Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding for the Lemmon Fleabane; Endangered Status for the Acuña Cactus and the Fickeisen Plains Cactus and Designation of Critical Habitat, 60509-60579 [2012-23853]

Download as PDF Vol. 77 Wednesday, No. 192 October 3, 2012 Part II Department of the Interior erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding for the ˜ Lemmon Fleabane; Endangered Status for the Acuna Cactus and the Fickeisen Plains Cactus and Designation of Critical Habitat; Proposed Rule VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:23 Oct 02, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\03OCP2.SGM 03OCP2 60510 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2012–0061; 4500030113] RIN 1018–AY51 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding for the Lemmon Fleabane; Endangered Status ˜ for the Acuna Cactus and the Fickeisen Plains Cactus and Designation of Critical Habitat Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Proposed rule; 12-month finding. AGENCY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 12-month finding on a petition to list as an endangered or threatened species Erigeron lemmonii (Lemmon fleabane). After a review of the best available scientific information we find that listing the Lemmon fleabane as an endangered or threatened species is no longer warranted, and therefore we are removing this species from the candidate list. We propose to list Echinomastus erectocentrus var. ˜ acunensis (acuna cactus) and Pediocactus peeblesianus var. fickeiseniae (Fickeisen plains cactus) as an endangered species, and we propose to designate critical habitat for both cactus species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). If finalized, the effect of these ˜ regulations would be to add acuna cactus and Fickeisen plains cactus to the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants and to designate critical habitat for these species. DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before December 3, 2012. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES section, below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date. We must receive requests for public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by November 19, 2012. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods: (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https:// www.regulations.gov. In the Keyword box, enter Docket No. FWS–R2–ES– 2012–0061, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, in the Search panel on the left side of the screen, erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with SUMMARY: VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:23 Oct 02, 2012 Jkt 229001 under the Document Type heading, click on the Proposed Rules link to locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking on ‘‘Comment Now!’’ (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–R2–ES–2012– 0061; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 2042–PDM; Arlington, VA 22203. We request that you send comments only by the methods described above. We will post all comments on https:// www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see the Information Requested section below for more information). The coordinates or plot points or both from which the critical habitat maps are generated are included in the administrative record for this rulemaking and are available at https:// www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/, https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2012–0061, and at the Arizona Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Any additional tools or supporting information that we may develop for this rulemaking will also be available at the Fish and Wildlife Service Web site and Field Office set out above, and may also be included in the preamble and/ or at www.regulations.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Spangle, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological Services Field Office, 2321 W. Royal Palm Road, Suite 103, Phoenix, AZ 85021; telephone (602) 242–0210; facsimile (602) 242–2513. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Executive Summary Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended a species may warrant protection through listing if it is an endangered or threatened species throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The Act sets forth procedures for adding species to, removing species from, or reclassifying species on the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. This document consists of a 12-month notwarranted finding and withdrawal of Erigeron lemmonii (Lemmon fleabane) from the candidate list, and a proposed rule to list Echinomastus erectocentrus ˜ var. acunensis (acuna cactus) and PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Pediocactus peeblesianus var. fickeiseniae (Fickeisen plains cactus) as endangered species and to designate critical habitat. For the remainder of this document, these species will be referred to by their common names. The Endangered Species Act provides the basis for our action. Under the Act, we can determine that a species is an endangered or threatened species based on 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 Lemmon fleabane does no longer warrant listing. Through our five factor analysis, we have determined that the previously recognized threats to the Lemmon fleabane do not rise to a level of significance such that the species is in danger of extinction now or likely to become so in the foreseeable future. We have determined that the ˜ following are threats to the acuna cactus: • United States—Mexico border activities including inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms, and • Predation by native insect and small mammal predators, in combination with other natural or manmade factors, including natural environmental variability and climate conditions such as drought. We have determined that the following are threats to the Fickeisen plains cactus: • Livestock grazing; • Nonnative, invasive species; and • Predation by native small mammal predators, in combination with other natural or manmade factors, including natural environmental variability and climate conditions such as drought. This rule also proposes designation of critical habitat for both species. Under the Act, we must, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, designate critical habitat for any species that is determined to be an endangered or threatened species. We are required to base the designation on the best available scientific data after taking into consideration economic and other impacts. We can exclude an area from critical habitat if the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of designation, unless the exclusion will result in the extinction of the species. In total, we are proposing approximately 21,740 hectares (ha) (53,720 acres (ac)) for designation as critical habitat for E:\FR\FM\03OCP2.SGM 03OCP2 60511 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules ˜ acuna cactus (Table 1) and approximately 19,901 ha (49,186 ac) for the Fickeisen plains cactus (Table 2). ˜ The proposed critical habitat for acuna cactus is located in Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal Counties, Arizona. The proposed critical habitat for the Fickeisen plains cactus is in Coconino and Mohave Counties, Arizona. ˜ TABLE 1—PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT FOR THE ACUNA CACTUS Federal State Tribal Private Total Ha (Ac) Ha (Ac) Ha (Ac) Ha (Ac) Ha (Ac) 11,953 (29,536) 5,773 (14,266) 2,256 (5,575) 1,757 (4,342) 21,740 (53,720) TABLE 2—PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT FOR THE FICKEISEN PLAINS CACTUS Federal State Tribal Private Total Ha (Ac) Ha (Ac) Ha (Ac) Ha (Ac) Ha (Ac) 6,671 (16,486) 5,617 (13,883) 3,865 (9,554) 3,748 (9,263) 19,901 (49,186) We are preparing an economic analysis. To ensure that we consider the economic impacts of designating critical habitat, we are preparing an economic analysis of the proposed designation. We will seek peer review of the methods we used in our proposal. We are seeking comments from independent specialists to ensure that our proposal is based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We are seeking public comment on this proposed rule. Anyone is welcome to comment on our proposal or provide additional information on the proposal that we can use in making a final determination on the status of these species. erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 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) These species’ biology, range, and population trends, including: (a) Habitat requirements for pollination, reproduction, and dispersal; (b) Genetics and taxonomy; (c) Historical and current range including distribution patterns; (d) Historical and current population levels, and current and projected trends; and (e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for these species, their habitat or both. VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:23 Oct 02, 2012 Jkt 229001 (2) The factors that are the basis for making a listing determination for a species under section 4(a) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), which are: (a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of their 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 their continued existence. (3) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning any threats (or lack thereof) to these 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 these species, including the locations of any additional populations of these species. (5) Any information on the biological or ecological requirements of the species, and ongoing conservation measures for the species and its habitat; (6) 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 whether there are threats to these species from human activity, the degree of which can be expected to increase due to the designation, and whether that increase in threats outweighs the benefit of designation such that the designation of critical habitat is not prudent. (7) Specific information on: (a) The amount and distribution of these species and their habitat; PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 (b) What may constitute ‘‘physical or biological features essential to the conservation of these species,’’ within the geographical range currently occupied by these species; (c) Where these features are currently found; (d) Whether any of these features may require special management considerations or protection; (e) What areas, that were occupied at the time of listing (or are currently occupied) and that contain features essential to the conservation of these species, should be included in the designation and why; (f) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential for the conservation of these species and why. (8) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the areas occupied by these species or proposed to be designated as critical habitat, and possible impacts of these activities on these species and proposed critical habitat. (9) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of climate change on these species and proposed critical habitat. (10) Any foreseeable economic, national security, or other relevant impacts that may result from designating any area that may be included in the final designation. We are particularly interested in any impacts on small entities, and the benefits of including or excluding areas from the proposed designation that are subject to these impacts. (11) Whether our approach to designating critical habitat could be improved or modified in any way to provide for greater public participation and understanding, or to assist us in E:\FR\FM\03OCP2.SGM 03OCP2 erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 60512 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules accommodating public concerns and comments. (12) The likelihood of adverse social reactions to the designation of critical habitat and how the consequences of such reactions, if likely to occur, would relate to the conservation and regulatory benefits of the proposed critical habitat designations. (13) Information on certain populations of Fickeisen plains cactus. Specifically, there are eight populations where the Fickeisen plains cactus has been documented, but these areas have not been visited in over 18 years. Five populations are located on the Arizona Strip and are referred to as: Beanhole Well, Marble Canyon, Salaratus Draw, South Canyon, and Toquer Tank. The sixth population is located in proximity to Mays Wash that is south of the Town of Gray Mountain among Federal, State, and private lands. The last two populations are on the Navajo Nation. These eight areas are proposed as critical habitat for the Fickeisen plains cactus. We are seeking any information on specific population status of the Fickeisen plains cactus at these locations, whether these locations are currently occupied and contain the features essential to the conservation of the species, and the condition of the habitat. 