro River Basin (Stromberg et 
al. 2019, p. 5). The cienega is located within the San Pedro Riparian 
National Conservation Area (SPRNCA) managed by the Bureau of Land 
Management (BLM). The San Pedro riparian area, containing about 64 km 
(40 mi) of the upper San Pedro River, was designated by Congress as a 
National Conservation Area in 1988. The primary purpose for the 
designation is to conserve, protect, and enhance the desert riparian 
ecosystem, a rare remnant of what was once an extensive network of 
similar riparian systems throughout the Southwest.
    The Lewis Springs Complex currently has five groundwater outflows 
and is comprised of multiple elongated wetlands generally oriented 
northwest-southeast along a slope, totaling 1.2 hectares (3 acres) 
(Radke 2013, entire; Simms 2019, entire; Stromberg et al. 2019, p. 6; 
Li 2020a, p. 2). As of September 2019, four of the eight wetlands 
support Arizona eryngo (Simms 2019, entire). Within these four 
wetlands, Arizona eryngo occurs in six colonies with discrete 
boundaries, the spatial extent of which was about 0.04 hectares (0.1 
acres) in 2019 (Li 2020a, p. 1). The population has had recent 
estimates of over 1,000 plants (Stromberg et al. 2019, p. 6; Li 2020a, 
p. 1; Li 2020b, p. 1).
    BLM has conducted some removal of the nonnative Johnsongrass 
(Sorghum halepense) at Lewis Springs and is planning for additional 
removal of the species. BLM is also planning experimental removal of 
the native upland plant baccharis (Baccharis spp.) at Lewis Springs, as 
well as establishment of additional populations and/or subpopulations 
of Arizona eryngo at suitable sites within Lewis Springs and the 
SPRNCA.
    Rancho Agua Caliente, Sonora, Mexico (Extant)--Arizona eryngo 
occurs in the Agua Caliente Cienega on the privately owned Rancho Agua 
Caliente east of Esqueda in the municipality of Nacozari de 
Garc[iacute]a (S[aacute]nchez Escalante et al. 2019, p. 16; Stromberg 
et al. 2019, p. 7). Rancho Agua Caliente is an active cattle ranch. 
Based on aerial photographs, the cienega appears to be about 5 hectares 
(12.3 acres) (Stromberg et al. 2019, p. 7); however, it may only be 
about 1.5 hectares (3.7 acres) (S[aacute]nchez Escalante 2019, pers. 
comm.).
    This cienega is the only known site for Arizona eryngo in Sonora. 
In 2018, hundreds of Arizona eryngo, including juveniles, occurred 
along the marsh near the spring within a nearly 1-hectare (2.5-acres) 
area (S[aacute]nchez Escalante et al. 2019, p. 16; S[aacute]nchez 
Escalante 2019, pers. comm.). The estimated area occupied by Arizona 
eryngo is larger than the other sites, while the population estimate is 
quite low, thus indicating the population is more sparse or patchy than 
La Cebadilla or Lewis Springs. Based on photography of the site, it 
appears that Rancho Agua Caliente currently supports areas with a range 
of soil moisture (from standing water to dry soils) and open sun 
conditions.
    Ojo Varele[ntilde]o, Chihuahua, Mexico (Extant)--Arizona eryngo 
occurs at a privately owned hot springs spa, El Ojo Varele[ntilde]o, 
located northwest of the municipality of Casas Grandes in Chihuahua 
(S[aacute]nchez Escalante et al. 2019, p. 9; Stromberg et al. 2019, pp. 
6-7). The site is within the San Miguel River Basin at the base of the 
Piedras Verdes Mountains (Stromberg et al. 2019, p. 6). The extent of 
the cienega is currently about 1 hectare (2.5 acres) and supports about 
56 adult plants (S[aacute]nchez Escalante et al. 2019, p. 17) that 
occupy an area of about 0.075 hectares (0.2 acres) (S[aacute]nchez 
Escalante 2019, pers. comm.). No juveniles were documented.
    Based on photography of the site, it appears that Ojo 
Varele[ntilde]o currently supports areas with a range of soil moisture 
(from standing water to dry soils) and sunlight conditions (from open 
sun to highly shaded). The nonnative giant reed (Arundo donax) invasion 
at the site is creating conditions with high amounts of shade and 
little to no space for other plants. Springflow is collected in 
concrete spa ponds (S[aacute]nchez Escalante et al. 2019, p. 28), which 
likely affects the natural hydrology of the site.

[[Page 12568]]

Regulatory and Analytical Framework

Regulatory Framework

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing 
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining 
whether a species is an endangered species or a threatened species. The 
Act defines an endangered species as a species that is ``in danger of 
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range,'' and 
a threatened species as a species that is ``likely to become an 
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range.'' The Act requires that we determine 
whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened species 
because of any of the following factors:
    (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range;
    (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes;
    (C) Disease or predation;
    (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
    (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence.
    These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused 
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued 
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for 
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as 
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative 
effects or may have positive effects.
    We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or 
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively 
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions 
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct 
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration 
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat'' 
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action 
or condition or the action or condition itself.
    However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not 
necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an 
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' In determining 
whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all 
identified threats by considering the expected response by the species, 
and the effects of the threats--in light of those actions and 
conditions that will ameliorate the threats--on an individual, 
population, and species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected 
effects on the species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of 
the threats on the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative 
effect of the threats in light of those actions and conditions that 
will have positive effects on the species, such as any existing 
regulatory mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines 
whether the species meets the definition of an ``endangered species'' 
or a ``threatened species'' only after conducting this cumulative 
analysis and describing the expected effect on the species now and in 
the foreseeable future.
    The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which 
appears in the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' Our 
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for 
evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis. The term 
``foreseeable future'' extends only so far into the future as the 
Services can reasonably determine that both the future threats and the 
species' responses to those threats are likely. In other words, the 
foreseeable future is the period of time in which we can make reliable 
predictions. ``Reliable'' does not mean ``certain''; it means 
sufficient to provide a reasonable degree of confidence in the 
prediction. Thus, a prediction is reliable if it is reasonable to 
depend on it when making decisions.
    It is not always possible or necessary to define foreseeable future 
as a particular number of years. Analysis of the foreseeable future 
uses the best scientific and commercial data available and should 
consider the timeframes applicable to the relevant threats and to the 
species' likely responses to those threats in view of its life-history 
characteristics. Data that are typically relevant to assessing the 
species' biological response include species-specific factors such as 
lifespan, reproductive rates or productivity, certain behaviors, and 
other demographic factors.

Analytical Framework

    The SSA report documents the results of our comprehensive 
biological review of the best scientific and commercial data regarding 
the status of the species, including an assessment of the potential 
threats to the species. The SSA report does not represent a decision by 
the Service on whether the species should be proposed for listing as an 
endangered or threatened species under the Act. It does, however, 
provide the scientific basis that informs our regulatory decisions, 
which involve the further application of standards within the Act and 
its implementing regulations and policies. The following is a summary 
of the key results and conclusions from the SSA report; the full SSA 
report can be found at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2020-0130 on http://www.regulations.gov and at https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/.
    To assess viability of the Arizona eryngo, we used the three 
conservation biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and 
representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). Briefly, 
resiliency supports the ability of the species to withstand 
environmental and demographic stochasticity (for example, wet or dry, 
warm or cold years), redundancy supports the ability of the species to 
withstand catastrophic events (for example, droughts, large pollution 
events), and representation supports the ability of the species to 
adapt over time to long-term changes in the environment (for example, 
climate changes). In general, the more resilient and redundant a 
species is and the more representation it has, the more likely it is to 
sustain populations over time, even under changing environmental 
conditions. Using these principles, we identified the species' 
ecological requirements for survival and reproduction at the 
individual, population, and species levels, and described the 
beneficial and risk factors influencing the species' viability.
    The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages. 
During the first stage, we evaluated the individual species' life 
history needs. The next stage involved an assessment of the historical 
and current condition of the species' demographics and habitat 
characteristics, including an explanation of how the species arrived at 
its current condition. The final stage of the SSA involved making 
predictions about the species' responses to positive and negative 
environmental and anthropogenic influences. Throughout all of these 
stages, we used the best available information to characterize 
viability as the ability of a species to sustain populations in the 
wild over time. We use this information to inform our regulatory 
decision.

Summary of Biological Status and Threats

    In this discussion, we review the biological condition of the 
species and its resources, and the threats that influence the species' 
current and future condition, in order to assess the species' overall 
viability and the risks to that viability.
    Using various timeframes and the current and projected future 
resiliency,

[[Page 12569]]

redundancy, and representation, we describe the species' levels of 
viability over time. For the Arizona eryngo to maintain viability, its 
populations or some portion thereof must be resilient. A number of 
factors influence the resiliency of Arizona eryngo populations, 
including occupied area, abundance, and recruitment. Elements of the 
species' habitat that determine whether Arizona eryngo populations can 
grow to maximize habitat occupancy influence those factors, thereby 
influencing the resiliency of populations. These resiliency factors and 
habitat elements are discussed in detail in the SSA report and 
summarized here.

Species Needs

Abundance
    Larger plant populations have a lower risk of extinction than 
smaller populations (Menges 2000, p. 78). Small populations are less 
resilient and more vulnerable to the effects of demographic, 
environmental, and genetic stochasticity and have a higher risk of 
extinction than larger populations (Matthies et al. 2004, pp. 481, 
485). Small populations may experience increased inbreeding, loss of 
genetic variation, and ultimately a decreased potential to adapt to 
environmental change (Matthies et al. 2004, p. 481). When rare plant 
populations are very small (fewer than 100 individuals), they may 
suffer from inbreeding depression (Maschinski and Albrecht 2017, p. 
392). Furthermore, fewer pollinators visit plants in small and isolated 
populations, which may lead to reduced pollination and lowered 
fecundity (Matthies et al. 2004, p. 482).
    For populations of Arizona eryngo to be resilient, abundance should 
be high enough that local stochastic events do not eliminate all 
individuals, allowing the overall population to recover from any one 
event. A greater number of individuals in a population increases the 
chance that a portion of the population will survive. The necessary 
abundance or minimum viable population (MVP) size for Arizona eryngo is 
unknown; however, estimations can be attained from literature. For 
example, Pavlik (1996, p. 137) recommends MVP sizes ranging from 50 
individuals to 2,500 individuals for the conservation of rare plants, 
depending on various life history characteristics of the taxon. Some of 
the Arizona eryngo's life history characteristics indicate that an MVP 
may require higher abundance, while other characteristics indicate that 
lower abundances may be sufficient. For example, the species is a 
perennial and commonly produces ramets, which means that fewer 
individuals are needed to achieve an MVP. Conversely, it is an 
herbaceous plant, which means that an MVP may require higher abundance. 
The other characteristics are unknown for this species. Based on our 
current understanding of the species' life history, we conclude that an 
initial MVP in the middle of the spectrum provided by Pavlik (1996, p. 
137) is appropriate. Therefore, a population size of 1,225 may be 
needed to achieve high resiliency for the Arizona eryngo.
    Determinations of MVP usually take into account the effective 
population size, rather than total number of individuals; 10 
genetically identical individuals (for example, clones or ramets) would 
have an effective population size of one. In the case of the Arizona 
eryngo, we have estimates of abundance of individuals for each 
population, but we do not know the ratio of ramets to genetically 
unique individuals, although evidence indicates the species is highly 
clonal. In cases like this, Tependino (2012, p. 946) suggests adjusting 
the stem counts of rare clonal species to adjust for the inflated 
population size from the inclusion of ramets. Therefore, to account for 
the clonal nature of the Arizona eryngo, to estimate our final MVP we 
added 50 percent to the estimated MVP, which resulted in a total of 
about 1,840 plants needed to be a highly resilient population.
Recruitment
    Arizona eryngo populations must also reproduce and produce 
sufficient amounts of seedlings and ramets such that recruitment equals 
or exceeds mortality. Ideally, we would know key demographic parameters 
of the plant (i.e., survival, life expectancy, lifespan, the ratio of 
ramets to genetically unique individuals) to estimate the percentage of 
juveniles required in a population to achieve population stability or 
growth. Because we currently do not know any of these parameters, we 
are using the presence of juveniles as an important demographic factor 
influencing resiliency.
    Current population size and abundance reflects previous influences 
on the population and habitat, while reproduction and recruitment 
reflect population trends that may be stable, increasing, or decreasing 
in the future. For example, a large, dense population of Arizona eryngo 
that contains mostly old individuals may be able to withstand a single 
stochastic event over the short term, but it is not likely to remain 
large and dense into the future, as there are few young individuals to 
sustain the population over time. A population that is less dense but 
has many young individuals may be likely to grow denser in the future, 
or such a population may be lost if a single stochastic event affects 
many seedlings at once. Therefore, the presence of young individuals is 
an important indicator of population resiliency into the future.
Occupied Area
    Highly resilient Arizona eryngo populations must occupy cienegas 
large enough such that stochastic events and environmental fluctuations 
that affect individual plants or colonies do not eliminate the entire 
population. Repopulation through seed dispersal and germination and 
ramet production within the cienega can allow the population to recover 
from these events.
    Larger functional cienegas are likely to support larger populations 
of Arizona eryngo and are more likely to provide patches of suitable 
habitat when small stochastic events and environmental fluctuations 
occur. For example, during drought years, areas closer to spring seeps 
and possibly areas with natural depressions (i.e., topographic 
variation) may retain more moisture throughout the year than areas 
farther away from seeps and slightly higher in elevation. Conversely, 
during years with heavy rainfall, slightly higher elevation areas may 
retain moist soils that are not inundated year round, providing 
suitable habitat for the species.
    Areas currently occupied by Arizona eryngo range from about 0.04 
hectares (0.1 acre) to 0.9 hectares (2.2 acres). Based on historical 
and current estimates of cienega size and area occupied by Arizona 
eryngo, we approximate that a resilient Arizona eryngo population 
should occupy greater than 1 hectare (2.5 acres) within a functional 
cienega.
Soil Moisture
    Resilient Arizona eryngo populations need moist to saturated soils 
year round. Arizona eryngo has been documented in standing water up to 
two centimeters to soil that is dry at the surface but saturated 
several centimeters into the soil (Stromberg et al. 2019, pp. 6, 8). It 
is hypothesized that flowering is determined, in part, by soil moisture 
availability (i.e., plants do not flower in drier conditions when the 
plants are more stressed) and that ramets are produced during drier 
periods (Li 2019, p. 8; Stromberg et al. 2019, p. 8). Seedling 
recruitment may be episodic, with greater recruitment success in wetter 
years. Soils must remain