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 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 the ADDRESSES section. We request that you send comments only by the methods described in the ADDRESSES section. If you submit information via https:// www.regulations.gov, your entire submission—including any personal identifying information—will be posted on the Web site. 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 VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:23 Oct 02, 2012 Jkt 229001 on https://www.regulations.gov. Please include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial information you include. Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Organization of Document The layout of this rule is as follows: The 12-month not-warranted petition finding and candidate withdrawal for the Lemmon fleabane; the proposed ˜ listing of the acuna cactus and the Fickeisen plains cactus; the proposed ˜ critical habitat for the acuna cactus and the Fickeisen plains cactus. 12-Month Petition Finding and Candidate Withdrawal for the Lemmon Fleabane This section summarizes the status and potential threats that we evaluated in order to determine that listing Lemmon fleabane is not-warranted and to remove it from candidate status. Additional material that we relied on is available in the Species Assessment and Listing Priority Assignment Form for Lemmon fleabane. This form is available on our national endangered species Web site: https://www.fws.gov/endangered/ (search for ‘‘Lemmon fleabane’’ in the Species Search box). On July 1, 1975 (40 FR 27824), the Lemmon fleabane was included among 3,000 plant species under status review. We first identified the Lemmon fleabane as a category 1 candidate species on September 30, 1993 (58 FR 51144). Candidates are those fish, wildlife, and plants for which we have on file sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to support preparation of a listing proposal, but for which development of a listing regulation is precluded by other higher priority listing activities. Candidate species were assigned a relative listing priority number in accordance with listing priority guidelines published on September 21, 1983 (48 FR 43098). On the basis of immediacy and magnitude of threats, as well as taxonomic status, we assigned the Lemmon fleabane a listing priority number (LPN) of 11, which is assigned when threats are of moderate to low magnitude and nonimminent. On October 25, 1999, we changed the LPN to a 5 to reflect threats that are of high magnitude but non- PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 imminent, based on the threat of high severity fire and drought (64 FR 57534). Later, we decided a wildfire or drought would not adversely affect the entire population; therefore, on September 12, 2006, we changed the LPN to an 8, reflecting threats that are of moderate to low magnitude and imminence (71 FR 53756), and this LPN remained in effect until the last Candidate Notice of Review in 2011 (76 FR 66370, October 26, 2011). We now find that listing this species is not-warranted, and we are withdrawing this species from candidate status because the previously recognized threats to the Lemmon fleabane do not rise to the level of significance such that the species is in danger of extinction now or likely to become so in the foreseeable future. Our rationale is explained below. The Lemmon fleabane is a tap-rooted perennial plant of the aster family (Nesom 2006, p. 342). The Lemmon fleabane occurs in crevices and ledges, on all aspects of tall, vertical-faced, and very cuspid (pointed) Escabrosa limestone cliffs of a single canyon, Scheelite Canyon, on Fort Huachuca on Department of Defense lands, in Cochise County, Arizona (Warren et al. 1991, p. 5; Malusa 2006, pp. 9–11). The habitat occurs over an area of approximately 50 ha (124 ac), and, as of 2006, the population is estimated to support 954 individuals (Malusa 2006, p. 9). The primary threat previously identified for the Lemmon fleabane was high severity wildfire, a phenomenon outside of the established fire history for the forests of the Huachuca Mountains. Scheelite Canyon is a narrow, shady, bedrock-laden cold-air-drainage, with higher humidity and cooler temperatures than surrounding areas; these factors aid in limiting the spread of severe fire within the canyon (Turner and Romme 1994, p. 59; Gebow and Hessil 2006, p. 21; Werth et al. 2011, p. 27). In addition, Scheelite Canyon is a southeast to northwest configured canyon that blocks prevailing southwesterly wind. Strong southwesterly wind was a necessary component in the unusual fire behavior documented in recent high severity fires of the Huachuca Mountains, where southwest to northeast configured canyons burned downslope and burned very hot (Leiendecker 2012, pers. comm.). Although Scheelite Canyon currently contains a woody fuel load, fire experts believe the Lemmon fleabane itself is relatively safe from fire (Gebow and Hessil 2006, p. 51; Leiendecker 2012, pers. comm.). Recent documentation of two other rare, cliff-dwelling Erigeron species of the Chiricahua Mountains of E:\FR\FM\03OCP2.SGM 03OCP2 erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules southern Arizona indicates that plants growing in cracks within the rockwall may be both resistant and resilient to high severity fire (Malusa 2012, pers. comm.). In the unlikely event of a catastrophic fire within Scheelite Canyon, it would be extremely unlikely that every Lemmon fleabane plant would be extirpated. This is because Lemmon fleabane plants occur on all aspects of rock face, on both sides of the canyon including the entrances of small tributaries, and at all elevations on the canyon wall from the canyon bottom upwards nearly 305 meters (m) (1,000 feet (ft)) to the top of the canyon walls. In summary, there is a very small probability that Scheelite Canyon will sustain a catastrophic fire in the future due to the southeast to northwest aspect of the canyon in the landscape; its humid, shady, and cool nature; and the presence of exposed rock outcroppings throughout the canyon lending to a discontinuous fuel load. Should such a fire occur, it would threaten individual plants exposed to flame and heat (Gebow and Hessil 2006, p. 85); however, due to the plants occurring in a variety of locations within the canyon, it is unlikely that all plants would be affected. Recreational rappelling was noted as a minor threat to the Lemmon fleabane; however, we conclude that there is a very low probability of this type of activity taking place in Scheelite Canyon because recreational rappelling is not allowed by Fort Huachuca. Further, if unauthorized rappelling were to occur, the damage to Lemmon fleabane plants would be insignificant at the population level. In addition to fire and rappelling posing less of a threat to the Lemmon fleabane than previously believed, several conservation measures have recently occurred or are being planned. Although we did not rely on these conservation measures to make our notwarranted finding, they are underway and will benefit the Lemmon fleabane now and into the future. In 2011, the Desert Botanical Garden collected hundreds of viable Lemmon fleabane seeds for long-term storage. This collection and future-planned seed collection by the Desert Botanical Garden may help offset impacts to the species in the event of a devastating wildfire and habitat loss. In addition, the U.S. Forest Service is currently working with Fort Huachuca to reduce fire potential at a landscape level throughout the district and on Fort Huachuca itself (Leiendecker 2012, pers. comm.). Finally, Fort Huachuca and the Service are drafting a conservation agreement which, once signed, will: (a) VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:23 Oct 02, 2012 Jkt 229001 Ensure the continued monitoring of the Lemmon fleabane population and promote adaptive management based on monitoring results; (b) continue the restrictions on recreational activities in Lemmon fleabane habitat; and (c) encourage further research into the species’ life history, population biology and demographics, and distribution. Through our five-factor analysis, we have discounted any threats to the species and conclude there are no significant threats to the Lemmon fleabane. We, therefore, conclude that the previously recognized threats to the Lemmon fleabane do not rise to a level of significance such that the species is in danger of extinction now or in the foreseeable future. Additionally, we are not aware of any other potential stressors or threats that may impact the species or its habitat by itself or in combination, including the potential environmental effects that may result from climate change. Current and planned conservation measures will also benefit the Lemmon fleabane, although we are not relying on these conservation actions as the basis for our not-warranted finding. As a result, we have removed this species from the candidate list. ˜ Acuna Cactus and Fickeisen Plains Cactus Previous Federal Actions On July 1, 1975 (40 FR 27824), we published a Review of Status of ˜ Vascular Plants identifying the acuna cactus and the Fickeisen plains cactus as among 3,000 native plant taxa being reviewed for possible inclusion in the list of endangered and threatened species. On December 15, 1980, we published a Review of Plant Taxa for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species and identified the Fickeisen plains cactus as category 1 species (45 FR 82480). Category 1 species were those taxa for which we had on file substantial information on biological vulnerability and threats to support proposing them as endangered or ˜ threatened species. The acuna cactus was not included in the 1980 notice. ˜ Both the acuna cactus and the Fickeisen plains cactus were included in the February 21, 1990, notice (55 FR 6184) as category 1 species. In the September 30, 1993, notice (58 FR 51144) candidate species were assigned a status category indicating their status at that time. Each species was identified as increasing (I), stable (S), declining (D), or unknown (U). The ˜ 1993 notice identified the acuna cactus and the Fickeisen plains cactus as category 1–U: unknown, denoting PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 60513 species for which additional survey work is required to determine current trends. We discontinued the use of a category system in the February 28, 1996, notice (61 FR 7596) and simply referred to category 1 species as candidate species. ˜ The acuna cactus and Fickeisen plains cactus were both assigned an LPN of 6, due to the high magnitude of threats which were non-imminent. We published four Candidate Notice of Reviews between 1997 and 2003, in ˜ which the acuna cactus and the Fickeisen plains cactus remained candidate species with an LPN of 6 (62 FR 49398, September 19, 1997; 64 FR 57534, October 25, 1999; 66 FR 54808, October 30, 2001; 67 FR 40657, June 13, 2002). On October 30, 2002, we received a petition from the Center for Biological ˜ Diversity to list the acuna cactus as an endangered species under the provisions of the Act. On May 4, 2004, the Center for Biological Diversity ˜ petitioned the Service to list the acuna cactus and the Fickeisen plains cactus as an endangered species under the Act. Because these species were already candidates for listing, we did not issue findings on the petition. In the Candidate Notice of Review dated September 12, 2006 (71 FR 53756), we revised the LPN of the Fickeisen plains cactus from 6 to 3 based on direct mortality and reduced reproductive capacity resulting from off-road vehicle (ORV) use, trampling associated with livestock grazing, a continuing drought, and herbivory by rabbits and rodents. We also acknowledged that unauthorized collection of the Fickeisen plains cactus was a potential threat but we did not know at that time whether it was a continuing threat. In the notice of December 6, 2007 (72 FR 69034), we ˜ revised the LPN of the acuna cactus from 6 to 3 based on continued decline of the species caused by ongoing drought. An LPN of 3 reflects threats that are both imminent and high in magnitude, as well as the taxonomic classification as a subspecies. In plant classification generally, the use of the term variety, such as is used in the plants in this rule, is synonymous with the term subspecies. In the notice of October 26, 2011 (76 FR 66370), we retained an LPN of 3 for both species. Background For each of the two cactus species, we provide a description of the species, its life history, its habitat, an evaluation of listing factors for that species, and our finding for the species. E:\FR\FM\03OCP2.SGM 03OCP2 60514 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules ˜ Acuna Cactus It is our intent to discuss below only those topics directly relevant to the ˜ listing of the acuna cactus as an endangered species in this section of the proposed rule. Species Description ˜ The acuna cactus is a small, spherical cactus, usually single-stemmed, that can be up to 40 centimeters (cm) (16 inches (in)) tall and 9 cm (3.5 in) wide (Arizona Rare Plant Guide Committee 2001, unpaginated; Zimmerman and Parfitt ˜ 2003, pp. 194–195). The acuna cactus has 11 to 15 radial spines up to 2.5 cm (1.0 in) long and 3 to 4 mauve-colored, up-turned central spines up to 3.5 cm (1.4 in) long (Arizona Rare Plant Guide Committee 2001, unpaginated; Zimmerman and Parfitt 2003, pp. 194– 195). Rose, pink, or lavender flowers 3.6 to 6 by 4 to 9 cm (1.4 to 2.3 by 1.6 to 3.5 in) are produced in March (Arizona Rare Plant Guide Committee 2001, unpaginated; Zimmerman and Parfitt 2003, pp. 194–195). The fruits are pale green, are 1.25 cm (0.5 in) long, and contain small, nearly black seeds (Felger 2000, p. 208). The fruits ripen in April (Arizona Rare Plant Guide Committee 2001, unpaginated). erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with Biology ˜ The acuna cactus relies solely on the production of seeds for reproduction, with pollination highly linked to survival, as the species cannot fertilize ˜ itself. Acuna cacti are pollinated by a suite of bees from the Andrenidae, Anthophoridae, Anthophorinae, Halictidae, and Megachilidae families; however, the leafcutter bee (Megachile palmensis) and cactus bee (Diadasia rinconis) are thought to be the primary pollinators (Johnson 1992, p. 406). The maximum distance that either of these bees travel is thought to be roughly 900 m (2,953 ft) (see Critical Habitat section, below). Although we do not know the lifespan ˜ of acuna cacti, there are individual plants that have been tracked at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument (OPCNM) since 1977, and are still alive in 2012 (Holm 2012a, pers. comm.). The lifespan of seeds in the seedbank is unknown; however, in independent greenhouse tests of 6 and 4 year-old seed collected from two discrete populations, less than 19 percent and zero percent germination resulted, respectfully (Rutman 2007, p. 7). In tests of 1 and 2 year-old seed, germination ranged from 64 to 100 percent, and tests of seed collected 19 days previously resulted in 82 percent germination (Rutman 2007, p. 7). It is unknown if VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:23 Oct 02, 2012 Jkt 229001 seed in its natural environment has the same short lifespan as has been demonstrated in these germination trials. Taxonomy This species was originally described in 1953 by W.T. Marshall as Echinomastus acunensis (Marshall 1953, pp. 33–34). It is known by many synonyms, including Sclerocactus erectocentrus var. acunensis (Coulter) Taylor and Neolloydia erectocentra (W.T. Marshall) var. acunensis L. Benson (Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) 2004, p. 1). The Cactaceae treatment in the Flora of North America (Zimmerman and Parfitt 2003, pp. 194–195) recognizes the entity as E. erectocentrus var. acunensis. The other variety, E. erectocentrus var. erectocentrus (needle-spine cactus), is also recognized as a valid taxon in the Flora of North America. The two varieties are generally considered to be morphologically distinct and geographically isolated, but there have been questions regarding the morphology of some individuals (AGFD 2004, p. 6). To address those concerns, the Service funded a project to analyze the morphological distinctness of the two varieties, which was completed in January 2007. The results of this study suggest that there are four distinct taxonomic groups, including the separation of variety acunensis and variety erectocentrus (Baker 2007, pp. 19–21), and we concur with the study ˜ results. Therefore, the acuna cactus and the needle-spine cactus are valid and distinct taxa separated morphologically and geographically. Baker (2007, p. 20) recommended nomenclatural changes, based on the International Rules of Botanical nomenclature, but formal name changes were not proposed in his study. Again, we refer to the taxonomy determined by the Flora of North America. Habitat ˜ The acuna cactus occurs in valleys and on small knolls and gravel ridges of up to 30 percent slope in the PaloVerde-Saguaro Association of the Arizona Upland subdivision of the Sonoran Desert scrub at 365 to 1,150 m (1,198 to 3,773 ft) in elevation (Phillips et al. 1982, p. 4; Arizona Rare Plant Guide Committee 2001, unpaginated; AGFD 2011, entire). This species grows on soil overlying various bedrock types including extrusive felsic volcanic rocks of rhyolite, andesite, and tuff, and intrusive igneous rocks composed of granite, granodiorite, diorite, and Cornelia quartz monzonite; Locomotive fanglomerate (sedimentary rock PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 consisting of heterogeneous fragments of all sizes deposited in an alluvial fan and later consolidated) is also locally present (Rutman 2007, pp. 1–2; Anderson 2012a, pers. comm.). Mineralogy of these rocks is varied, with felsic or mafic phenocrysts present, depending on bedrock type (Rutman 2007, pp. 1–2; Anderson 2012a, pers. comm.). Soil texture in these locations varies between bedrock and both coarseand fine-textured substrates (Rutman 2007, pp. 1–2). Associated plant species include Larrea tridentata var. tridentata (creosote bush), Olneya tesota (ironwood), Cercidium microphyllum (palo verde), Ambrosia deltoidea (triangle-leaf bursage), and Acacia ˜ greggii (catclaw). The acuna cactus is often noted growing under the protective canopy of these or other associated species (Phillips et al. 1982, p. 6; Butterwick 1982–1992, entire; Felger 2000, p. 208; Service 2011a, p. 1; Service 2011b, p. 3), which may act as nurse plants, thereby sheltering seedlings from extreme temperatures and providing some protection from mechanical disturbance (Nobel 1984, p. ´ 316; Suzan et al. 1996, p. 635). Distribution and Range ˜ The acuna cactus populations are known from Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal Counties in Arizona and from Sonora, Mexico (AGFD 2004, p. 2). In western Pima County, plants are known from the Puerto Blanco Mountains and adjacent Aguajita Wash and in the foothills of the Growler Mountains south of Dripping Spring on National Park Service (NPS) lands within OPCNM; from the Sauceda Mountains on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands; from Department of Defense military lands on the Barry M. Goldwater Gunnery Range (BMGR); and from private lands near Ajo. There is an unconfirmed report of ˜ acuna cactus individuals occurring on Tohono O’odham lands in the vicinity of known populations on BLM and BMGR lands; however this has not been verified (Howe 2012, pers. comm.). In ˜ Maricopa County, the acuna cactus is known from the Sand Tank Mountains on BLM lands within the Sonoran Desert National Monument. In Pinal County, plants are known from Mineral Mountain on BLM, State, and private ˜ lands. In Sonora, Mexico, the acuna cactus occurs on Reserva de la Biosfera El Pinacate y Gran Desierto de Altar (Pinacate Biosphere Reserve) and private ejido (ranch) lands. Available information indicates that the current range of this species does not differ from the historical range, with the exception that the current Ajo populations likely had been part of a larger population that E:\FR\FM\03OCP2.SGM 03OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules occurred before mining activity began there (Rutman 1996b, pers. comm.; Rutman 2007, p. 7). However, there are no survey records for this species in the area prior to mining activity. erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with Abundance and Trends As the number of dead individuals ˜ documented within acuna cactus populations has increased greatly since study began in the 1970s (when tracking first began), it is important to track the number of healthy, unhealthy, and dead individuals. This not only allows us to document trends in total plant numbers, but can help in our understanding of the cause and extent of mortality. Federal Land—Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument (OPCNM) There is one large area of approximately 1,326 ha (3,277 ac) within OPCNM that contains as many as ˜ 2,000 acuna cactus individuals (Rutman 2011, pers. comm.; AGFD 2011, entire). In 1981, this population was estimated to contain 10,000 individuals (Buskirk 1981, p. 3). Within this area, two 20-by 50-m (66-by 164-ft) permanent monitoring plots were established in 1977, with the aim of investigating growth, mortality, and recruitment of this species. Between 1977 and 1981, there was 31 percent mortality in the plots (Phillips and Buskirk 1982, p. 2). Two more plots were added in 1983, and two more in 1988. From 1988 through 1991, the population was thought to be stable or increasing (Johnson et al. 1993, p. 172). From 1993 through 2011, annual mortality was variable, but exceeded recruitment in most years (NPS 2011a, p. 2). In 2011, the total number of individuals recorded in all six plots was 39 adults and 10 juveniles, showing little change since 2010. This however represents a marked decrease since their peak in 1991, when 446 individuals were recorded in the plots, 221 of which were juveniles (Holm 2006, p. 9; NPS 2011a, entire). In order to verify the identification and location of plants, specimens are collected, pressed, and placed on sheets that are stored in herbaria. A 1952 herbarium collection from a second location within OPCNM is evidence that a second disjunct population of the ˜ acuna cactus occurred historically within OPCNM. Current NPS staff were unaware of this herbarium collection, and the site, reported to be within 3 m (10 ft) of the U.S.