[[Page 12570]]

sufficiently moist for successful seedling recruitment, particularly in 
the hottest/driest time of the year (normally May/June). If soils 
become too dry, other more drought-tolerant species are likely to 
encroach and outcompete the Arizona eryngo (Simms 2019, p. 6; Li 2019, 
p. 1), or if or if it becomes very dry such that the roots are not in 
moist soil, the plant is likely to die. If the soil is inundated with 
water (such that there is standing water on the surface) for too long, 
other species that grow more aggressively in mesic conditions are 
likely to outcompete the Arizona eryngo (Li 2020, p. 2).
Sunlight
    Highly resilient Arizona eryngo populations require full sun. Under 
canopy cover, the species grows less densely, and flowering is reduced. 
Tall native and nonnative vegetation appears to outcompete and suppress 
growth of the Arizona eryngo. While these species may compete for 
sunlight, water, and nutrients, lack of sunlight may be a primary 
factor driving the absence or decreased abundance of the Arizona 
eryngo.

Risk Factors for the Arizona Eryngo

    We reviewed the potential risk factors (i.e., threats, stressors) 
that could be affecting the Arizona eryngo now and in the future. In 
this proposed rule, we will discuss only those factors in detail that 
could meaningfully impact the status of the species. Those risks that 
are not known to have effects on Arizona eryngo populations, such as 
overutilization for commercial and scientific purposes and disease, are 
not discussed here but are evaluated in the SSA report. The primary 
risk factors affecting the status of the Arizona eryngo are: (1) 
Physical alteration of cienegas (Factor A), (2) water loss (Factor A), 
and (3) changes in co-occurring vegetation (Factor A). These factors 
are exacerbated by the ongoing and expected effects of climate change. 
Direct harm or mortality due to herbivory or trampling (Factor C) may 
also affect individuals and the seedbank, but not at levels likely to 
affect species viability.
Physical Loss and Alteration of Cienega Habitat
    Historically, cienegas were more common and larger than they are 
today. Greater than 95 percent of the historical area of cienegas in 
the southwestern United States and northwestern Mexico is now dry (Cole 
and Cole 2015, p. 36). Functional cienegas were much more common prior 
to the late 1800s, as evidenced by pollen and fire records, General 
Land Office survey notes, and early trapper and settler diaries 
(Hendrickson and Minckley 1985, p. 131; Fonseca 1998, p. 111; Cole and 
Cole 2015, p. 36; Brunelle et al. 2018, p. 2). Estimates of cienega 
abundance in the International Four Corners Region of the Southwest 
(Arizona, Sonora, New Mexico, and Chihuahua) vary from hundreds to 
thousands (Cole and Cole 2015, p. 36; Sivinski 2018, entire). Of the 
155 cienegas that Cole and Cole (2015, p. 36) identified in the 
International Four Corners Region, 87 (56 percent) are either dead or 
so severely compromised that there is no prospect for their 
restoration. In addition to the reduced abundance of cienegas in the 
International Four Corners Region, the remaining cienegas are greatly 
reduced in size, and due to many being severely incised, they are more 
similar to creeks than marshes (Cole and Cole 2015, p. 36).
    A number of complex factors, many of which are interrelated, led to 
the historical loss and degradation of cienegas and continue to 
contribute to this loss today. The primary factors include intensive 
grazing of domestic livestock, the removal of beavers (Castor 
canadensis) from regional streams and rivers, and agricultural 
recontouring (Minckley et al. 2013a, p. 214; Cole and Cole 2015, p. 
32). Intensive overgrazing by sheep and cattle from the late 1500s to 
the late 1800s led to barren soil, erosion, headcutting (erosional 
feature in a stream that contributes to lowering the water table of the 
surrounding system), and increased frequency of or intensity of 
destructive floods, all leading to the alteration or complete 
destruction (complete loss of ecological function) of cienegas 
(Minckley et al. 2013a, p. 214; Cole and Cole 2015, p. 32). Beaver 
dams, once numerous within the range of the Arizona eryngo, slowed 
water and created pools and wetlands along water courses, and enhanced 
groundwater recharge; however, high levels of beaver trapping in the 
1800s resulted in increased erosion and channel cutting of these once 
complex, shallow wetlands (Gibson and Olden 2014, p. 395; Cole and Cole 
2015, p. 32). Additionally, early settlers recontoured (e.g., diverted, 
dammed, channelized) cienegas for agricultural, mining, disease 
control, and other purposes; this resulted in further channelization 
and concentrated flow, greatly reducing the size of cienegas and 
further lowering the water table (Cole and Cole 2015, p. 32; Minckley 
et al. 2013b, p. 78).
    We expect that Arizona eryngo populations were more widespread and 
occurred at historical cienegas that have lost their ecological 
function due to physical alteration, such that populations were more 
abundant, occurred closer to one another, and were more connected 
(through pollination and seed dispersal) than they are currently. As a 
result of these lost cienegas, the four extant Arizona eryngo 
populations are now disjunct.
    Although grazing was one cause of the loss of historical cienega 
habitat, grazing and trampling by livestock occur only occasionally at 
Arizona eryngo populations. No grazing is authorized at Lewis Springs, 
and we are not aware of any grazing occurring at La Cebadilla and Ojo 
Varele[ntilde]o. Trespass livestock could enter Lewis Springs and 
affect habitat in the cienega; although there was no evidence of cattle 
in 2018 or 2019, there was evidence (i.e., scat and light trailing) of 
a trespass horse in the area when Service biologists visited the site 
in 2019. Cattle are present at Rancho Agua Caliente, Sonora, and the 
habitat is somewhat disturbed by cattle (S[aacute]nchez Escalante et 
al. 2019, p. 16). Livestock (e.g., livestock trailing and gathering) 
can trample vegetation and expose and compact soil, resulting in 
habitat erosion and altered hydrological function, but the effects of 
livestock are dependent on many factors such as the intensity, 
duration, and timing of grazing. In the absence of other forms of 
disturbance (e.g., fire), it is possible that selective, well-managed 
livestock grazing in the winter or spring could create habitat 
disturbance and open sun conditions favoring Arizona eryngo seedling 
establishment.
    Other physical alterations that occurred in the past likely 
continue to affect extant populations of Arizona eryngo through changes 
in the natural hydrology of cienegas supporting the species. For 
example, a berm that has been present at La Cebadilla since at least 
1941, as well as various houses and roads adjacent and near the 
cienega, all affect the natural hydrology of the site. Similarly, the 
railroad that runs parallel to Lewis Springs likely affects the 
hydrology of the cienega. Unlike the historical physical alterations 
that severely degraded cienegas, these alterations (berm, railroad, 
houses, etc.) have not destroyed cienega function.
Water Loss
    Water loss in cienegas poses a significant threat to the Arizona 
eryngo. Causes of water loss are complex, but the primary causes at 
cienegas historically or currently supporting Arizona eryngo are: (1) 
Groundwater pumping/withdrawal, (2) spring modification, (3) water 
diversion, and (4) drought. These stressors are all

[[Page 12571]]

exacerbated by climate change. Groundwater pumping or withdrawal leads 
to aquifer depletion and no or reduced outflow from springheads. 
Modification of springheads reduces or eliminates springflow. Water 
diverted from springheads reduces or eliminates the amount of water 
supporting the cienega. Drought and warming also reduce springflow and 
the amount of water in cienegas. Reduction in winter rain particularly 
leads to reduced aquifer recharge. Climate change is expected to 
exacerbate drought conditions, increase surface temperatures and 
evapotranspiration, and reduce winter precipitation, all of which may 
lead to a reduction in aquifer recharge and increased cienega drying.
    Water loss in cienegas reduces the quantity and quality of habitat 
for the Arizona eryngo. The species requires very moist to saturated 
soils and possibly some standing water for seed germination. As water 
is lost from cienegas, soils become drier, reducing habitat quality and 
allowing woody and/or invasive vegetation to establish, further 
reducing available habitat.
    Water loss from cienegas caused the extirpation of the species at 
two of the six cienegas known to historically support the Arizona 
eryngo (Las Playas in New Mexico, and Agua Caliente in Arizona), and 
all populations continue to be exposed to water loss. The sources of 
water loss are discussed further below.
    Groundwater withdrawal--The population at Las Playas was extirpated 
primarily due to groundwater pumping for agriculture and the Playas 
Smelter that caused the desiccation of the spring (Sivinski 2018, p. 
27; Stromberg et al. 2019, p. 5). Groundwater withdrawal is also 
occurring near Lewis Springs, La Cebadilla, and Agua Caliente. The use 
of groundwater for agriculture, industry, and urban and rural 
development has enabled significant human population growth in the arid 
Southwest. Increased groundwater withdrawal can reduce or eliminate 
springflow, thereby eliminating wetlands altogether (Johnson et al. 
2016, p. 52).
    The largest municipalities in the Sierra Vista subwatershed, within 
which Lewis Springs occurs, are Sierra Vista, Bisbee, Tombstone, and 
Huachuca City. Within these areas, the human population is increasing, 
as is development distributed in rural parts of the subwatershed (Leake 
et al. 2008, p. 1). This growing population is dependent on groundwater 
to meet its water consumption needs. Water outflow from the 
subwatershed, including water withdrawn by pumping, exceeds natural 
inflow to the regional aquifer within the subwatershed (Leake et al. 
2008, p. 2). As a result, groundwater levels in parts of the 
subwatershed are declining, and groundwater storage is being depleted 
(i.e., a negative water budget).
    Groundwater pumping in the area of Lewis Springs, up to several 
kilometers away, may be affecting the regional groundwater flow to the 
wetlands along the San Pedro River, including Lewis Springs (Stromberg 
et al. 2019, p. 9). The continued decline of groundwater levels 
upgradient from perennial river reaches will eventually diminish the 
base flow of the San Pedro River and impact the riparian ecosystem 
within the SPRNCA (Leake et al. 2008, p. 2). This groundwater use over 
the past century has been so profound that the effects of pumping over 
the past century will eventually capture and eliminate surface flow 
from the river, even if all groundwater pumping were to stop (Gungle et 
al. 2016, p. 29). Models show the area of Lewis Springs as being one of 
the areas of greatest groundwater loss in the basin (Leake et al. 2008, 
p. 14).
    The aquifer supporting the La Cebadilla springs could be reduced 
from numerous private wells (including the Tanque Verde Guest Ranch) 
producing water from the aquifer that feeds the springs (Eastoe and 
Fonseca 2019, pers. comm.). It is unknown how quickly pumping a mile or 
two away from the springs might affect the springs themselves (Eastoe 
and Fonseca 2019, pers. comm.).
    We do not have information on the source of water supplying the 
springs or about the amount of groundwater use at Rancho Agua Caliente 
or Ojo Varele[ntilde]o, both in Mexico.
    Spring modification--The Arizona eryngo population at Agua Caliente 
was extirpated due to a number of manipulations, including spring 
modification (i.e., the springs were blasted in the 1930s and again in 
the 1960s) that significantly decreased the water flow (Stromberg et 
al. 2019, p. 5; Friends of Agua Caliente 2020, entire) and pond 
impoundment.
    Water diversion--The Arizona eryngo population at La Cebadilla has 
been exposed to water diversion for many decades; this diversion may 
have led to a reduction in the size of the cienega, but enough water 
still flows to maintain the cienega and support the largest documented 
population (Fonseca 2019, p. 2; Stromberg et al. 2019, p. 5). Pond 
impoundment diverts water from the cienega at Agua Caliente; this was 
pronounced in the 1960s during subdivision construction and has 
continued since.
    Less is known about water loss associated with the cienegas 
supporting the Arizona eryngo in Mexico, but we are aware that the 
municipality of Casas Grandes is interested in installing a pipeline 
from the spring at El Ojo Varele[ntilde]o to supply water to the 
Universidad Tecnol[oacute]gica de Casas Grandes. Currently at Ojo 
Varele[ntilde]o, springflow is collected in concrete spa ponds, which 
likely affects the natural hydrology of the site.
    Drought and warming--All Arizona eryngo populations are exposed to 
drought, as well as warming temperatures from climate change. Decreased 
precipitation and increased temperatures due to climate change will 
exacerbate declines in surface and groundwater levels, which will cause 
further drying of cienega habitat required by the Arizona eryngo.
    Climate change has already begun, and continued greenhouse gas 
emissions at or above current rates will cause further warming. Climate 
models indicate that the transition to a more arid climate is already 
underway and predict that in this century the arid regions of the 
southwestern United States will become drier (i.e., decreased 
precipitation) and warmer (i.e., increased surface temperatures), and 
have fewer frost days, decreased snow pack, increased frequency of 
extreme weather events (heat waves, droughts, and floods), declines in 
river flow and soil moisture, and greater water demand by plants, 
animals, and humans (Archer and Predick 2008, p. 23; Garfin et al. 
2013, pp. 5-6). Increasing dryness in the southwestern United States 
and northern Mexico is predicted to occur as early as 2021-2040 (Seager 
et al. 2007, p. 1181). Climate modeling of the southwestern United 
States shows consistent projections of drying, primarily due to a 
decrease in winter precipitation (Collins et al. 2013, p. 1080). For 
both Pima and Cochise Counties, where the La Cebadilla and Lewis 
Springs populations occur, the average daily maximum temperature, under 
both lower (i.e. RCP 4.5) and higher (i.e., RCP 8.5) emissions 
scenarios, will increase by mid-century (Climate Explorer 2020).
    Climate change over the 21st century is projected to reduce 
renewable surface water and groundwater resources in most dry 
subtropical regions (IPCC 2014, p. 69). Over the next 100 years, 
groundwater recharge in the San Pedro basin is expected to decrease 17 
to 30 percent, depending on the climate scenario considered (Serrat-
Capdevila et al. 2007, p. 63), and average annual base flow will be 
half the base flow in 2000. As the area gets drier, the San Pedro

[[Page 12572]]

aquifer groundwater overdraft will become more severe as recharge 
declines and groundwater pumping increases (Meixner et al. 2016, p. 
135). For the purposes of our analysis, we chose two Representative 
Concentration Pathways, RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5 (IPCC 2014, p. 8) to assess 
future condition of the Arizona eryngo. These climate scenarios were 
incorporated into our future scenarios of the status of the Arizona 
eryngo in the SSA report.
    Summary of water loss--In summary, water loss has caused the 
extirpation of two of six known populations of the Arizona eryngo and 
has affected the current viability of all extant populations. Both 
extant U.S. populations are exposed to water loss through groundwater 
withdrawal, and one of these (La Cebadilla) is also exposed to spring 
diversion. Groundwater withdrawal, particularly when exacerbated by 
climate change, is a primary threat to the survival of the Arizona 
eryngo at Lewis Springs and La Cebadilla. Less is known about water 
loss associated with the two populations in Mexico, but spring 
diversion is proposed at one site supporting the Arizona eryngo, and it 
is likely that the species is vulnerable to groundwater withdrawal. 
Drought and warming as a result of climate change affects all 
populations, particularly when combined with groundwater withdrawal and 
diversion.
Change in Vegetation at Cienegas
    The invasion of vegetation that reduces full sun conditions poses a 
threat to the Arizona eryngo. Changes in vegetation at cienegas are 
primarily from fire suppression, introduction of nonnative plant 
species, decreased flood events, and changes in hydrology and climate. 
Prior to the arrival of European settlers, burning of cienegas by 
indigenous people was frequent enough to exclude most woody plants 
(e.g., hackberry (Celtis spp.), buttonbush (Cephalanthus spp.), 
cottonwood (Populus spp.), ash (Fraxinus spp.), and willow (Salix 
spp.)) and suppress bulrush from cienegas and to promote growth of 
native grasses (Davis et al. 2002, p. 1; Cole and Cole 2015, p. 32). 
Extant cienegas now have less diversity of annual and disturbance-
adapted native understory species and an increase in native woody, 
clonal, and nonnative plants (Stromberg et al. 2017, p. 10). As water 
levels in cienegas decrease, woody plants invade without regular 
disturbance (e.g., fires, floods) to the system (Huxman and Scott 2007, 
p. 1). Shifts from herbaceous wetland vegetation to more deeply rooted 
riparian trees have been well documented at wetlands with lowered water 
tables (Stromberg et al. 2019, p. 9). These woody plants shade out 
Arizona eryngo and cause water level declines in cienegas through 
increased evapotranspiration, particularly in the summer (Johnson et 
al. 2016, p. 83).
    Invasive, nonnative plants (e.g., giant reed, Johnsongrass) are of 
concern because they often quickly colonize an area and aggressively 
compete with native species such as the Arizona eryngo for sunlight, 
water, and nutrients. Giant reed is a fast-growing, tall (up to 6 
meters (m) (~20 feet (ft)), perennial, hydrophytic (water-loving) grass 
that grows in riparian areas, streams, irrigation ditches, and 
wetlands. It is an aggressive invader that rapidly spreads into a thick 
monoculture that outcompetes and shades out other vegetation (Frandsen 
1997, p. 245; DiPietro 2002, p. 9). Giant reed is fire-adapted and 
resprouts from extensive underground rhizomes even after very hot fires 
that kill native vegetation (DiPietro 2002, p. 9). Additionally, it 
uses large amounts of water, thereby reducing the amount of water 
available for native vegetation (DiPietro 2002, p. 10).
    Johnsongrass is a fast-growing, tall, invasive perennial grass that 
thrives in a variety of environments and climates (Peerzada et al. 
2017, p. 2). It mostly grows at moist sites (e.g., irrigation canals, 
cultivated fields, field edges, pastures), and in Arizona, it is known 
as a riparian weed in the Sonoran and Chihuahuan Deserts. Johnsongrass 
impacts the growth of native plants; it is difficult to control and has 
become resistant to herbicides, particularly glyphosate (Peerzada et 
al. 2017, p. 2).
    At three of four cienegas supporting the Arizona eryngo (Lewis 
Springs, La Cebadilla, and Ojo Varele[ntilde]o), an increase in woody 
vegetation and nonnative plant species has been documented. This 
vegetation is outcompeting the Arizona eryngo for sunlight and space, 
likely causing a decrease in population size and extent at these sites. 
At Lewis Springs, Johnsongrass is aggressively invading and appears to 
be suppressing Arizona eryngo, particularly in the drier areas of the 
wetlands (Li 2019, entire; Simms 2019, entire). Johnsongrass has been 
present at this site since at least 2009. In the drier areas of the 
wetlands, baccharis is encroaching and appears to be suppressing 
Arizona eryngo; no Arizona eryngo plants have been found growing in the 
understory of baccharis (Li 2019, entire; Simms 2019, entire). At La 
Cebadilla, aerial imagery indicates that mesquite (Prosopis spp.) is 
invading the cienega, and cottonwood also appears to be shading out 
Arizona eryngo (Fonseca 2019, entire). Arizona ash (Fraxinus velutina) 
trees are invading the cienega and shading out Arizona eryngo as well 
(Li 2020b, p. 3). At Ojo Varele[ntilde]o, many nonnative plant species 
also occur, with a particularly aggressive invasion of giant reed 
(S[aacute]nchez Escalante et al. 2019, pp. 9-10).
    In summary, nonnative Johnsongrass and giant reed are likely to 
continue to aggressively invade Lewis Springs and Ojo Varele[ntilde]o. 
These nonnative plant species may contribute to the near-term 
extirpation of Arizona eryngo populations at these sites. Woody 
vegetation encroachment at La Cebadilla and Lewis Springs is also 
likely to continue, further degrading habitat conditions.
Direct Harm and Mortality
    Livestock, such as cattle and horses, and native herbivores (both 
invertebrate and vertebrate) may cause harm or mortality to Arizona 
eryngo plants through trampling, herbivory, or uprooting. Because 
mature plants have large, fibrous leaves, cattle are more likely to 
consume young plants at an early growth stage. As discussed above, 
cattle are present at Rancho Agua Caliente, and trespass cattle and 
horses could enter Lewis Springs and trample, consume flowers, and 
reduce the seedbank of the Arizona eryngo. To our knowledge, no 
livestock are present at La Cebadilla or Ojo Varele[ntilde]o. At the 
Agua Caliente reintroduction site in Arizona, javelina uprooted and 
killed young plants, and gophers ate young reintroduced plants (Fonseca 
2018, p. 1; Li 2019, p. 6).
    Many invertebrates have been observed on Arizona eryngo plants at 
La Cebadilla and Lewis Springs (Stromberg et al. 2019, p. 8; Li 2019, 
p. 2; Simms 2019, p. 1). Some of these invertebrates may be floral 
herbivores, but they do not appear to be of concern for the species' 
viability.
    In summary, while herbivory and trampling may harm individual 
Arizona eryngo plants and the seedbank, they are not significant 
threats to the species.
Summary
    Our analysis of the past, current, and future influences on the 
needs of the Arizona eryngo for long-term viability revealed that there 
are two that pose the greatest risk to future viability: Water loss 
(groundwater withdrawal and water diversion) and invasion of nonnative 
and woody plant species, both of which are exacerbated by drought and 
warming caused by climate change. Water loss reduces the availability 
of

[[Page 12573]]

moist soils, and nonnative and woody plant species outcompete Arizona 
eryngo for sunlight, space, and water, thereby reducing the quantity 
and quality of habitat.