-Mexico border, has not been revisited since 1952. Site visits in this area are currently considered dangerous, and therefore no efforts have been made to confirm the location of the population; we do not know if the population exists at this location. VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:23 Oct 02, 2012 Jkt 229001 Federal Land—Bureau of Land Management Sauceda Mountains—Within the Coffeepot Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC), there ˜ are several small acuna cactus populations, each on less than 2 ha (5 ac) of land. In 1982, the BLM (Phoenix District) established three 20-by 50-m (66-by 164ft) monitoring plots on Coffeepot Mountain. These plots were visited, and data were collected periodically between 1982 and 1992. In 1982, 157 living and 3 dead plants were found within plots. Over the years of study, many new recruits were found; however, there was also ongoing mortality with newly dead individuals documented each year. A census of individuals from both within and nearby the plots in 1987 found 310 living and 332 dead plants (Rutman et al. 1987, p. 2). BLM staff reported a precipitous decline of this population in 1989 (Johnson 1989, p. 1). By the last monitoring visit to the plots in 1992, 150 plants were recorded dead, 22 plants were recorded missing and presumed dead, and 150 plants remained that were either healthy or in some stage of decline (Butterwick 1982– 1992, entire). A note to the files in 1991 stated that many individual plants were missing, dead, or dying, and that there appeared to be little regeneration in this population (BLM 1991, p. 1). The plots have not been formally measured since 1992, but the BLM has visited this site 21 times since then to assess general health and threats to the population. Field notes by the BLM botanist in 2007 mentioned that the number of living individuals in and near these plots had been reduced by half since the 2006 site visit (Anderson 2011, p. 2). Because no population estimates were made during either year, it is difficult to know how many plants survive in and around these plots. Field notes do indicate that few juveniles were seen in 2008, and no juveniles were seen in 2009; no mention of juveniles was made in 2010 or 2011 (Anderson 2011, p. 2). In 2006, a second population, estimated to be between 50 and 100 individuals, was located 1.2 kilometers (km) (0.75 miles (mi)) northwest of the Coffeepot Mountain monitoring plots in Ryans Canyon (Rutman 2006, p. 2). Rutman (2006, entire) did not mention size class or health of this population. This site has not been revisited. A third population was discovered in 2006, 1.4 km (0.87 mi) to the northeast of the Coffeepot Mountain monitoring ˜ plots. Approximately 30 acuna cacti were noted there at the time; 25 percent PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 60515 mortality was reported one year later (Anderson 2011, p. 1). An October 2011 site visit by Service and BLM botanists revealed 23 adult and 2 juvenile living and 15 dead plants at this location (Service 2011a, p. 3). A fourth population was discovered by the BLM in March 2011, in a location near the third population; 10 plants were noted. No indications were given as to the age class structure or health of this population (Anderson 2011, entire). At a site BLM calls Little Ajo Mountains, southeast of the New Cornelia Mine on less than 0.4 ha (1 ac), the population has fluctuated from 5 plants in 1997, to 7 plants in 2001, to 7 plants in 2006, to 11 plants in 2007, to 7 plants in 2008, and finally to 12 plants (including 5 very small plants) in 2011 (Rutman 2006, p. 2; Anderson 2011, entire; Service 2011a, p. 1). Sonoran Desert National Monument— In 2006, approximately 200 individuals were reported from the Sand Tank Mountains in an area less than 25 ha (61.8 ac) in size. In 2007, the site was revisited, and four groups of individuals accounting for 125 of the approximately 200 individuals were mapped (Anderson 2012b, pers. comm.; Anderson 2011, p. 2). No indications were given as to the age class, structure, or health of this population (Anderson 2011, entire). Mineral Mountain—There are 3 ˜ individual acuna cacti growing on BLM land adjacent to 30 living plants and 22 dead plants on State lands. This population is discussed collectively below under State lands. Federal Land—Barry M. Goldwater Gunnery Range In 1997, a single adult individual was reported from just north and outside of the populations in the Coffeepot ACEC (Geraghty et al. 1997, p. 5) within Department of Defense (DOD) managed lands on the Barry M. Goldwater Gunnery Range (BMGR); this site has not been revisited. State Land Mineral Mountain—Plants were collected by Hart in 1992, from the population straddling BLM and State land east of Florence (University of Arizona Herbarium 2011, entire). There were no details of the number of individuals seen, just a map with three locations. In the 1990s, the BLM revisited this site and estimated 100 individuals scattered across 3 ridgelines (Service 2008a, p. 1). In 2008, the Service and BLM searched this area. The Service and BLM found fewer than 20 living and many dead plants; no young plants were seen. In 2011, the E:\FR\FM\03OCP2.SGM 03OCP2 60516 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with Service and BLM botanists revisited the location and found 30 living and 22 dead plants scattered across 4 adjacent ridgelines on less than 5 ha (12.4 ac) of land; no juveniles were found (Service 2011b, p. 1). Ninety-Six Hills—This population is in the vicinity of Florence on less than 1 ha (2.47 ac) of land. Parfit (1977, p. 1) noted that plants here were common, but very localized. Many plants of various ages and sizes were noted, as well as many dead plants. Engard (1977, p. 1) noted many seedlings and mature plants and also that the plants were abundant locally. Rutman and Krausman (1988, p. 1) found 29 live plants and 6 dead plants in a 2-hour survey in the same general area. Breslin (2008, pp. 3–5) reported that in over 60 hours of survey effort in the area he had located 45 plants, 1 seedling, and 17 dead plants. On March 20, 2008, the Service plant ecologist found 11 live plants and 10 dead plants in a 3-hour survey. In the same general area, C. Butterworth (2008, pers. comm.) found 32 live plants, of various sizes, except seedlings. He noted that seedlings were very noticeably absent. A 2011 2-hour survey by three Service and BLM botanists revealed no living and two dead adults in this same general area (Service 2011b, p. 3). Because this population was not mapped with Geographic Information Systems, it is impossible to know if survey efforts in 1977, 1988, 2008, and 2011 were all conducted in the exact same location within this general area. Therefore, it is not possible to conclude that this population has been extirpated. Private Land Ajo Area—The combined area of these multiple sites is less than 0.4 ha (1 ac) (Rutman 2007, p. 1). An isolated population near Darby Wells was first reported by Heil and Melton (1994, p. 14). Fewer than 10 plants were found at this site in 2007 (Rutman 2007, p. 4). There is no record if juveniles were among the plants found. The site has not been revisited. On Indian Village Hill, there were 102 plants in 1996, when the population was first recorded (Rutman 1996b, pers. comm.). In 2006, 30 living and 33 dead plants were found; in 2007, a quick census noted fewer than 40 plants found (Rutman 2006, p. 1; Rutman 2007, p. 4). There is no record if juveniles were among the plants found in either year. In 2011, eight living and seven dead plants were recorded; no juveniles were found (Service 2011a, p. 1). There were 16 live and 19 dead plants on Weather Tower Hill in 2006 (Rutman 2006, p. 1). There is no record if VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:23 Oct 02, 2012 Jkt 229001 juveniles were among the plants found. The site has not been revisited. Florence Area—Roadside populations occur on less than 0.4 ha (1 ac) collectively; any additional populations that may be present on private land occur on an unknown quantity of land. Roadside Population One—The 2011 site visit revealed 9 living and 2 dead individuals; no juveniles were found, though all 9 were young healthy individuals (Service 2011b, p. 2) Roadside Population Two—The 2011 site visit revealed 2 living and 2 dead individuals; no juveniles were found (Service 2011b, p. 2) There may be other locations on private lands unknown to Service or BLM botanists. Sonora, Mexico Felger (2000, p. 208) noted the ˜ occurrence of the acuna cactus between 3 and 18 km (2 and 11 mi) southwest of Sonoyta; no population estimates were made. Surveys of 7 groups of plants in this area from 2009 through 2010 revealed 659 living and 942 dead plants growing on approximately 1,700 ha (4,200 ac) (Pate 2011, pers. comm.; Pate 2011, map 1 and map 2). Pate (2012a, pers. comm.) noted seeing a few small seedlings among these plants. Summary Presented below is the total estimate ˜ of living, dead, and juvenile acuna cactus plants in populations visited over multiple years, including census results from 2011 and from previous years if sites have not been revisited or population estimates not updated. Notable trends are the large amount of mortality within the populations that have been visited more than once and the low numbers of juvenile plants in the populations. • NPS—2,000 plants, or 58.9 percent of known individuals; estimated in 2011 by NPS staff. This population estimate is down from 10,000 individuals estimated at this location in 1981. Within the OPCNM plots, the number of recorded individuals peaked in 1991, with 446 plants found. In 2011, 49 total individuals including 10 juveniles were noted within these plots. • Sonora, Mexico—659 plants or 19.4 percent of known individuals; estimated from 2009 to 2010 surveys. Nine hundred and forty-two dead individuals were also recorded during this survey period. There are no previous estimates from this population. A few juvenile plants were noted during the 2009 to 2010 survey period. • BLM—655 plants, or 19.3 percent of known individuals; estimated from 2011 and other recent surveys. At Coffeepot PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 mountain within the largest BLM population, 310 living and 332 dead individuals were recorded in 1987. This population was reduced to 150 individuals by 1992, and was reduced to approximately 75 individuals by 2006. No juveniles were noted since 2008, when a few were seen. • Private Land—48 plants (37 near Ajo and 11 near Florence), or 1.4 percent of known individuals; estimated from 2011 and other recent surveys. A single population that was revisited on several occasions showed a total population of 102 individuals in 1996; in 2006, 30 living and 33 dead plants were found. In 2011, just 8 adult plants and no juveniles were recorded from this population. • State Land—32 plants, or 0.9 percent of known individuals; estimated from 2011 surveys. At one location in the 1990s, the population was estimated to be 100 individuals; in 2008, only 20 living and many dead plants were found with no juveniles seen. In 2011, 30 living plants were recorded, including a new subpopulation previously not recorded. No juvenile plants were located in 2011. At a second location, in 1977, plants were considered common but localized, and the site supported many plants of various ages and sizes. Surveys of this area in 2008 resulted in the location of 45 adult plants with no juveniles found. In 2011, no living plants and two carcasses were located in this same area. • Military BMGR—1 plant, or less than 0.1 percent of known individuals in 1997; the site has not been revisited. Summary of Factors Affecting the ˜ Acuna Cactus Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 424, set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we may list a species based on any of the following 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; and (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. Listing actions may be warranted based on any of the above threat factors, singly or in combination. Each of these factors is discussed below. E:\FR\FM\03OCP2.SGM 03OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range Based on the habitat characteristics described above, potential factors that may affect the habitat or range of the ˜ acuna cactus are: (1) Urban development and site degradation; (2) livestock grazing; (3) border activities; (4) nonnative, invasive plant species; (5) mining; and (6) drought and climate change. erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with Urban Development and Site Degradation The immediate threats from urban development include the direct loss of individuals and habitat. Indirect impacts of urban development include ˜ fragmentation of acuna cactus and associated pollinator populations, which can reduce genetic vigor of the cactus and result in