Species Condition

    Here we discuss the current condition of the Arizona eryngo, taking 
into account the risks to those populations that are currently 
occurring. We consider climate change to be currently occurring and 
exacerbating effects of drought, warming, groundwater withdrawal, 
diversion, and invasion of nonnative and woody plant species. In the 
SSA report, for each population, we developed and assigned condition 
categories for three population factors and two habitat factors that 
are important for viability of the Arizona eryngo. The condition scores 
for each factor were then used to determine an overall condition of 
each population: high, moderate, low, or functionally extirpated. These 
overall conditions translate to our presumed probability of persistence 
of each population, with populations in high condition having the 
highest presumed probability of persistence over 30 years (greater than 
90 percent), populations in moderate condition having a presumed 
probability of persistence that falls between 60 and 90 percent, and 
populations in low condition having the lowest probability of 
persistence (between 10 and 60 percent). Functionally extirpated 
populations are not expected to persist over 30 years or are already 
extirpated.
    Overall, there are four remaining populations of Arizona eryngo, 
all restricted to small cienegas in the Sonoran and Chihuahuan Deserts 
in Arizona and Mexico. Historically, Arizona eryngo populations were 
likely connected to one another, but today they are small and isolated 
due to cienega loss throughout the region. Repopulation of extirpated 
locations is extremely unlikely without human assistance. Two 
populations are currently in moderate condition and two are in low 
condition, and two have been extirpated.
La Cebadilla
    La Cebadilla contains the largest population of the Arizona eryngo, 
with a population estimate of over 30,000 individuals. However, this 
population occurs in a very small area; the occupied area is 
approximately 0.04 hectares (1.1 acres), and the population depends on 
stable groundwater to maintain springflow into the cienega. The cienega 
has been altered by increased presence of trees, bank erosion, pasture 
grading, utility construction, and subdivision development (Fonseca 
2019, p. 3). Historical images indicate that the cienega was more 
extensive in 1941, with fewer trees on some margins of the cienega and 
no forest on the southern margin of the cienega (Fonseca 2019, p. 1). 
Due to the encroachment of woody vegetation, this site has varied 
sunlight conditions, with more shade currently than in the past.
    The cienega has been shrinking, indicating the aquifer is being 
depleted (Fonseca 2019, pers. comm.). The aquifer supporting the La 
Cebadilla springs supports numerous private wells (including the Tanque 
Verde Guest Ranch) (Eastoe and Fonseca 2019, pers. comm.). In addition 
to groundwater use, aquifer depletion could also result from increased 
evapotranspiration of tree cover and stream channel adjustments.
    La Cebadilla Estates and the Pima County Regional Flood Control 
District (PCFCD) are committed to the conservation of the unique 
ecological diversity of La Cebadilla cienega and are working to reduce 
woody vegetation. The homeowners association of La Cebadilla Estates 
manages their portion of the cienega as common property for the common 
use and enjoyment of its members. PCFCD manages their portion of the 
cienega as natural open space, which has a restrictive covenant that 
limits development and protects natural resources on the property.
    Because of the small extent of the population and the encroachment 
of woody vegetation, the Arizona eryngo population is currently in 
moderate condition and is at risk of extirpation from decreased 
springflow due to continuing loss of groundwater from the aquifer.
Lewis Springs
    The population of Arizona eryngo in Lewis Springs, estimated at 
1,813 plants, occurs along a very narrow cienega parallel to a 
railroad, occupying about 0.04 hectares (0.1 acres) (Li 2020a, p. 1). 
In 2005, there were more than a dozen springs and seeps in the wetland 
complex; as of 2019, some of the wetland patches appear to be drying, 
with soil drier at several sites than it had been in 2005 (Simms 2019, 
entire). The water source of Lewis Springs Cienega is supplied by 
mountain front recharge (westward flow from the Mule Mountains and 
eastward flow from the Huachuca Mountains) (Baillie et al. 2007, p. 7; 
Stromberg et al. 2019, p. 6). Groundwater pumping up to several 
kilometers away may be affecting the regional groundwater flow to the 
wetlands along the San Pedro River, including Lewis Springs (Stromberg 
et al. 2019, p. 9).
    Nonnative Johnsongrass is aggressively invading Lewis Springs and 
appears to be suppressing Arizona eryngo, particularly in the drier 
areas of the cienega (Simms 2019, p. 22; Li 2020a, p. 2). Similarly, 
baccharis has been invading and appears to be suppressing Arizona 
eryngo, as no Arizona eryngo plants were found growing in the 
understory of baccharis (Simms 2019, p. 6; Li 2019, p. 1). In the 
wetter areas of the cienega where the soil is saturated and surface 
water is generally present, common spikerush (Eleocharis palustris) and 
bulrush appear to suppress Arizona eryngo (Li 2020a, p. 2).
    BLM has conducted some removal of Johnsongrass at Lewis Springs and 
is currently planning for additional removal of the species. BLM is 
also planning experimental removal of baccharis shrubs at Lewis 
Springs, and they are considering establishment of additional 
populations and/or subpopulations of Arizona eryngo at suitable sites 
within Lewis Springs and the SPRNCA. BLM is also collecting seeds for 
propagation and banking.
    Because of the moderate population size, extremely small population 
extent, decreasing springflow and increased drying of soils, and plant 
species invasion, Lewis Springs is currently in moderate condition. The 
population is currently at risk of extirpation from drying due to 
drought, groundwater pumping, and invasion of nonnative Johnsongrass.
Rancho Agua Caliente, Mexico
    The Arizona eryngo population at Rancho Agua Caliente occupies 
about 1 hectare (2.5 acres). The population is estimated to be several 
hundred plants, including juveniles (S[aacute]nchez Escalante et al. 
2019, p. 16; S[aacute]nchez Escalante 2019, pers. comm.). This cienega 
is the only known population of Arizona eryngo in Sonora.
    Rancho Agua Caliente is an active cattle ranch, and Arizona eryngo 
habitat is somewhat disturbed by cattle (S[aacute]nchez Escalante et 
al. 2019, p. 16), which may help create open sun conditions for the 
species. We have no information on the groundwater source for the 
spring.
    Because of the small numbers of individuals at Rancho Agua 
Caliente, the population is currently in low condition and is at risk 
of extirpation due to drought and drying of habitat.

[[Page 12574]]

Ojo Varele[ntilde]o, Mexico
    The Arizona eryngo population at Ojo Varele[ntilde]o contains about 
56 adult plants (S[aacute]nchez Escalante et al. 2019, p. 17) in a 
0.075-hectare (0.18-acre) area (S[aacute]nchez Escalante 2019, pers. 
comm.). No juveniles have been documented at this site.
    Giant reed has been aggressively invading Ojo Varele[ntilde]o 
(S[aacute]nchez Escalante et al. 2019, p. 10), and it appears that the 
site has variable soil moisture and sunlight conditions. The giant reed 
invasion is creating conditions with high amounts of shade and little 
to no space for other plants. Springflow is collected in concrete spa 
ponds (S[aacute]nchez Escalante et al. 2019, p. 28), which likely 
affects the natural hydrology of the site. Currently, we do not have 
information on the source of water supplying the springs or the amount 
of groundwater use at this site.
    Because of the very low population numbers and the lack of 
juveniles, the population of Arizona eryngo at Ojo Varele[ntilde]o is 
currently in low condition. A small change in the water levels at the 
cienega or further invasion by giant reed could cause the extirpation 
of the population in the near future.
    We note that, by using the SSA framework to guide our analysis of 
the scientific information documented in the SSA report, we have not 
only analyzed individual effects on the species, but we have also 
analyzed their potential cumulative effects. We incorporate the 
cumulative effects into our SSA analysis when we characterize the 
current and future condition of the species. Our assessment of the 
current and future conditions encompasses and incorporates the threats 
individually and cumulatively. Our current and future condition 
assessment is iterative because it accumulates and evaluates the 
effects of all the factors that may be influencing the species, 
including threats and conservation efforts. Because the SSA framework 
considers not just the presence of the factors, but to what degree they 
collectively influence risk to the entire species, our assessment 
integrates the cumulative effects of the factors and replaces a 
standalone cumulative effects analysis.

Determination of Arizona Eryngo's Status

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing 
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining 
whether a species meets the definition of an endangered species or a 
threatened species. The Act defines endangered species as a species 
``in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of 
its range,'' and threatened species as a species ``likely to become an 
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range.'' The Act requires that we determine 
whether a species meets the definition of endangered species or 
threatened species because of any of the following factors: (A) The 
present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its 
habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, 
scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the 
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or 
manmade factors affecting its continued existence.

Status Throughout All of Its Range

    After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the 
cumulative effect of the threats under the section 4(a)(1) factors, we 
found that the Arizona eryngo has declined in abundance and 
distribution. At present, most of the known populations exist in very 
low abundances, and all populations occur in extremely small areas. 
Furthermore, existing available habitats are reduced in quality and 
quantity, relative to historical conditions. Our analysis revealed 
three primary threats that caused these declines and pose a meaningful 
risk to the viability of the species. These threats are primarily 
related to habitat changes (Factor A from the Act): Physical alteration 
of cienegas, water loss, and changes in co-occurring vegetation, all of 
which are exacerbated by the effects of climate change.
    Because of historical and current modifications of cienegas and 
groundwater withdrawals from the aquifers supporting occupied cienegas, 
Arizona eryngo populations are now fragmented and isolated from one 
another and unable to recolonize following extirpations. These 
populations are largely in a state of chronic degradation due to water 
loss and changes in co-occurring vegetation, affecting soil moisture 
and open canopy conditions and limiting the species' resiliency. Given 
the high risk of a catastrophic drought or groundwater depletion, both 
of which are exacerbated by climate change, all Arizona eryngo 
populations are at a high or moderate risk of extirpation. 
Historically, the species, with a larger range of likely interconnected 
populations, would have been more resilient to stochastic events 
because even if some populations were extirpated by such events, they 
could be recolonized over time by dispersal from nearby surviving 
populations. This connectivity, which would have made for a highly 
resilient species overall, has been lost, and with two populations in 
low condition and two in moderate condition, the remnant populations 
are all at risk of loss.
    Our analysis of the Arizona eryngo's current conditions, using the 
best available information, shows that the Arizona eryngo is in danger 
of extinction throughout all of its range due to the severity and 
immediacy of threats currently impacting the species. We find that a 
threatened species status is not appropriate because of the Arizona 
eryngo's currently contracted range, because the populations are 
fragmented from one another, because the threats are currently ongoing 
and occurring across the entire range of the species.

Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range

    Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may 
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so 
in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of 
its range. We have determined that the Arizona eryngo is in danger of 
extinction throughout all of its range and accordingly did not 
undertake an analysis of any significant portion of its range. Because 
the Arizona eryngo warrants listing as endangered throughout all of its 
range, our determination is consistent with the decision in Center for 
Biological Diversity v. Everson, 2020 WL 437289 (D.D.C. Jan. 28, 2020), 
in which the court vacated the aspect of the Final Policy on 
Interpretation of the Phrase ``Significant Portion of Its Range'' in 
the Endangered Species Act's Definitions of ``Endangered Species'' and 
``Threatened Species'' (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014) that provided the 
Services do not undertake an analysis of significant portions of a 
species' range if the species warrants listing as threatened throughout 
all of its range.

Determination of Status

    Our review of the best available scientific and commercial 
information indicates that the Arizona eryngo meets the Act's 
definition of an endangered species. Therefore, we propose to list the 
Arizona eryngo as an endangered species in accordance with sections 
3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.

Available Conservation Measures

    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
threatened species under the Act include recognition, recovery actions,

[[Page 12575]]

requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain 
practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness, and 
conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, private 
organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the 
States and other countries and calls for recovery actions to be carried 
out for listed species. The protection required by Federal agencies and 
the prohibitions against certain activities are discussed, in part, 
below.
    The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered 
and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The 
ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these 
listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of 
the Act. Section 4(f) of the Act calls for the Service to develop and 
implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and 
threatened species. The recovery planning process involves the 
identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the 
species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and 
recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a 
point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning 
components of their ecosystems.
    Recovery planning consists of preparing draft and final recovery 
plans, beginning with the development of a recovery outline and making 
it available to the public within 30 days of a final listing 
determination. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation 
of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to be used to 
develop a recovery plan. Revisions of the plan may be done to address 
continuing or new threats to the species, as new substantive 
information becomes available. The recovery plan also identifies 
recovery criteria for review of when a species may be ready for 
reclassification from endangered to threatened (``downlisting'') or 
removal from protected status (``delisting''), and methods for 
monitoring recovery progress. Recovery plans also establish a framework 
for agencies to coordinate their recovery efforts and provide estimates 
of the cost of implementing recovery tasks. Recovery teams (composed of 
species experts, Federal and State agencies, nongovernmental 
organizations, and stakeholders) are often established to develop 
recovery plans. When completed, the recovery outline, draft recovery 
plan, and the final recovery plan will be available on our website 
(http://www.fws.gov/endangered), or from our Arizona Ecological 
Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the 
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal 
agencies, States, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, 
and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat 
restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive 
propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The 
recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on 
Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or solely on non-
Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires 
cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and Tribal lands.
    If this species is listed, funding for recovery actions will be 
available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State 
programs, and cost-share grants for non-Federal landowners, the 
academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition, 
pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the State of Arizona would be 
eligible for Federal funds to implement management actions that promote 
the protection or recovery of the Arizona eryngo. Information on our 
grant programs that are available to aid species recovery can be found 
at: http://www.fws.gov/grants.
    Although the Arizona eryngo is only proposed for listing under the 
Act at this time, please let us know if you are interested in 
participating in recovery efforts for this species. Additionally, we 
invite you to submit any new information on this species whenever it 
becomes available and any information you may have for recovery 
planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their 
actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as an 
endangered or threatened species and with respect to its critical 
habitat, if any is designated. Regulations implementing this 
interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR 
part 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to 
confer with the Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of a species proposed for listing or result in 
destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a 
species is listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires 
Federal agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or 
carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the 
species or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a 
Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the 
responsible Federal agency must enter into consultation with the 
Service.
    Federal agency actions within the species' habitat that may require 
conference or consultation or both as described in the preceding 
paragraph include management and any other landscape-altering 
activities on Federal lands administered by the BLM or groundwater use 
by Fort Huachuca or other Federal agencies (or permitted or funded by a 
Federal agency) within the hydrological influence of Lewis Springs, La 
Cebadilla, or Agua Caliente.
    The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of 
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to endangered plants. 
The prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act, codified at 50 CFR 
17.61, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of 
the United States to: Import or export; remove and reduce to possession 
from areas under Federal jurisdiction; maliciously damage or destroy on 
any such area; remove, cut, dig up, or damage or destroy on any other 
area in knowing violation of any law or regulation of any State or in 
the course of any violation of a State criminal trespass law; deliver, 
receive, carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce, 
by any means whatsoever and in the course of a commercial activity; or 
sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce an endangered 
plant. Certain exceptions apply to employees of the Service, the 
National Marine Fisheries Service, other Federal land management 
agencies, and State conservation agencies.
    We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities 
involving endangered plants under certain circumstances. Regulations 
governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.62. With regard to 
endangered plants, a permit may be issued for scientific purposes or 
for enhancing the propagation or survival of the species. There are 
also certain statutory exemptions from the prohibitions, which are 
found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
    It is our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1, 
1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the maximum extent practicable at 
the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not 
constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent of this 
policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a proposed 
listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the range of the 
species proposed for listing. Based on the best available