degradation and fragmentation of habitat adjacent to development. When development occurs, there is also an increased use of habitat for recreational activity, which may also deplete habitat and result in ˜ mortality of individuals. The acuna cactus populations in OPCNM and the Sonoran Desert National Monument are protected from the immediate threats associated with urban development due to their National Monument status. National Monuments are lands set aside and managed to protect the natural and cultural resources within; development is minimal, though some site degradation may still occur. To meet the country’s energy demands, there has been a recent emphasis by the Federal Government to use BLM lands for development of renewable energy. Currently, there are no planned solar or wind energy projects on or near populations of the ˜ acuna cactus in the Sauceda, Sand Tank, or Mineral Mountains (Werner 2011, pers. comm.). In addition, most populations on BLM lands are remotely located and relatively inaccessible; therefore, we do not anticipate development in these areas. As Arizona’s population is expected to continue to grow in the future, both Pinal County and the State Land Department are promoting urban development in the vicinity of Florence (Pinal County 2009, pp. 4, 60, 94; Guthrie et al. 2011, p. 1). When the housing market rebounds, it is likely that additional State lands in this area will be sold for urban development (Pinal County 2009, p. 42; Guthrie et al. 2011, p. 2). In the vicinity of Florence, there are no current plans for development of State lands known to ˜ support acuna cacti. Private lands near VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:23 Oct 02, 2012 Jkt 229001 ˜ Florence containing acuna cacti populations have been for sale as subdivided 16.2-ha (40-ac) parcels for many years. With the recent economic downturn, it is unlikely this land will be sold in the near future. The only known private land populations where access is readily available are at 3 sites near Ajo, totaling less than 0.4 ha (1 ac) and supporting fewer than 40 individuals in total (Rutman 2006, p. 1; Rutman 2007, pp. 1, 4; Service 2011a, p. 1). In most of the privately owned locations, the sites are littered with broken glass, bottles, and trash; however, plants appear little impacted by this habitat degradation (Service 2011a, p. 1; Service 2011b, p. 2). Indirect urbanization effects to the ˜ areas that support the acuna cactus include ORV activity, which has been reported on BLM lands near both Ajo and Florence. These reports, however, ˜ showed no impact on the acuna cactus populations in 1994 (Heil and Melton 1994, pp. 15–16), although habitat degradation and direct loss of individuals is possible from this activity. In 1988, the BLM closed the Coffeepot ACEC to recreational ORV use (BLM 2011, p. 194) and, in 1990, prohibited ORV use outside of designated trails within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (BLM 2011, p. 181). In 2011, the BLM Lower Sonoran Field Office released a Draft Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (Draft RMP/EIS) for review (BLM 2011, entire). This document supports the continued prohibition of ORVs outside of designated trails within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (BLM 2011, p. 181). Within the Coffeepot ACEC, alternatives for motorized travel range from no use to limited use on existing routes, but all alternatives restrict travel off of existing routes, thereby reducing ˜ the potential for impacts to the acuna cactus (BLM 2011, pp. 181, 185–188). Once finalized, the new RMP/EIS for the Lower Sonoran and the Sonoran Desert National Monument will remain in effect for the next 15 to 20 years (Foreman 2011, pers. comm.). The impacts of ORV activity on State or private lands are unknown; for ORV activity within the border region, see the discussion below of border activities. In Sonora, Mexico, scattered ˜ populations of the acuna cactus occur within 10 km (6.2 mi) of the town of Sonoyta. Although the area is reported to be little-used and unoccupied except by drug and human smugglers (Pate 2011, pers. comm.), in recent decades and as a result of human demand, the Sonoyta region has been heavily impacted by Olneya tesota (ironwood) PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 60517 and Prosopis velutina (mesquite) woodcutting for coal production, brick foundries, and tourist crafts, and the lands’ subsequent conversion to exotic ´ grasslands for cattle grazing (Suzan et al. 1997, pp. 950, 955). This activity has affected more than 193,000 ha (478,000 ac) of lands in the Sonoyta region ´ (Nabhan and Suzan 1994, p. 64). In a study of ironwood extraction in northern Mexico, the Sonoyta study sites exhibited the highest number of damaged and dead trees, and had the ´ lowest associated plant diversity (Suzan et al. 1996, p. 642). It is likely that ˜ habitat parameters for the acuna cactus populations in Sonora are impacted by this activity, particularly because ironwood is considered a dominant ˜ associate of the acuna cactus (Phillips et al. 1982, p. 5) and may serve as a nurse ´ plant for a variety of cacti (Suzan et al. 1996, p. 635). In addition, the actions of harvesting, burning, loading, and transporting wood and charcoal can result in running over ˜ individual acuna cactus and causing injury or mortality of plants, if such actions occur in areas supporting the ˜ acuna cactus. Also, human population growth and development in the border region between the United States and Mexico has risen in recent decades (Brown and Caldwell 2008, pp. 1–6); it is reasonable to conclude that the direct and indirect effects of urbanization are ˜ likely to increase threats to the acuna cactus populations in this region. The populations are currently split by a major highway, Interstate 8, and a power transmission line; many plants occur within 200 m (660 ft) of these corridors (Pate 2011, map 1 and map 2). In summary, the direct and indirect effects of urbanization are threats to a portion of the known populations of the ˜ acuna cactus. However, these effects are ˜ currently limited to the acuna cactus populations in the vicinity of Ajo and Florence in the United States and in the immediate border region of Sonora, Mexico. These areas collectively make up less than 21 percent of known living ˜ acuna cactus individuals across the ˜ range of the acuna cactus. The majority of the range in the United States is protected from urban development because populations are on Federal lands, where little or no development will take place. In addition, most ˜ populations of the acuna cactus are relatively remote or otherwise protected from the effects of urbanization. We conclude that urban development and site degradation is not currently a threat ˜ to any entire population of the acuna cactus. As a result, based on our review of the available information, we conclude that the direct and indirect E:\FR\FM\03OCP2.SGM 03OCP2 60518 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with effects associated with urbanization are ˜ not threats to the acuna cactus and its habitat. Livestock Grazing In general, grazing practices can change vegetation composition and abundance and cause soil erosion and compaction, reduced water infiltration rates, and increased runoff (Klemmedson 1956, p. 137; Ellison 1960, p. 24; Arndt 1966, p. 170; Gifford and Hawkins 1978, p. 305; Waser and Price 1981, p. 407; Robinson and Bolen 1989, p. 186; Holechek et al. 1998, pp. 191–195, 216; and Loftin et al. 2000, pp. 57–58). These anticipated effects leave less water available for plant production (Dadkhah and Gifford 1980, p. 979). In addition, livestock can step on or knock ˜ over individual acuna cactus. Although other species of cacti may be good survival forage for livestock (VegaVillasante et al. 2002, p. 499), herbivory ˜ of the acuna cactus has not been reported. Livestock grazing levels and habitat condition vary greatly between populations due to varied land ownership and management. A discussion of populations arranged by land management agency follows. National Park Service—Beginning in the early 1900s and continuing through the 1970s, lands within OPCNM were grazed heavily, with as many as 3,000 head of cattle and hundreds of burros present at a time when carrying capacity was estimated to be 314 cattle per year (Rutman 1997, p. 364; NPS 2011b, entire). Grazing by domestic animals was halted per NPS policy and has not occurred within OPCNM since 1976 (NPS 1997, p. 33). Lands here continue to recover slowly after loss of soils and vegetation and may take many decades or centuries to recover fully (NPS 2001, pp. 27, 124). Currently, OPCNM supports the largest population of the ˜ acuna cactus (59 percent of known ˜ living acuna cactus individuals), and we are not aware of historical effects to the population as a result of past livestock grazing. Bureau of Land Management—All ˜ four populations of the acuna cactus on BLM lands in the Sauceda Mountains have been managed since 1988 in the Coffeepot ACEC, which attempts to apply grazing management practices to ensure perpetuation of botanical diversity within the area and prohibits the development of livestock facilities that would serve to increase livestock use within the area (BLM 2011, p. 141). Collectively these four populations make up 13.1 percent of known living ˜ acuna cactus individuals. In 1987, when speaking of the then proposed Coffeepot ACEC, Olwell (1987, p. 1) noted VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:23 Oct 02, 2012 Jkt 229001 relatively pristine conditions with no ˜ immediate threat to the acuna cactus plants. At that time, however, the ˜ population of acuna cactus within the Coffeepot ACEC in the vicinity of permanent monitoring plots was reported to have substantial animal activity from cattle, javelina, and jackrabbits, with browsing, grazing, and soil disturbance noted (Rutman et al. 1987, p. 2). Anderson (2011, entire) noted no habitat impacts from grazing in this population during yearly visits from 1994–2011. This population is the farthest population from a single cattle tank (see below) within the ACEC, and therefore is less subjected to livestock pressure. In 1970, a cattle tank named Conley Reservoir was established within the Coffeepot ACEC boundary prior to the ACEC designation and remains today (Foreman 2012, pers. comm.). A ˜ population of acuna cactus very near this tank was visited by the BLM botanist in 2010, who found abundant prickly pear (Opuntia spp.), which are known to increase with disturbance and are often cited as an indicator of poor range condition (Anderson 2011, p. 2; Johnson 2000, entire). A site visit in 2011 by Service and BLM botanists found habitat impacts such as soil disturbance from both cattle and feral ˜ burros; however, no acuna cactus plants appeared to be directly impacted by these animals (Service 2011a, p. 3). Feral burros also impact vegetation on neighboring military lands (see Department of Defense section below). The new BLM Draft RMP/EIS has implications for future livestock management within the Coffeepot ACEC and the Sonoran Desert National Monument (BLM 2011, entire). According to this document, under Alternative A (the no action alternative), livestock grazing within the ACEC would not change from the current regimes with no livestock facility development permitted (BLM 2011, pp. 32, 141). Under Alternative B, livestock grazing only in times of suitable forage production (ephemeral) would continue to be considered, but perennial stocking rates would be reduced by approximately 40 percent, and no livestock facilities would be developed that would increase livestock use within the area (BLM 2011, pp. 33, 196). Under Alternative C, grazing allotments designated as perennial/ephemeral would be reclassified as perennial only, with no supplemental ephemeral grazing applications considered (BLM 2011, p. 34). Under Alternative D, all allotments currently open to grazing would become unavailable as permits expire (BLM 2011, p. 35). Under PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Alternative E, the BLM’s preferred alternative, current