[[Page 12576]]

information, the following actions are unlikely to result in a 
violation of section 9, if these activities are carried out in 
accordance with existing regulations and permit requirements; this list 
is not comprehensive:
    (1) Normal agricultural and silvicultural practices, including 
herbicide and pesticide use, that are carried out in accordance with 
any existing regulations, permit and label requirements, and best 
management practices;
    (2) Normal residential landscaping activities on non-Federal lands; 
and
    (3) Recreational use with minimal ground disturbance.
    Based on the best available information, the following activities 
may potentially result in a violation of section 9 of the Act if they 
are not authorized in accordance with applicable law; this list is not 
comprehensive:
    (1) Unauthorized handling, removing, trampling, or collecting of 
the Arizona eryngo on Federal land; and
    (2) Removing, cutting, digging up, or damaging or destroying the 
Arizona eryngo in knowing violation of any law or regulation of the 
State of Arizona or in the course of any violation of a State criminal 
trespass law.
    Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a 
violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the Arizona 
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

II. Critical Habitat

Background

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
    (1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the 
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which 
are found those physical or biological features
    (a) Essential to the conservation of the species, and
    (b) Which may require special management considerations or 
protection; and
    (2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the 
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas 
are essential for the conservation of the species.
    Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define the geographical area 
occupied by the species as an area that may generally be delineated 
around species' occurrences, as determined by the Secretary (i.e., 
range). Such areas may include those areas used throughout all or part 
of the species' life cycle, even if not used on a regular basis (e.g., 
migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, and habitats used periodically, 
but not solely by vagrant individuals).
    Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use 
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring 
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures 
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and 
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated 
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law 
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live 
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where 
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise 
relieved, may include regulated taking.
    Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act 
through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation 
with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is 
not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect 
land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or 
other conservation area. Designation also does not allow the government 
or public to access private lands, nor does designation require 
implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by 
non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner requests Federal agency 
funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed species 
or critical habitat, the Federal agency would be required to consult 
with the Service under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. However, even if the 
Service were to conclude that the proposed activity would result in 
destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat, the 
Federal action agency and the landowner are not required to abandon the 
proposed activity, or to restore or recover the species; instead, they 
must implement ``reasonable and prudent alternatives'' to avoid 
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
    Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat, 
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time 
it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they 
contain physical or biological features (1) which are essential to the 
conservation of the species and (2) which may require special 
management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical 
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best 
scientific and commercial data available, those physical or biological 
features that are essential to the conservation of the species (such as 
space, food, cover, and protected habitat). In identifying those 
physical or biological features that occur in specific occupied areas, 
we focus on the specific features that are essential to support the 
life-history needs of the species, including, but not limited to, water 
characteristics, soil type, geological features, prey, vegetation, 
symbiotic species, or other features. A feature may be a single habitat 
characteristic or a more complex combination of habitat 
characteristics. Features may include habitat characteristics that 
support ephemeral or dynamic habitat conditions. Features may also be 
expressed in terms relating to principles of conservation biology, such 
as patch size, distribution distances, and connectivity.
    Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat, 
we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical 
area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a 
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the 
species. When designating critical habitat, the Secretary will first 
evaluate areas occupied by the species. The Secretary will only 
consider unoccupied areas to be essential where a critical habitat 
designation limited to geographical areas occupied by the species would 
be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species. In addition, 
for an unoccupied area to be considered essential, the Secretary must 
determine that there is a reasonable certainty both that the area will 
contribute to the conservation of the species and that the area 
contains one or more of those physical or biological features essential 
to the conservation of the species.
    Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on 
the basis of the best scientific data available. Further, our Policy on 
Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act (published in 
the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the Information 
Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658)), 
and our associated Information Quality Guidelines provide criteria, 
establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that our decisions 
are based on the best scientific data available. They require our 
biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of 
the best scientific data

[[Page 12577]]

available, to use primary and original sources of information as the 
basis for recommendations to designate critical habitat.
    When we are determining which areas should be designated as 
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the 
information from the SSA report and information developed during the 
listing process for the species. Additional information sources may 
include any generalized conservation strategy, criteria, or outline 
that may have been developed for the species; the recovery plan for the 
species; articles in peer-reviewed journals; conservation plans 
developed by States and counties; scientific status surveys and 
studies; biological assessments; other unpublished materials; or 
experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
    Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another 
over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a 
particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that 
we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species. 
For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that 
habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be needed 
for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the 
conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical 
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation 
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act; (2) regulatory 
protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act 
for Federal agencies to ensure their actions are not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened 
species; and (3) the prohibitions found in section 9 of the Act. 
Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed species outside 
their designated critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy 
findings in some cases. These protections and conservation tools will 
continue to contribute to recovery of this species. Similarly, critical 
habitat designations made on the basis of the best available 
information at the time of designation will not control the direction 
and substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans 
(HCPs), or other species conservation planning efforts if new 
information available at the time of these planning efforts calls for a 
different outcome.

Prudency Determination

    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing 
regulations (50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the maximum extent prudent 
and determinable, the Secretary shall designate critical habitat at the 
time the species is determined to be an endangered or threatened 
species. Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that the Secretary 
may, but is not required to, determine that a designation would not be 
prudent in the following circumstances:
    (i) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity and 
identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the 
degree of such threat to the species;
    (ii) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of a species' habitat or range is not a threat to the 
species, or threats to the species' habitat stem solely from causes 
that cannot be addressed through management actions resulting from 
consultations under section 7(a)(2) of the Act;
    (iii) Areas within the jurisdiction of the United States provide no 
more than negligible conservation value, if any, for a species 
occurring primarily outside the jurisdiction of the United States;
    (iv) No areas meet the definition of critical habitat; or
    (v) The Secretary otherwise determines that designation of critical 
habitat would not be prudent based on the best scientific data 
available.
    As discussed earlier in this document, there is currently no 
imminent threat of collection or vandalism identified under Factor B 
for this species, and identification and mapping of critical habitat is 
not expected to initiate any such threat. In our SSA and proposed 
listing determination for the Arizona eryngo, we determined that the 
present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of 
habitat or range is a threat to the Arizona eryngo and that threat in 
some way can be addressed by section 7(a)(2) consultation measures. 
Over half of the historical range of the species occurs in the 
jurisdiction of the United States, and we are able to identify areas 
that meet the definition of critical habitat. Therefore, because none 
of the circumstances enumerated in our regulations at 50 CFR 
424.12(a)(1) has been met and because there are no other circumstances 
the Secretary has identified for which this designation of critical 
habitat would be not prudent, we have determined that the designation 
of critical habitat is prudent for the Arizona eryngo.

Critical Habitat Determinability

    Having determined that designation is prudent, under section 
4(a)(3) of the Act we must find whether critical habitat for the 
Arizona eryngo is determinable. Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(2) 
state that critical habitat is not determinable when one or both of the 
following situations exist:
    (i) Data sufficient to perform required analyses are lacking, or
    (ii) The biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well 
known to identify any area that meets the definition of ``critical 
habitat.''
    When critical habitat is not determinable, the Act allows the 
Service an additional year to publish a critical habitat designation 
(16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)).
    We reviewed the available information pertaining to the biological 
needs of the species and habitat characteristics where this species is 
located. This and other information represent the best scientific data 
available and led us to conclude that the designation of critical 
habitat is determinable for the Arizona eryngo.

Physical or Biological Features Essential to the Conservation of the 
Species

    In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at 
50 CFR 424.12(b), in determining which areas we will designate as 
critical habitat from within the geographical area occupied by the 
species at the time of listing, we consider the physical or biological 
features that are essential to the conservation of the species and that 
may require special management considerations or protection. The 
regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define ``physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the species'' as the features that 
occur in specific areas and that are essential to support the life-
history needs of the species, including, but not limited to, water 
characteristics, soil type, geological features, sites, prey, 
vegetation, symbiotic species, or other features. A feature may be a 
single habitat characteristic or a more complex combination of habitat 
characteristics. Features may include habitat characteristics that 
support ephemeral or dynamic habitat conditions. Features may also be 
expressed in terms relating to principles of conservation biology, such 
as patch size, distribution distances, and connectivity. For example, 
physical features essential to the conservation of the species might 
include gravel of a particular size required for spawning, alkali soil 
for seed germination, protective cover for migration, or susceptibility 
to flooding or fire that maintains necessary early-successional habitat 
characteristics. Biological features might include prey species, forage 
grasses, specific kinds or ages of trees for roosting or nesting,

[[Page 12578]]

symbiotic fungi, or a particular level of nonnative species consistent 
with conservation needs of the listed species. The features may also be 
combinations of habitat characteristics and may encompass the 
relationship between characteristics or the necessary amount of a 
characteristic essential to support the life history of the species.
    In considering whether features are essential to the conservation 
of the species, the Service may consider an appropriate quality, 
quantity, and spatial and temporal arrangement of habitat 
characteristics in the context of the life-history needs, condition, 
and status of the species. These characteristics include, but are not 
limited to, space for individual and population growth and for normal 
behavior; food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or 
physiological requirements; cover or shelter; sites for breeding, 
reproduction, or rearing (or development) of offspring; and habitats 
that are protected from disturbance.

Physiological Requirements

    The Arizona eryngo needs permanently moist to saturated, alkaline, 
organic soils. The species is a cienega obligate and grows in wetland 
margins. At a minimum, soil should be moist year round immediately 
beneath the surface, even during drought years, as adequately moist 
soil is required for flowering, seed germination, and seedling survival 
and recruitment. Overly dry soils may allow other more drought-tolerant 
species to invade, or the Arizona eryngo plants may die. Conversely, if 
the soil is inundated with water for long periods, other invasive plant 
species may take over. Alkaline and organic soils are typical of 
cienegas.
    Based on the above information, we determine that the Arizona 
eryngo needs permanently moist to saturated soils. Soils should be 
saturated with some standing water during winter and be at least moist 
just below the surface during summer.
    Cienegas occupied by Arizona eryngo are associated with and fed by 
springs and are low-gradient wetlands that serve to slow water and trap 
organic materials and nutrients. Spring-dominated cienegas are 
maintained by fault lines crossing aquifers and/or the intersection of 
wetland sites with shallow aquifers overlaying a deeper, impervious 
layer, both of which allow for groundwater to be forced to the surface 
(Minckley et al. 2013a, p. 214; Johnson et al. 2016, pp. 80-81). 
Cienegas are often found in the upper reaches of small drainages or 
above river channels in a variety of surrounding vegetation 
communities, and thus are protected from scouring floods (Sivinski and 
Tonne 2011, p. 2). Cienegas have water tables at or near the ground 
surface (Norman et al. 2019, p. 4) and are therefore maintained by the 
discharge of groundwater from relatively shallow aquifers. A decline in 
groundwater inflow (recharge) or increase in groundwater outflow 
(discharge) (e.g., from groundwater withdrawal, drought, increased 
evapotranspiration) can lead to reductions and disruptions in 
springflow, or elimination of springs and wetlands altogether (Johnson 
et al. 2016, p. 52). The hydrological processes that maintain 
functional cienega habitat support resilient Arizona eryngo 
populations.
    Finally, the Arizona eryngo needs open sun conditions (Stromberg et 
al. 2019, p. 9). The species is more abundant in open areas than in 
areas shaded by riparian trees. Colony boundaries at most sites are 
defined by the presence of native and nonnative vegetation. Plants 
observed in November 2019 and January 2020 under tree canopy at La 
Cebadilla showed a reduction in flowering that year, and leaves 
appeared less upright (more prostrate) and etiolated (pale due to 
reduced exposure to sunlight) compared to nearby Arizona eryngo plants 
in sunnier conditions (Li 2020a, p. 11).

Summary of Essential Physical or Biological Features

    We derive the specific physical or biological features essential to 
the conservation of the Arizona eryngo from studies of the species' 
habitat, ecology, and life history as described below. Additional 
information can be found in the SSA report (Service 2020, entire; 
available on http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-
2020-0130). We have determined that the following physical or 
biological features are essential to the conservation of Arizona 
eryngo:
    (1) Cienegas within the Chihuahuan and Sonoran Deserts:
    (a) That contain permanently moist to saturated, organic, alkaline 
soils with some standing water in winter and that are moist at or just 
below the surface in summer; and
    (b) That have functional hydrological processes and are sustained 
by springflow via discharge of groundwater.
    (2) Areas of open canopy throughout the cienega.

Special Management Considerations or Protection

    When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific 
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time 
of listing contain features which are essential to the conservation of 
the species and which may require special management considerations or 
protection. The features essential to the conservation of this species 
may require special management considerations or protection to reduce 
the following threats: Physical alteration of cienegas, water loss, and 
changes in co-occurring vegetation. Management activities that could 
ameliorate these threats include, but are not limited to: Use best 
management practices (BMPs) to minimize erosion and sedimentation; 
remove and control invasive, nonnative species (e.g., Johnsongrass) 
that encroach on critical habitat; selectively manage woody vegetation 
that encroaches on critical habitat; exclude livestock, or in some 
instances where such management would further the conservation of 
cienega habitat and the species, use highly managed grazing; avoid or 
minimize groundwater withdrawal to maintain adequate springflow to 
maintain cienegas; and avoid springflow diversion and springhead 
modification to maintain springflow to cienegas.
    In summary, we find that the occupied areas we are proposing to 
designate as critical habitat contain the physical or biological 
features that are essential to the conservation of the Arizona eryngo 
and that may require special management considerations or protection. 
Special management considerations or protection may be required of the 
Federal action agency to eliminate, or to reduce to negligible levels, 
the threats affecting the essential physical or biological features of 
each unit.

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

    As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best 
scientific data available to designate critical habitat. In accordance 
with the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b), we 
review available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of 
the species and identify specific areas within the geographical area 
occupied by the species at the time of listing and any specific areas 
outside the geographical area occupied by the species to be considered 
for designation as critical habitat. We are not currently proposing to 
designate any areas outside the geographical area occupied by the 
species because we have not identified any unoccupied areas that meet 
the definition of critical habitat at this time. While the Arizona 
eryngo needs

[[Page 12579]]

additional populations to reduce extinction risk, the only historical 
extirpated location with the essential physical or biological features 
is Agua Caliente, where the species has already been reintroduced; 
therefore, it is currently occupied. We are not aware of which 
additional locations may have a reasonable certainty of contributing to 
conservation.
    In summary, for areas within the geographic area occupied by the 
species at the time of listing, we delineated critical habitat unit 
boundaries using the following criteria: Evaluate habitat suitability 
of cienegas within the geographic area occupied at the time of listing, 
and retain those cienegas that contain some or all of the physical or 
biological features that are essential to support life history 
processes of the species.
    When determining proposed critical habitat boundaries, we made 
every effort to avoid including developed areas such as lands covered 
by buildings, pavement, and other structures because such lands lack 
physical or biological features necessary for the Arizona eryngo. The 
scale of the maps we prepared under the parameters for publication 
within the Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect the exclusion of 
such developed lands. Any such lands inadvertently left inside critical 
habitat boundaries shown on the maps of this proposed rule have been 
excluded by text in the proposed rule and are not proposed for 
designation as critical habitat. Therefore, if the critical habitat is 
finalized as proposed, a Federal action involving these lands would not 
trigger section 7 consultation with respect to critical habitat and the 
requirement of no adverse modification unless the specific action would 
affect the physical or biological features in the adjacent critical 
habitat.
    We propose to designate as critical habitat lands that we have 
determined are occupied at the time of listing (i.e., currently 
occupied) and that contain one or more of the physical or biological 
features that are essential to support life-history processes of the 
species.
    Units are proposed for designation based on one or more of the 
physical or biological features being present to support Arizona 
eryngo's life-history processes. Some units contain all of the 
identified physical or biological features and support multiple life-
history processes. Some units contain only some of the physical or 
biological features necessary to support the Arizona eryngo's 
particular use of that habitat.
    The critical habitat designation is defined by the map or maps, as 
modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the end of 
this document under Proposed Regulation Promulgation. We include more 
detailed information on the boundaries of the critical habitat 
designation in the preamble of this document. We will make the 
coordinates or plot points or both on which each map is based available 
to the public at https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/ and at 
http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2020-0130.

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation

    We are proposing three units as critical habitat for the Arizona 
eryngo, all of which are in Arizona. The critical habitat areas we 
describe below constitute our current best assessment of areas that 
meet the definition of critical habitat for the Arizona eryngo. The 
three areas we propose as critical habitat are: (1) Lewis Springs, (2) 
La Cebadilla, and (3) Agua Caliente. The table below shows the proposed 
critical habitat units and the approximate area of each unit. All units 
are occupied.

                         Table of Proposed Critical Habitat Units for the Arizona Eryngo
                    [Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Size of unit
      Critical habitat unit              Subunit         Land ownership by      in acres          Occupied?
                                                                type           (hectares)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Lewis Springs.................  ...................  Federal (BLM)......       9.6 (3.9)  Yes.
2. La Cebadilla..................  ...................  Private, Pima             3.1 (1.3)  Yes.
                                                         County Regional
                                                         Flood Control
                                                         District.
3. Agua Caliente.................  3a. Pond 1 Wetland.  Pima County Natural     0.04 (0.02)  Yes.
                                                         Resources, Parks
                                                         and Recreation.
                                   3b. Pond 1 Wildlife  ...................      0.2 (0.07)
                                    Island.
                                   3c. Pond 2.........  ...................     0.09 (0.04)
                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total........................  ...................  ...................      13.0 (5.3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.

    We present brief descriptions of all units, and reasons why they 
meet the definition of critical habitat for the Arizona eryngo, below.

Unit 1: Lewis Springs

    Unit 1 consists of 9.6 acres (3.9 hectares) encompassing the 
wetlands at Lewis Springs just to the east of the San Pedro River in 
Cochise County, within the San Pedro River Basin. The unit is located 
within the SPRNCA, which is owned and managed by the BLM to conserve, 
protect, and enhance a rare remnant of desert riparian ecosystem. The 
unit is occupied by the species and contains all the physical or 
biological features essential to the conservation of the Arizona 
eryngo. The Lewis Springs Unit is being affected by drought, nonnative 
species invasion, woody vegetation encroachment, and ongoing human 
demand for water resulting in declining groundwater levels. Therefore, 
special management is necessary to reduce invasion of nonnative species 
and encroachment of woody vegetation and to improve groundwater levels 
to support continued springflow.

Unit 2: La Cebadilla

    Unit 2 consists of 3.1 acres (1.3 hectares) of cienega habitat at 
La Cebadilla Cienega, adjacent to the Tanque Verde Wash east of Tucson 
in Pima County, within the Santa Cruz River Basin. The majority of the 
unit is located on lands owned by La Cebadilla Estates, with a smaller 
portion of the unit located on lands owned and managed by PCFCD. The 
homeowners association of La Cebadilla Estates manages their portion of 
the cienega as common property for the common use and enjoyment of its 
members. PCFCD manages their portion of the cienega as

[[Page 12580]]

natural open space, which has a restrictive covenant that limits 
development and protects natural resources on the property. The La 
Cebadilla Unit is occupied by the species and contains all the physical 
or biological features essential to the conservation of the Arizona 
eryngo. The unit is located in a rural neighborhood and is being 
affected by drought, woody vegetation encroachment, and ongoing human 
demand for water resulting in declining groundwater levels. Therefore, 
special management is necessary to reduce encroachment of woody 
vegetation and to improve groundwater levels to support continued 
springflow.

Unit 3: Agua Caliente

    Unit 3 consists of three subunits totaling 0.3 acres (0.1 
hectares), all within the Agua Caliente Regional Park. The park is 
located east of Tucson in Pima County within the Santa Cruz River Basin 
(Stromberg et al. 2019, p. 5) and is owned and managed by Pima County 
Natural Resources, Parks and Recreation. The Arizona eryngo 
historically occurred at this site, but the population was extirpated, 
likely due to multiple manipulations of the site, including spring 
modification (Stromberg et al., p. 5; SWCA 2002, pp. 1-2) and pond 
impoundment. Reintroduction efforts for the species began in 2017, and 
while a self-sustaining population does not yet exist, multiple plants 
have been established at various sites within the unit. Therefore, the 
unit is occupied by the species and contains two (saturated soils and 
areas of open canopy) of the three physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the Arizona eryngo. The Agua Caliente 
Unit is in a semi-rural setting and is being affected by drought, 
nonnative species invasion, woody vegetation encroachment, and ongoing 
human demand for water resulting in declining groundwater levels. 
Therefore, special management is necessary to reduce invasion of 
nonnative species and encroachment of woody vegetation and to improve 
groundwater levels to support continued springflow.
    Subunit 3a: Pond 1 Wetland--Subunit 3a, Pond 1 Wetland consists of 
0.04 acres (0.02 hectares) of shoreline habitat on the northwest shore 
of Pond 1. During restoration of Pond 1, a small wetland was created in 
this area, and Arizona eryngo were planted. The shoreline contains 
saturated soils, and portions of the shoreline contain open canopy. 
This subunit is currently occupied.
    Subunit 3b: Pond 1 Wildlife Island--Subunit 3b, Pond 1 Wildlife 
Island consists of 0.2 acres (0.07 hectares) of a wildlife island 
within Pond 1. A channel is cut through the wildlife island, creating 
saturated soil conditions within the channel, where Arizona eryngo were 
planted. The entire wildlife island has open canopy conditions 
currently. This subunit is currently occupied.
    Subunit 3c: Pond 2--Subunit 3c, Pond 2 consists of 0.09 acres (0.04 
hectares) of shoreline habitat on the south shore of Pond 2. Arizona 
eryngo were planted just above the water line in an area of completely 
open canopy that contains saturated soils. This subunit is currently 
occupied.

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Section 7 Consultation

    Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the 
Service, to ensure that any action they fund, authorize, or carry out 
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered 
species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of designated critical habitat of such species. In 
addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to 
confer with the Service on any agency action which is likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed 
under the Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of 
proposed critical habitat.
    We published a final rule revising the definition of destruction or 
adverse modification on August 27, 2019 (84 FR 44976). Destruction or 
adverse modification means a direct or indirect alteration that 
appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat as a whole for the 
conservation of a listed species.
    If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical 
habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) must enter into 
consultation with us. Examples of actions that are subject to the 
section 7 consultation process are actions on State, Tribal, local, or 
private lands that require a Federal permit (such as a permit from the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act 
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the Service under section 10 
of the Act) or that involve some other Federal action (such as funding 
from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation 
Administration, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency). Federal 
actions not affecting listed species or critical habitat--and actions 
on State, Tribal, local, or private lands that are not federally 
funded, authorized, or carried out by a Federal agency--do not require 
section 7 consultation.
    Compliance with the requirements of section 7(a)(2) is documented 
through our issuance of:
    (1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but 
are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat; 
or
    (2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect, and 
are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
    When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is 
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and/or 
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we provide reasonable and 
prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable, that 
would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat. We define ``reasonable and prudent 
alternatives'' (at 50 CFR 402.02) as alternative actions identified 
during consultation that:
    (1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended 
purpose of the action,
    (2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal 
agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
    (3) Are economically and technologically feasible, and
    (4) Would, in the Service Director's opinion, avoid the likelihood 
of jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species and/or 
avoid the likelihood of destroying or adversely modifying critical 
habitat.
    Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project 
modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs 
associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are 
similarly variable.
    Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 set forth requirements for Federal 
agencies to reinitiate formal consultation on previously reviewed 
actions. These requirements apply when the Federal agency has retained 
discretionary involvement or control over the action (or the agency's 
discretionary involvement or control is authorized by law) and, 
subsequent to the previous consultation, we have listed a new species 
or designated critical habitat that may be affected by the Federal 
action, or the action has been modified in a manner that affects the 
species or critical habitat in a way not considered in the previous 
consultation. In such situations, Federal agencies sometimes may need 
to request reinitiation of consultation with us, but the regulations 
also specify some exceptions to the