grazing levels and timing would remain the same, but livestock facilities could be developed with the aim of improving natural resource conditions through greater distribution of livestock (BLM 2011, p. 171). It is unclear if additional tanks would, as is implied, relieve pressure on ˜ the acuna cactus populations; it is also unclear if this would increase the overall number of cattle (or burros) in the area or the amount of land impacted, ˜ thus potentially impacting more acuna cactus populations. Whichever alternative is ultimately chosen, the finalized version of this management plan will remain in effect for 15 to 20 years after signing later in 2012 (Foreman 2011, pers. comm.). In 2001, Presidential Proclamation 7397 (Clinton 2001, entire) created the Sonoran Desert National Monument; ˜ one population of acuna cactus containing 5.9 percent of known living ˜ acuna cacti occur in the Sand Tank Mountains. This area was designated for military purposes in 1941, and has had no livestock grazing for over 60 years (Clinton 2001, p. 2). During a site visit in 2006, no habitat impacts from livestock were reported from this location (Anderson 2011, p. 2). The current livestock management regime of no livestock being permitted within the Sonoran Desert National Monument ˜ Sand Tank Mountains acuna cactus population will be maintained for at least the next 15 to 20 years (BLM 2011, pp. 36–40; Foreman 2011, pers. comm.). Department of Defense—A single ˜ acuna cactus plant was found on BMGR approximately 1 km (0.62 m) to the north of a known population within the BLM Coffeepot ACEC (Geraghty et al. 1997, p. 5). Livestock grazing is not authorized on the BMGR, though some trespass cattle do occur (Whittle 2012, pers. comm.). Feral burros on BMGR are a concern, however, and BMGR managers plan to implement a burro trapping program in the spring of 2012, in an attempt to reduce damage to vegetation (Whittle 2012, pers. comm.). Arizona State Trust Lands (State ˜ land)—Populations of acuna cactus on State land in the Mineral Mountains are subject to grazing; two land sections containing this species are collectively part of a larger 6,118-ha (15,118-ac) grazing lease with a total carrying capacity of 118 animal units (Sommers 2012, pers. comm.). Three individual ˜ acuna cacti from this group of populations overlap onto adjacent BLM land. This BLM land, which is not fenced from adjacent State land, has a total permitted number of cattle of 357 year long, though the lessee did not run E:\FR\FM\03OCP2.SGM 03OCP2 erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules the full amount of animals in 2011 (Tersey 2012, pers. comm.). During a 2011 site visit, the habitat appeared unaltered by livestock, and no cattle were seen (Service 2011b, p. 1). Three additional land sections near Box O Wash containing this species are collectively part of a lease of 12,369 ha (30,565 ac) with a total carrying capacity of 236 animal units (Sommers 2012, pers. comm.). Both leases incorporate State and BLM lands, although in this area the species has been found on State lands and not the associated BLM lands. No livestock were seen during the November 2011 site visit to this population (Service 2011b, p. 3). Only ˜ two dead individual acuna cacti were found, and neither appeared to have been knocked over by cattle (Service 2011b, p. 3). In the past, Rutman and Krausman (1988, p. 1) recommended that this State land habitat could benefit from improved livestock management, as cattle trails there were numerous during a 1988 site visit. In a 2008 site visit, it was noted that quite a few of the ˜ dead acuna cactus plants may have been knocked over by livestock (Service 2008b, p. 1). It is unknown what the grazing lease or animal units were for this period of time. In 2011, several individuals were noted to have grown additional arms following the loss of the growing tip (Service 2011b, pp. 3–4). This was possibly due to mechanical damage caused by cattle, a beneficial adaptation to disturbance noted previously by Phillips et al. (1982, p. 6). The populations on State land represent ˜ just 0.9 percent of known living acuna cactus individuals. Although livestock grazing on State lands may benefit from improved management, the impacts to ˜ the acuna cacti are small. ˜ Private—Populations of the acuna cactus on private lands near the town of Ajo were noted to occur in degraded habitat with low species richness; these sites were suspected to have had a grazing history of severe use (Rutman ˜ 1995, p. 1). Those acuna cacti on private lands near Florence are in an unknown condition, as they are not typically visited by Service staff. Two roadside populations visited in 2011 had four dead plants and 13 healthy plants collectively; all dead plants seemed to have died from drought or insect attack, although one population did contain evidence (feces) of cattle use (Service 2011b, p. 2). Private lands account for ˜ just 1.4 percent of known living acuna cactus individuals. Mexico—In Mexico, researchers report livestock grazing in parts of the Sonora range (Stoleson et al. 2005, p. 60), but mostly the habitat remains little-used and unoccupied land (Pate VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:23 Oct 02, 2012 Jkt 229001 2011, pers. comm.). Sonora maintains ˜ 19.4 percent of the known acuna cactus individuals across the range; their recent decline, as evidenced by nearly 1,000 dead plants counted in 2010, has not been attributed to livestock. ˜ In summary, 64.9 percent of acuna cactus individuals occur within lands protected from cattle grazing either by NPS or BLM National Monument status. ˜ In areas occupied by the acuna cactus where livestock grazing does occur, impacts from livestock do not appear to be a consistent or significant threat to populations. Based on our review of the available information, we conclude that, although there is evidence that grazing ˜ impacts to the acuna cactus do occur, we do not believe that these effects occur to such an extent that livestock ˜ grazing is a threat to the acuna cactus and its habitat. Border Activities Over the past decade or more, tens of thousands of people illegally attempt crossings of the U.S.-Mexico border into Arizona annually (cross-border violators) (Service 2011c, p. 14). As a result of increased U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in the Douglas, Arizona, area, and in San Diego and southeastern California, cross-border violator traffic has shifted into remote desert areas such as OPCNM (Service 2011c, p. 14). For example, in 2001, an estimated 150,000 people entered OPCNM illegally from Mexico (Service 2011c, p. 14). With the increase in technology, border fencing, and manpower between 2001 and 2012, these numbers are down considerably, with 6,218 arrests of cross-border violators from OPCNM in the year 2011 (Oliver 2012, pers. comm.). Although the number of arrests does not represent all those who attempted to enter OPCNM illegally, this number is suspected to be considerably less than reported in 2001. Despite the fact that these numbers are down due to enforcement and deterrence efforts by the CBP, the thousands of people crossing through the border area illegally still represent a substantial impact to the resource. More than 78 percent of the known ˜ living acuna cactus individuals occur within 16.5 km (10.25 mi) of the border in either OPCNM or Sonora, Mexico. Cross-border violators, CBP, and NPS Law Enforcement (LE) activity in this ˜ area may degrade acuna cactus habitat by creating new roads and trails, disturbing vegetation and soils, and moving exotic plant seeds or plant parts, leading to their spread into unoccupied areas (Duncan et al. 2010, p. 124). At ˜ OPCNM, the acuna cactus occurs in an PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 60519 area that is closed to visitors due to dangers of drug and human smuggling; in addition, for many years, OPCNM natural resource staff have not been allowed to access the area without LE personnel accompanying them. Significant impacts may occur when travel moves off existing roads causing vegetation destruction, soil compaction (Duncan et al. 2010 p. 125), and, ˜ potentially, direct mortality of the acuna cactus by running over individuals, ˜ although no direct impacts to acuna cactus have been observed. Staff at OPCNM note that roughly 2 years ago, two vehicle tracks and associated articles of clothing from cross-border violators were found within one of the ˜ six 20 by 50 m (66 by 164 ft) acuna cactus long-term monitoring plots (Holm 2012a, pers. comm.). Although no individual plants were reported to have been run over in this instance, the occurrence of the activity within this ˜ proximity to acuna cactus individuals supports our conclusion that impacts from cross-border violators and border enforcement may negatively impact the species and could be a threat. In 2006, a vehicle border fence was completed in OPCNM. This fence has significantly reduced vehicular traffic from illegal entrants. The Biological Opinion for the Ajo Forward Operating Base Expansion reported personal observations by NPS and Service employees that the number of off-road tracks and new roads continues to increase (Service 2011c, p. 19). These new off-road tracks and roads are believed to be the result of CBP response by vehicle, horseback, and foot to cross-border violators, who are travelling primarily on foot (Service 2011c, p. 19). By 2011, OPCNM personnel had mapped thousands of miles of unauthorized off-road impacts from cross-border violators, CBP, and LE activities (Service 2011c, p. 18). Staff at OPCNM has been compiling data on offroad traffic and mapping unauthorized roads on OPCNM for a report. Prior to finalizing the determination on listing ˜ the acuna cactus, this report will have been completed and will be considered in the final determination. Although most of the unauthorized roads were created prior to construction of vehicle and pedestrian fences along the U.S.— Mexico international border, it is not known if the additional roads were created after the construction of the border fences. In 2011, NPS staff noted no new heavily utilized routes due to off-road travel by vehicles, but staff did state that single vehicles drive across ˜ habitat, and individual acuna cactus plants may be driven over. There is no E:\FR\FM\03OCP2.SGM 03OCP2 erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 60520 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules ˜ evidence that acuna cacti have been harmed, but damage to larger plants has been documented due to similar activity (Rutman 2011, pers. comm.). In cooperation with Service staff, CBP has begun efforts to educate Border Patrol agents on the locations and appearance ˜ of acuna cactus so that the areas that support the plant can be avoided to the maximum extent possible. Designated critical habitat in OPCNM will be marked on road atlases being prepared by OPCNM staff and provided to the agents patrolling in the OPCNM area. A system of sensors and communication towers is currently in place and is being expanded within the border region; this technology improves deterrence, detection, and apprehension of cross-border violators entering or attempting to enter the United States illegally (Service 2009, p. 5). It is expected that with increased communication and sensor tower technology, there will be a reduction in the need for CBP agents to patrol the area, thus reducing circumstances requiring vehicles to drive off of authorized roads (Service 2009, p. 16). CBP agents on foot or on horseback may conduct off-road pursuit of suspected cross-border violators at any time, including in areas designated or recommended as wilderness (Service 2009, p. 17). However, where there are exigent or emergency circumstances, CBP agents may conduct motorized offroad pursuit of cross-border violators, including in areas designated or recommended as wilderness. Where such motorized pursuits are necessary, CBP has committed to using the least intrusive or least damaging vehicle readily available, without compromising officer or agency safety. There are no existing or proposed ˜ communication towers near any acuna cactus populations within OPCNM; however, human traffic patterns have changed since the installation of towers in and near OPCNM. This change of pattern has created a larger impact footprint due to traffic moving farther from towers. In addition, communication and sensor towers and associated tactical infrastructure require maintenance and repair. Species ˜ proposed for listing, such as the acuna cactus, could be directly affected by repair and maintenance of this infrastructure if maintenance vehicles traveled off of approved access routes. However, CBP has committed to use only approved access routes for these maintenance activities. Therefore, these ˜ effects would be negligible for acuna cactus. In addition, if these maintenance and repair activities occur in undisturbed areas in the habitat of listed VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:23 Oct 02, 2012 Jkt 229001 plant species, a survey must be conducted and a sufficient buffer created to protect any plants found (HDR 2012, pp. 4–3). Illegal drug and human smuggling also adversely affects the area of the Coffeepot ACEC, but the area is less impacted than other border areas (BLM 2011, p. 344). This is likely the case with the other populations on private and BLM lands near Ajo and Florence. Within BMGR, cross-border violators and associated activities represent a significant threat to natural and cultural resources within the BMGR, including having widespread and adverse effects on soil and hydrology (U.S. Departments of the Air Force and Navy 2007, pp. 3–11). We are aware of no instances of illegal activity or law enforcement activity impacting the populations near Florence. The Service (2008b, p. 1) noted that little to no human activity, including ORV use, was observed during a 2008 site visit to these populations. ˜ The acuna cactus populations across the border from OPCNM, in Mexico, occur on land that is little-used, unoccupied, and subject to heavy traffic by drug and human smugglers (Pate 2011, pers. comm.). This area was reported to be not very safe, and warnings were given to Service personnel not to travel to this location alone (Larios 2011, pers. comm.). In 1993, the Mexican government established Pinacate Biosphere Reserve, a 7.7-million ha (1.9-million-ac) reserve for the region’s flora, fauna, geology, and archeology preservation. A portion ˜ of the acuna cactus individuals in Sonora occur within the Pinacate Biosphere Reserve. It is unknown what, if any, protection this designation ˜ provides the acuna cactus. In summary, the two areas containing ˜ the largest number of living acuna cactus (78 percent of the known living ˜ acuna cactus individuals) occur along the U.S.-Mexico border (in OPCNM and Sonora, Mexico). Within populations, ˜ acuna cacti are typically spaced within 3 m (9.8 ft) of each other, and thus vehicle traffic through any population could potentially impact many individuals. This area is heavily impacted by cross-border violators, CBP, and LE activity, as evidenced by the tremendous increase in illegal roads and trails documented by agencies along the ˜ border. To date, no individual acuna cactus plants are reported to have been lost to these activities; however reporting from this area is inconsistent. With anticipated continued border activity in the area, it remains possible ˜ that acuna cactus individuals and their habitat will be impacted. These impacts PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 include: creation of new roads and trails; disturbance of associated vegetation including nurse plants and microclimates; compaction or erosion of soils; movement of nonnative, invasive plant seeds and plant parts; and the potential to cause direct mortality to individuals by running over plants with vehicles. Therefore, based on our review of the available information, we conclude that cross-border violators, CBP, and LE off-road activities are a ˜ threat to the acuna cactus and its habitat. Nonnative, Invasive Plant Species Throughout the Sonoran Desert ecosystem, invasions of the introduced Pennisetum ciliare (buffelgrass), Bromus rubens (red brome), Eragrostis lehmanniana (Lehmann lovegrass), Schismus barbatus (Mediterranean grass), and Pennisetum setaceum (crimson fountaingrass) have altered nutrient regimes; species composition and structure; and fire frequency, duration, intensity, and magnitude (Brooks and Pyke 2001, p. 5). Although most of these species were intentionally introduced as forage for livestock, as erosion control, or as ornamentals, each is now considered invasive and a threat ´ to this ecosystem (Burquez-Montijo et al. 2002, entire). Species such as buffelgrass are expected to increase their range even with continued and predicted drought events (Ward et al. 2006, p. 724). It is generally thought that invasion by exotic annual grasses will continue unchecked in the Sonoran Desert ecosystem in the future, reducing native biodiversity through direct competition and alteration of nutrient and disturbance regimes (Franklin and Molina-Freaner 2010, p. 1671). Herbarium sheets contain labels that give information regarding where a specimen was collected, by whom, when the collection was made, and additional information such as what plant species were found in association with the collected specimen. There are no exotic species noted as associates on ˜ 39 of the 40 acuna cactus specimen herbarium sheets located at the Arizona State University, University of Arizona, or San Juan College Herbarium collections (ARIZ 2011, entire). These ˜ collections cover the range of the acuna cactus and date from 1952 through 2009. There was one specimen collected in 1982 that lists the exotic annual red brome grass as an associate. Although crimson fountaingrass found on nearby property was reported to be a possible ˜ threat to the acuna cactus near Ajo (Falk 2005, pers. comm.), no exotic grasses were noted within the Ajo, Little Ajo Mountains, or Coffeepot ACEC habitats E:\FR\FM\03OCP2.SGM 03OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with during field surveys in October 2011 (Service 2011, p. 4). One researcher familiar with all known populations of ˜ the acuna cactus noted no associated threats from exotic plant species in any population (Baker 2011, pers. comm.). In addition, researchers at OPCNM noted no present threats from any exotic plant species either within OPCNM or in populations of the Sonoran Desert National Monument (Rutman 2011, pers. comm.). In summary, we have reviewed the available information on the effects of and occurrence of nonnative, invasive plants in or near populations of the ˜ acuna cactus in southern Arizona and in Mexico. Known populations of the ˜ acuna cactus are well distributed across southern Arizona and northern Sonora and occur in areas subject to effects from nonnative, invasive plant species. However, there are no populations of ˜ the acuna cactus that currently show evidence of effects from nonnative, invasive species, and just one 1982 report indicates the presence of an ˜ exotic plant as an associate of the acuna cactus. While nonnative, invasive species could negatively impact this species, our review of the best available information indicates nonnative species ˜ do not co-occur with the acuna cactus presently; therefore we conclude nonnative, invasive species do not pose ˜ a threat to the acuna cactus and its habitat. Mining The immediate threats from mining activity include the direct loss of individuals and habitat. Indirect impacts of mining activity include ˜ fragmentation of acuna cactus and associated pollinator populations, which can reduce genetic vigor of the cactus and result in degradation and fragmentation of habitat and dusting of individual cacti adjacent to mines and ˜ associated roads. The acuna cactus populations in OPCNM and the Sonoran Desert National Monument are protected from the immediate threats associated with mining due to their National Monument status (NPS 1997, pp. s–iii; BLM 2011, p. 12). Currently on the Coffeepot ACEC, mineral exploration and mining are encouraged (BLM 1988, pp. 55 and 71). The 2011 Draft RMP/EIS for the Sonoran Desert National Monument proposes to continue the mining closure within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (BLM 2011, p. 181). However, within this same document, alternatives outlined for the Coffeepot ACEC allow for mining activities, but with various restrictions depending on the alternative selected. Because mining of metallic VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:23 Oct 02, 2012 Jkt 229001 and nonmetallic minerals will continue to be allowed within the Coffeepot ACEC under the revised Draft RMP/EIS (BLM 2011, pp. 154, 155, 196, 197), there is the continued potential for some ˜ loss of individual acuna cactus and ˜ fragmentation of acuna cactus and associated pollinator populations and habitat. There are no known mining activities planned on BLM properties, though a BLM parcel adjacent to populations on State lands near Florence may host a gravel mining operation in the future (Service 2011b, p. 1). Mining activity on private land near Ajo has a long history; the New Cornelia copper mine was one of the first open pit mines in Arizona dating to 1854 (Arizona Mining Association 2011, entire). This mine was closed in 1985, and a 2008 investigation by company owners determined the mine would not be reopened due to current economic conditions (Ajo Copper News Oct 29, 2008). As of 2012, the mine remains closed. ˜ The small populations of the acuna cactus that remain in Ajo may have been part of a much larger population that occurred before mining activity began, but there are no survey records for this species in the area prior to mining activity. As a result, it is unclear to what ˜ extent the acuna cactus and associated habitat were removed due to historical mining in this area, but there was ˜ certainly some loss of individual acuna cactus and habitat. Rutman (1995, p. 1) noted that on the east side of the Ajo rock dump, roads, wells, prospecting holes, rock piles marking mining claims, and past use of explosives occurred ˜ immediately adjacent to the acuna cactus plants. Rutman (2006, p. 1) noted that habitat was lost when Indian Hill Village Road was built and that occupied habitat may also have been lost where the following buildings and infrastructure now occur: Assembly of God Indian Mission, New Cornelia mine, parking lot for the mine lookout, baseball diamond, and the large informal parking lot to the north of the hill. It is possible that these populations were at one time connected with the few plants to the southeast of the open pit mine on BLM land. There is little doubt that the historical size and range of the ˜ Ajo area populations of acuna cactus have been reduced. Mining threats on private lands near Florence are unknown. Threats from ˜ mining to the acuna cactus plants in Mexico are unknown. ˜ We are aware of no acuna cactus populations that are currently impacted by active mining. It is reasonable to project that some mining will occur in PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 60521 ˜ the future that could affect acuna cactus populations near Florence, Ajo, and in the Coffeepot ACEC. However, these effects will occur in limited areas that do not support a majority of known ˜ ˜ individual acuna cactus. The acuna cactus populations will remain well distributed across their range even if future mining activities affect a few populations. Therefore, based on our review of the available information, we conclude that current and future mining ˜ activity is not a threat to the acuna cactus and its habitat. Drought and Climate Change Our analyses under the Act include consideration of ongoing and projected changes in climate. The terms ‘‘climate’’ and ‘‘climate change’’ are defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). ‘‘Climate’’ refers to the mean and variability of different types of weather conditions over time, with 30 years being a typical period for such measurements, although shorter or longer periods also may be used (IPCC 2007, p. 78). Thus, the term ‘‘climate change’’ refers