[[Page 12581]]

requirement to reinitiate consultation on specific land management 
plans after subsequently listing a new species or designating new 
critical habitat. See the regulations for a description of those 
exceptions.
    Application of the ``Destruction or Adverse Modification'' Standard
    The key factor related to the destruction or adverse modification 
determination is whether implementation of the proposed Federal action 
directly or indirectly alters the designated critical habitat in a way 
that appreciably diminishes the value of the critical habitat as a 
whole for the conservation of the listed species. As discussed above, 
the role of critical habitat is to support physical or biological 
features essential to the conservation of a listed species and provide 
for the conservation of the species.
    Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and 
describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical 
habitat, activities involving a Federal action that may violate section 
7(a)(2) of the Act by destroying or adversely modifying such habitat, 
or that may be affected by such designation.
    Activities that the Service may, during a consultation under 
section 7(a)(2) of the Act, find are likely to destroy or adversely 
modify critical habitat include, but are not limited to:
    (1) Actions that would alter the hydrology of the cienega. Such 
activities could include, but are not limited to, springflow diversion, 
springhead modification, groundwater withdrawal, and physical 
alteration of the cienega. These activities could change the 
hydrological processes of the cienega, reducing or eliminating habitat 
for the Arizona eryngo.
    (2) Actions that promote the growth of nonnative plant species and 
canopy cover. Such actions include, but are not limited to, planting of 
nonnative plant species and woody vegetation, and seed spread through 
livestock and tire treads. These activities could reduce or eliminate 
habitat for the Arizona eryngo.
    (3) Actions that result in further fragmentation of Arizona eryngo 
habitat. Such actions include, but are not limited to, fuel breaks, 
roads, and trails. These activities could reduce or eliminate habitat 
for the Arizona eryngo.

Exemptions

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

    Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) 
provides that the Secretary shall not designate as critical habitat any 
lands or other geographical areas owned or controlled by the Department 
of Defense, or designated for its use, that are subject to an 
integrated natural resources management plan (INRMP) prepared under 
section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary 
determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit to the species 
for which critical habitat is proposed for designation. There are no 
Department of Defense (DoD) lands with a completed INRMP within the 
proposed critical habitat designation.

Consideration of Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall 
designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the 
best available scientific data after taking into consideration the 
economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant 
impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The 
Secretary may exclude an area from critical habitat if he determines 
that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying 
such area as part of the critical habitat, unless he determines, based 
on the best scientific data available, that the failure to designate 
such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the 
species. In making the determination to exclude a particular area, the 
statute on its face, as well as the legislative history, are clear that 
the Secretary has broad discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and 
how much weight to give to any factor.
    We describe below the process that we undertook for taking into 
consideration each category of impacts and our analyses of the relevant 
impacts.

Consideration of Economic Impacts

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations require 
that we consider the economic impact that may result from a designation 
of critical habitat. To assess the probable economic impacts of a 
designation, we must first evaluate specific land uses or activities 
and projects that may occur in the area of the critical habitat. We 
then must evaluate the impacts that a specific critical habitat 
designation may have on restricting or modifying specific land uses or 
activities for the benefit of the species and its habitat within the 
areas proposed. We then identify which conservation efforts may be the 
result of the species being listed under the Act versus those 
attributed solely to the designation of critical habitat for this 
particular species. The probable economic impact of a proposed critical 
habitat designation is analyzed by comparing scenarios both ``with 
critical habitat'' and ``without critical habitat.''
    The ``without critical habitat'' scenario represents the baseline 
for the analysis, which includes the existing regulatory and socio-
economic burden imposed on landowners, managers, or other resource 
users potentially affected by the designation of critical habitat 
(e.g., under the Federal listing as well as other Federal, State, and 
local regulations). The baseline, therefore, represents the costs of 
all efforts attributable to the listing of the species under the Act 
(i.e., conservation of the species and its habitat incurred regardless 
of whether critical habitat is designated). The ``with critical 
habitat'' scenario describes the incremental impacts associated 
specifically with the designation of critical habitat for the species. 
The incremental conservation efforts and associated impacts would not 
be expected without the designation of critical habitat for the 
species. In other words, the incremental costs are those attributable 
solely to the designation of critical habitat, above and beyond the 
baseline costs. These are the costs we use when evaluating the benefits 
of inclusion and exclusion of particular areas from the final 
designation of critical habitat should we choose to conduct a 
discretionary 4(b)(2) exclusion analysis.
    For this particular designation, we developed an incremental 
effects memorandum (IEM) considering the probable incremental economic 
impacts that may result from this proposed designation of critical 
habitat. The information contained in our IEM was then used to develop 
a screening analysis of the probable effects of the designation of 
critical habitat for the Arizona eryngo (IEc 2020, entire). We began by 
conducting a screening analysis of the proposed designation of critical 
habitat in order to focus our analysis on the key factors that are 
likely to result in incremental economic impacts. The purpose of the 
screening analysis is to filter out particular geographic areas of 
critical habitat that are already subject to such protections and are, 
therefore, unlikely to incur incremental economic impacts. In 
particular, the screening analysis considers baseline costs (i.e., 
absent critical habitat designation) and includes probable economic 
impacts where land and water use may be subject to conservation plans, 
land management plans, best management practices, or regulations that 
protect the habitat area as a result of the Federal listing status of 
the species. Ultimately, the screening analysis allows us to focus

[[Page 12582]]

our analysis on evaluating the specific areas or sectors that may incur 
probable incremental economic impacts as a result of the designation. 
If there are any unoccupied units in the proposed critical habitat 
designation, the screening analysis assesses whether any additional 
management or conservation efforts may incur incremental economic 
impacts. This screening analysis combined with the information 
contained in our IEM are what we consider our draft economic analysis 
(DEA) of the proposed critical habitat designation for the Arizona 
eryngo; our DEA is summarized in the narrative below.
    Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct Federal agencies to 
assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives in 
quantitative (to the extent feasible) and qualitative terms. Consistent 
with the E.O. regulatory analysis requirements, our effects analysis 
under the Act may take into consideration impacts to both directly and 
indirectly affected entities, where practicable and reasonable. If 
sufficient data are available, we assess to the extent practicable the 
probable impacts to both directly and indirectly affected entities. As 
part of our screening analysis, we considered the types of economic 
activities that are likely to occur within the areas likely affected by 
the critical habitat designation. In our evaluation of the probable 
incremental economic impacts that may result from the proposed 
designation of critical habitat for the Arizona eryngo, first we 
identified, in the IEM dated October 15, 2020, probable incremental 
economic impacts associated with the following categories of 
activities: (1) Federal lands management (Bureau of Land Management); 
(2) vegetation management; (3) fire and fuels management; and (4) 
livestock grazing. We considered each industry or category 
individually. Additionally, we considered whether their activities have 
any Federal involvement. Critical habitat designation generally will 
not affect activities that do not have any Federal involvement; under 
the Act, designation of critical habitat only affects activities 
conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies. If we 
list the species, in areas where the Arizona eryngo is present, Federal 
agencies would be required to consult with the Service under section 7 
of the Act on activities they fund, permit, or implement that may 
affect the species. If, when we list the species, we also finalize this 
proposed critical habitat designation, consultations to avoid the 
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat would be 
incorporated into the existing consultation process.
    In our IEM, we attempted to clarify the distinction between the 
effects that would result from the species being listed and those 
attributable to the critical habitat designation (i.e., difference 
between the jeopardy and adverse modification standards) for the 
Arizona eryngo's critical habitat. Because the designation of critical 
habitat for Arizona eryngo is being proposed concurrently with the 
listing, it has been our experience that it is more difficult to 
discern which conservation efforts are attributable to the species 
being listed and those which will result solely from the designation of 
critical habitat. However, the following specific circumstances in this 
case help to inform our evaluation: (1) The essential physical or 
biological features identified for critical habitat are the same 
features essential for the life requisites of the species, and (2) any 
actions that would result in sufficient harm to constitute jeopardy to 
the Arizona eryngo would also likely adversely affect the essential 
physical or biological features of critical habitat. The IEM outlines 
our rationale concerning this limited distinction between baseline 
conservation efforts and incremental impacts of the designation of 
critical habitat for this species. This evaluation of the incremental 
effects has been used as the basis to evaluate the probable incremental 
economic impacts of this proposed designation of critical habitat.
    The proposed critical habitat designation for the Arizona eryngo 
totals 13.0 acres (5.3 hectares) in three units, all of which are 
occupied. In occupied areas, any actions that may affect the species or 
its habitat would also affect critical habitat, and it is unlikely that 
any additional conservation efforts would be recommended to address the 
adverse modification standard over and above those recommended as 
necessary to avoid jeopardizing the continued existence of the Arizona 
eryngo. Therefore, only administrative costs are expected in the 
proposed critical habitat designation. While this additional analysis 
will require time and resources by both the Federal action agency and 
the Service, it is believed that, in most circumstances, these costs 
would predominantly be administrative in nature and would not be 
significant.
    The probable incremental economic impacts of the Arizona eryngo 
critical habitat designation are expected to be limited to additional 
administrative effort as well as minor costs of conservation efforts 
resulting from a small number of future section 7 consultations. 
Because all of the proposed critical habitat units are occupied by the 
species, incremental economic impacts of critical habitat designation, 
other than administrative costs, are unlikely. At approximately $5,300 
or less per consultation, in order to reach the threshold of $100 
million of incremental administrative impacts in a single year, 
critical habitat designation would have to result in more than 18,800 
consultations in a single year; instead, this designation is expected 
to result in 12 to 17 consultations in 10 years. Thus, the annual 
administrative burden is unlikely to reach $100 million.
    We are soliciting data and comments from the public on the DEA 
discussed above, as well as all aspects of this proposed rule and our 
required determinations. During the development of a final designation, 
we will consider the information presented in the DEA and any 
additional information on economic impacts we receive during the public 
comment period to determine whether any specific areas should be 
excluded from the final critical habitat designation under authority of 
section 4(b)(2) and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19. In 
particular, we may exclude an area from critical habitat if we 
determine that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits 
of including the area, provided the exclusion will not result in the 
extinction of this species.

Consideration of National Security Impacts

    Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act may not cover all DoD lands or 
areas that pose potential national-security concerns (e.g., a DoD 
installation that is in the process of revising its INRMP for a newly 
listed species or a species previously not covered). If a particular 
area is not covered under section 4(a)(3)(B)(i), national-security or 
homeland-security concerns are not a factor in the process of 
determining what areas meet the definition of ``critical habitat.'' 
Nevertheless, when designating critical habitat under section 4(b)(2), 
the Service must consider impacts on national security, including 
homeland security, on lands or areas not covered by section 
4(a)(3)(B)(i). Accordingly, we will always consider for exclusion from 
the designation areas for which DoD, Department of Homeland Security 
(DHS), or another Federal agency has requested exclusion based on an

[[Page 12583]]

assertion of national-security or homeland-security concerns.
    We cannot, however, automatically exclude requested areas. When 
DoD, DHS, or another Federal agency requests exclusion from critical 
habitat on the basis of national-security or homeland-security impacts, 
it must provide a reasonably specific justification of an incremental 
impact on national security that would result from the designation of 
that specific area as critical habitat. That justification could 
include demonstration of probable impacts, such as impacts to ongoing 
border-security patrols and surveillance activities, or a delay in 
training or facility construction, as a result of compliance with 
section 7(a)(2) of the Act. If the agency requesting the exclusion does 
not provide us with a reasonably specific justification, we will 
contact the agency to recommend that it provide a specific 
justification or clarification of its concerns relative to the probable 
incremental impact that could result from the designation. If the 
agency provides a reasonably specific justification, we will defer to 
the expert judgment of DoD, DHS, or another Federal agency as to: (1) 
Whether activities on its lands or waters, or its activities on other 
lands or waters, have national-security or homeland-security 
implications; (2) the importance of those implications; and (3) the 
degree to which the cited implications would be adversely affected in 
the absence of an exclusion. In that circumstance, in conducting a 
discretionary section 4(b)(2) exclusion analysis, we will give great 
weight to national-security and homeland-security concerns in analyzing 
the benefits of exclusion.
    In preparing this proposal, we have determined that the lands 
within the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Arizona 
eryngo are not owned, managed, or used by the DoD or DHS. We anticipate 
no impact on national security or homeland security. However, during 
the development of a final designation we will consider any additional 
information we receive through the public comment period on the impacts 
of the proposed designation on national security or homeland security 
to determine whether any specific areas should be excluded from the 
final critical habitat designation under authority of section 4(b)(2) 
and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19.

Consideration of Other Relevant Impacts

    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant 
impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts on national 
security discussed above. We consider a number of factors including 
whether there are permitted conservation plans covering the species in 
the area such as HCPs, safe harbor agreements (SHAs), or candidate 
conservation agreements with assurances (CCAAs), or whether there are 
non-permitted conservation agreements and partnerships that would be 
encouraged by designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat. In 
addition, we look at the existence of Tribal conservation plans and 
partnerships and consider the government-to-government relationship of 
the United States with Tribal entities. We also consider any social 
impacts that might occur because of the designation.
    In preparing this proposal, we have determined that there are 
currently no HCPs or other management plans for the Arizona eryngo, and 
the proposed designation does not include any Tribal lands or trust 
resources. We anticipate no impact on Tribal lands, partnerships, or 
HCPs from this proposed critical habitat designation. Additionally, as 
described above, we are not considering excluding any particular areas 
from critical habitat on the basis of impacts to national security or 
economic impacts. However, during the development of a final 
designation, we will consider any additional information we receive 
through the public comment period regarding other relevant impacts of 
the proposed designation and will determine whether any specific areas 
should be excluded from the final critical habitat designation under 
authority of section 4(b)(2) and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 
424.19.

Required Determinations

Clarity of the Rule

    We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the 
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain 
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
    (1) Be logically organized;
    (2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
    (3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
    (4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
    (5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
    If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us 
comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us 
revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For 
example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs 
that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long, 
the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.

Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)

    Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget will 
review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not 
significant.
    Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while 
calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote 
predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most 
innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. 
The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches 
that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for 
the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and 
consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further 
that regulations must be based on the best available science and that 
the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open 
exchange of ideas. We have developed this proposed rule in a manner 
consistent with these requirements.

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), 
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996 (SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), whenever an agency is required to 
publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must 
prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility 
analysis that describes the effects of the rule on small entities 
(i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government 
jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required 
if the head of the agency certifies the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
The SBREFA amended the RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a 
certification statement of the factual basis for certifying that the 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.
    According to the Small Business Administration, small entities 
include small organizations such as independent nonprofit 
organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school 
boards and city and

[[Page 12584]]

town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 residents; and small 
businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses include manufacturing and 
mining concerns with fewer than 500 employees, wholesale trade entities 
with fewer than 100 employees, retail and service businesses with less 
than $5 million in annual sales, general and heavy construction 
businesses with less than $27.5 million in annual business, special 
trade contractors doing less than $11.5 million in annual business, and 
agricultural businesses with annual sales less than $750,000. To 
determine whether potential economic impacts to these small entities 
are significant, we considered the types of activities that might 
trigger regulatory impacts under this designation as well as types of 
project modifications that may result. In general, the term 
``significant economic impact'' is meant to apply to a typical small 
business firm's business operations.
    Under the RFA, as amended, and as understood in light of recent 
court decisions, Federal agencies are required to evaluate the 
potential incremental impacts of rulemaking on those entities directly 
regulated by the rulemaking itself; in other words, the RFA does not 
require agencies to evaluate the potential impacts to indirectly 
regulated entities. The regulatory mechanism through which critical 
habitat protections are realized is section 7 of the Act, which 
requires Federal agencies, in consultation with the Service, to ensure 
that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency is not 
likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Therefore, 
under section 7, only Federal action agencies are directly subject to 
the specific regulatory requirement (avoiding destruction and adverse 
modification) imposed by critical habitat designation. Consequently, it 
is our position that only Federal action agencies would be directly 
regulated if we adopt the proposed critical habitat designation. There 
is no requirement under the RFA to evaluate the potential impacts to 
entities not directly regulated. Moreover, Federal agencies are not 
small entities. Therefore, because no small entities would be directly 
regulated by this rulemaking, the Service certifies that, if made final 
as proposed, the proposed critical habitat designation will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    In summary, we have considered whether the proposed designation 
would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number 
of small entities. For the above reasons and based on currently 
available information, we certify that, if made final, the proposed 
critical habitat designation will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small business entities. Therefore, 
an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use--Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) requires 
agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking 
certain actions. In our economic analysis, we did not find that this 
proposed critical habitat designation would significantly affect energy 
supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a 
significant energy action, and no Statement of Energy Effects is 
required.

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

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 
et seq.), we make the following finding:
    (1) This proposed rule would not produce a Federal mandate. In 
general, a Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or 
regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or 
tribal governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.'' 
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose 
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments'' with two 
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also 
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal 
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal 
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, 
local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the 
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance'' 
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's 
responsibility to provide funding,'' and the State, local, or tribal 
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of 
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families 
with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; 
Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; 
Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family 
Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal 
private sector mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an 
enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of 
Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a 
voluntary Federal program.''
    The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally 
binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties. 
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must 
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat under section 7. While 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 because the lands proposed for 
critical habitat designation that are owned by Pima County are already 
set aside for conservation purposes, and small governments would be 
affected only to the extent that any programs having Federal funds, 
permits, or other authorized activities must ensure that their actions 
would not adversely affect the critical habitat. Therefore, a Small 
Government Agency Plan is not required.

Takings--Executive Order 12630

    In accordance with E.O. 12630 (Government Actions and Interference 
with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights), we have 
analyzed the potential takings implications of designating critical 
habitat for the Arizona eryngo in a takings implications assessment. 
The Act does not authorize the Service to regulate private actions on 
private lands or confiscate private property as a result of critical 
habitat designation. Designation of critical habitat does not affect 
land ownership, or establish any closures, or restrictions on use of or 
access to the designated areas. Furthermore, the designation of 
critical habitat does not affect landowner actions that do not require

[[Page 12585]]

Federal funding or permits, nor does it preclude development of habitat 
conservation programs or issuance of incidental take permits to permit 
actions that do require Federal funding or permits to go forward. 
However, Federal agencies are prohibited from carrying out, funding, or 
authorizing actions that would destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat. A takings implications assessment has been completed for the 
proposed designation of critical habitat for the Arizona eryngo, and it 
concludes that, if adopted, this designation of critical habitat does 
not pose significant takings implications for lands within or affected 
by the designation.

Federalism--Executive Order 13132

    In accordance with E.O. 13132 (Federalism), this proposed rule does 
not have significant Federalism effects. A federalism summary impact 
statement is not required. In keeping with Department of the Interior 
and Department of Commerce policy, we requested information from, and 
coordinated development of this proposed critical habitat designation 
with, appropriate State resource agencies. From a federalism 
perspective, the designation of critical habitat directly affects only 
the responsibilities of Federal agencies. The Act imposes no other 
duties with respect to critical habitat, either for States and local 
governments, or for anyone else. As a result, the proposed rule does 
not have substantial direct effects either on the States, or on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of powers and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government. The proposed designation may have some benefit to these 
governments because the areas that contain the features essential to 
the conservation of the species are more clearly defined, and the 
physical or biological features of the habitat necessary for the 
conservation of the species are specifically identified. This 
information does not alter where and what federally sponsored 
activities may occur. However, it may assist State and local 
governments in long-range planning because they no longer have to wait 
for case-by-case section 7 consultations to occur.
    Where State and local governments require approval or authorization 
from a Federal agency for actions that may affect critical habitat, 
consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Act would be required. While 
non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or 
permits, or that otherwise require approval or authorization from a 
Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly impacted by the 
designation of critical habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid 
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely 
on the Federal agency.

Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988

    In accordance with Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), 
the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule would not 
unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of 
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We have proposed designating 
critical habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Act. To 
assist the public in understanding the habitat needs of the species, 
this proposed rule identifies the elements of physical or biological 
features essential to the conservation of the species. The proposed 
areas of designated critical habitat are presented on maps, and the 
proposed rule provides several options for the interested public to 
obtain more detailed location information, if desired.

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

    This rule does not contain information collection requirements, and 
a submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) is not 
required. We may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to 
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently 
valid OMB control number.

National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)

    It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court 
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare 
environmental analyses pursuant to the National Environmental Policy 
Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) in connection with regulations 
adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. We published a notice 
outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on 
October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This position was upheld by the U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 
F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)). All of 
the proposed critical habitat lies outside of the jurisdiction of the 
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. As a result, we are not 
preparing an environmental analysis.

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994 
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and 
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the 
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our 
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal 
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with 
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, 
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), 
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with 
Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge 
that Tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal 
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make 
information available to Tribes. We have determined that no Tribal 
lands fall within the boundaries of the proposed critical habitat for 
the Arizona eryngo, so no Tribal lands would be affected by the 
proposed designation.

References Cited

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

Authors

    The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of 
the Fish and Wildlife Service's Species Assessment Team and the Arizona 
Ecological Services Field Office.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

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

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

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

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

[[Page 12586]]

0
2. Amend Sec.  17.12(h), the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants, 
by adding an entry for ``Eryngium sparganophyllum'' in alphabetical 
order under FLOWERING PLANTS to read as follows:


Sec.  17.12  Endangered and threatened plants.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Listing citations and
         Scientific name              Common name        Where listed         Status         applicable rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Flowering Plants
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Eryngium sparganophyllum........  Arizona eryngo....  Wherever found....  E              [Federal Register
                                                                                          citation when
                                                                                          published as a final
                                                                                          rule]; 50 CFR
                                                                                          17.96(a).CH
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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


Sec.  17.96  Critical habitat--plants.

    (a) Flowering plants.
* * * * *
Family Apiaceae: Eryngium sparganophyllum (Arizona eryngo)
    (1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Pima and Cochise 
Counties, Arizona, on the maps in this entry.
    (2) Within these areas, the physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the Arizona eryngo consist of the 
following components:
    (i) Cienegas within the Chihuahuan and Sonoran Deserts:
    (A) That contain permanently moist to saturated, organic, alkaline 
soils with some standing water in winter and that are moist at or just 
below the surface in summer; and
    (B) That have functional hydrological processes and are sustained 
by springflow via discharge of groundwater.
    (ii) Areas of open canopy throughout the cienega.
    (3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as 
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the 
land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on 
the effective date of the final rule.
    (4) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining map units were 
created on a base of U.S. Geological Survey digital ortho-photo 
quarter-quadrangles, and critical habitat units were then mapped using 
Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) Zone 15N coordinates. The maps in 
this entry, as modified by any accompanying regulatory text, establish 
the boundaries of the critical habitat designation. The coordinates or 
plot points or both on which each map is based are available to the 
public at the Service's internet site at https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/, at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-
2020-0130, and at the field office responsible for this designation. 
You may obtain field office location information by contacting one of 
the Service regional offices, the addresses of which are listed at 50 
CFR 2.2.
    (5) Note: Index map follows:
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P

[[Page 12587]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04MR21.000

BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
    (6) Unit 1: Lewis Springs, Cochise County, Arizona.
    (i) General description: Unit 1 consists of 9.6 acres (3.9 
hectares) encompassing the wetlands at Lewis Springs just to the east 
of the San Pedro River in Cochise County, within the San Pedro River 
Basin. The unit is located within the San Pedro Riparian National 
Conservation Area, which is owned and managed by the Bureau of Land 
Management.
    (ii) Map of Unit 1 follows:
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P

[[Page 12588]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04MR21.001

BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
    (7) Unit 2: La Cebadilla, Pima County, Arizona.
    (i) General description: Unit 2 consists of 3.1 acres (1.3 
hectares) of cienega habitat at La Cebadilla Cienega, adjacent to the 
Tanque Verde Wash east of Tucson within the Santa Cruz River Basin. The 
majority of the unit is located on lands owned by La Cebadilla Estates, 
with a smaller portion of the unit located on lands owned and managed 
by the Pima County Regional Flood Control District.
    (ii) Map of Unit 2 follows:
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P

[[Page 12589]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04MR21.002

BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
    (8) Unit 3: Agua Caliente, Pima County, Arizona.
    (i) General description: Unit 3 consists of three subunits totaling 
0.3 acres (0.1 hectares) east of Tucson within the Santa Cruz River 
Basin and is owned and managed by Pima County Natural Resources, Parks 
and Recreation.
    (ii) Map of Unit 3 follows:
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P

[[Page 12590]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04MR21.003


[[Page 12591]]


BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
* * * * *

Martha Williams,
Senior Advisor to the Secretary, Exercising the Delegated Authority of 
the Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-03705 Filed 3-3-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P