to a change in the mean or variability of one or more measures of climate (e.g., temperature or precipitation) that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer, whether the change is due to natural variability, human activity, or both (IPCC 2007, p. 78). Various types of changes in climate can have direct or indirect effects on species. These effects may be positive, neutral, or negative, and they may change over time, depending on the species and other relevant considerations, such as the effects of interactions of climate with other variables (e.g., habitat fragmentation) (IPCC 2007, pp. 8–14, 18–19). In our analyses, we use our expert judgment to weigh relevant information, including uncertainty, in our consideration of various aspects of climate change. Climate change will be a particular challenge for biodiversity because the interaction of additional stressors associated with climate change and current stressors may push species beyond their ability to survive (Lovejoy 2005, pp. 325–326). The synergistic implications of climate change and habitat fragmentation are the most threatening facet of climate change for biodiversity (Hannah et al. 2005, p. 4). Current climate change predictions for terrestrial areas in the Northern Hemisphere indicate warmer air temperatures, more intense precipitation events, and increased summer continental drying (Field et al. 1999, pp. 1–3; Hayhoe et al. 2004, p. 12422; Cayan et al. 2005, p. 6; Seager et E:\FR\FM\03OCP2.SGM 03OCP2 erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 60522 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules al. 2007, p. 1181). Climate change may lead to increased frequency and duration of severe storms and droughts (Golladay et al. 2004, p. 504; McLaughlin et al. 2002, pp. 6072–6074; Cook et al. 2004, p. 1015). The current prognosis for climate change impacts in the American Southwest includes fewer frost days; warmer temperatures; greater water demand by plants, animals, and people; and an increased frequency of extreme weather events (heat waves, droughts, and floods) (Weiss and Overpeck 2005, p. 2074; Archer and Predick 2008, p. 24). How climate change will affect summer precipitation is less certain, because precipitation predictions are based on continental-scale general circulation models that do not yet account for land use and land cover effects or regional phenomena, such as those that control monsoonal rainfall in the Southwest (Weiss and Overpeck 2005, p. 2075; Archer and Predick 2008, pp. 23–24). Some models predict dramatic changes in southwestern vegetation communities as a result of climate change (Weiss and Overpeck 2005, p. 2074; Archer and Predick 2008, p. 24), especially as wildfires carried by nonnative plants (e.g., buffelgrass) potentially become more frequent, promoting the presence of invasive, exotic species over native ones (Weiss and Overpeck 2005, p. 2075). The Sonoran Desert has experienced drought conditions since 1998 (Bowers 2005, p. 421; WRCC 2012, entire). Recent trends for the region predict that climate of the region will become much drier in the next 2 to 3 decades (Schwinning et al. 2008, p. 14–15). The impact of current and future drought, which may be longterm and severe (Seager et al. 2007, pp. 1183–1184; Archer and Predick 2008, ˜ entire), will continue to affect the acuna cactus and its habitat throughout its range. Climate change is likely to affect the long-term survival and distribution of ˜ native plant species, such as the acuna cactus, through changes in temperature and precipitation. Over the past 40 to 50 years, the United States has experienced more extreme weather events, heat waves, and regional droughts than in previous decades (Karl et al. 2009, p. 27). The southwestern United States has experienced the greatest temperature increase in the continental United States; average temperatures increased approximately 0.8 degrees Celsius (°C) (1.5 degrees Fahrenheit (°F)) compared to a 1960 to 1979 baseline (Karl et al. 2009, p. 129). By the end of this century, temperatures averaged across the Southwest region are expected to warm a total of 2 to 5 °C (4 to 10 °F) above the VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:23 Oct 02, 2012 Jkt 229001 historic baseline period of 1960–1979 (Karl et al. 2009, p. 129). The frequency and intensity of high temperature extremes will increase, and heat waves currently considered rare will become more common (Karl et al. 2009, pp. 33– 34). This region has experienced drought conditions since 1998 (Bowers 2005, p. 421; Western Region Climate Center (WRCC) 2012, entire). Annual mean precipitation levels are expected to decrease in western North America and especially the southwestern States by midcentury (IPCC 2007, p. 8; Seager et al. 2007, p. 1181; Girvetz et al. 2009, entire). The current trend in the Southwest of less frequent, but more intense, precipitation events leading to overall drier conditions is predicted to continue (Karl et al. 2009, p. 24). The levels of aridity of recent drought conditions and perhaps those of the 1950s drought years will become the new climatology for the southwestern United States (Seager et al. 2007, p. 1181). In summary, the drought the southwestern United States has been experiencing since the late 1990s is the worst in over 100 years and is being exacerbated by record warming (Karl et al. 2009, p. 130). Heat stress in adult cacti is minimal compared to other plant species as they are able to survive heat stress due to both morphology and metabolism (Smith et al. 1984, pp. 647, 650; Wahid et al. 2007, p. 199). In a study of Sonoran Desert cacti, Smith et al. (1984, pp. 647, 650) found that short cacti ˜ (such as the acuna cactus) and massive cacti had higher heat tolerance than most other cacti species studied, and more than vascular plants overall. They also found heat tolerance varied with stem orientation, stem diameter, and location on the landscape including a portion of the species’ range (Smith et al. 1984, p. 649). Extreme temperatures can, however, negatively impact seedling survival in many Sonoran Desert plants, and drought coupled with high temperatures lessens temperature tolerance in seedlings (Nobel 1984, pp. 310, 316). We found no additional information on projections for cacti in ˜ general, or the acuna cactus in particular, indicating the impacts of increased heat stress combined with increasing drought stress as climate models project. We do know, however, that drought or high temperatures alone can damage non-cacti species, and the combination causes more detrimental interactive effects on these plants than either stressor independently (Huang and Jiang 2002, p. 288). We are aware of several reports of drought stress apparent on individual ˜ acuna cactus. In cacti and other PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 succulents, stem swelling and shrinking is typical with rain–drought cycles (Mauseth 2000, p. 1107). At OPCNM, ˜ monitored acuna cactus individuals were reported to have shrunk in size from one year to the next, and researchers noted shrinking individuals may be dying (Ruffner 1989, p. 1). In addition, 1986 datasheets from monitoring plots at OPCNM categorized cacti based on health of the individual; one category from the time was ‘‘desiccated’’ (dried out) (Buskirk 1986, pers. comm.). Although such descriptive categories have not been in use in monitoring for some time, OPCNM staff note their importance and would like to reinstate them in future monitoring (Holm 2012b, pers. comm.). In addition, plants already stressed from prolonged drought are more susceptible to insect attack and disease (Mattson and Haack 1987, p. 110), and such attack is ˜ prevalent in all acuna cactus populations across their range (see discussion in Factor C. Disease or Predation). Mortality in measured plots at OPCNM was most severe in 1993, when 40 adults were lost, and again in 1997, when 53 adults were lost; both of these were years with dry summers (WRCC 2012, entire). In the last decade, 78 adults were lost in these plots, and 25 of these losses occurred in the very dry year of 2007 (WRCC 2012, entire). During this same 10-year period, 31 new adults were recorded as additions to the population through recruitment (NPS 2011a, p. 2). In addition to the health of adult individuals, drought is directly related ˜ to acuna cactus population health with regard to reproduction and establishment. In his 3-year study of the ˜ reproductive ecology of the acuna cactus, Johnson (1992, pp. 403, 405) concluded that the positive association of rainfall and annual variation in the number of flowers produced indicates that water availability limits flower production in this species. Although Johnson cites yearly precipitation in relation to flower production, it seems more likely that winter precipitation is the driving factor, as flowers are produced early in the spring following winter precipitation events. Within monitoring plots established by Buskirk in 1977 (Buskirk 1981, p. 1), total flowers counted peaked at 902 in 1992 (Holm 2006, p. 10); corresponding precipitation during the winter of 1992– 1993 was 29.7 cm (11.66 in) (WRCC 2012, entire). By comparison, in the last 10 years of measurement, the average number of flowers counted in these plots was 198 (Holm 2006, p. 10); the corresponding average winter E:\FR\FM\03OCP2.SGM 03OCP2 erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules precipitation during these years was 9.7 cm (3.8 in) (WRCC 2012, entire). Resource limitation may affect the ˜ acuna cactus seed set through ovule abortion (Johnson 1989, p. 11). Because flowering commences in early March and fruiting commences in late April (Johnson 1989, pp. 5, 8), it is likely also that winter precipitation is correlated with fruit set. Fruit production was monitored at the OPCNM plots beginning in 2004, and has shown considerable variation since that time, with a low of 29 fruits produced in 2007, when total winter precipitation was 6.8 cm (2.69 in) and, a high of 361 fruits produced in 2005, when winter precipitation was 16.4 cm (6.47 in) (NPS 2011a, p. 1; WRCC 2012, entire). Johnson (1989, pp. 5, 12) determined ˜ that acuna cactus seedling survival was dependent on summer precipitation and that soil moisture availability limits the distribution of the species. Rice (2001, pers. comm.) noted that in greenhouse ˜ trials of the acuna cactus, seedlings and new recruits were primarily lost due to desiccation; emphasizing that establishment is the most critical and ˜ limiting phase of the acuna cactus life cycle. Throughout the species’ range, rainfall has been declining, and drought conditions have been dominant since 1998 (Bowers 2005, p. 421; WRCC 2012, entire); this has likely influenced seedling survivorship (Holm 2006, p. 2– 1—2–13; NPS 2011a, p. 1). For example, in the measured plots at OPCNM, the recruitment rate peaked in 1992, coinciding with consecutive seasons with near to above average rainfall (NPS 2011a, p. 1; WRCC 2012, entire). In the Coffeepot Mountain BLM monitoring plots, seedling or juvenile plants were observed in all years when plots were measured; however, the number of dead plants far exceeded recruitment in any year (Butterwick 1982–1992, entire). In many site visits throughout the region over the past 10 years, there have been reports of low or no recruitment (Service 2008a, p. 1; Service 2008c, p. 1; Anderson, 2011, p. 2; Service 2011a, entire; Service 2011b, p. 3). In summary, since the late 1990s, the southwestern United States has been experiencing drought conditions and increasing high temperatures. Climatic predictions suggest continued less frequent, but perhaps more intense, summer precipitation, reduced winter precipitation; and increasing temperatures in this region (Seager et al. 2007, p. 1181; Archer and Predick 2008, pp. 23–24; Karl et al. 2009, p. 24). Data ˜ from the acuna cactus monitoring plots at OPCNM and at Coffeepot Mountain, along with occasional surveys of these and most other populations, indicate VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:23 Oct 02, 2012 Jkt 229001 major population declines have ˜ occurred across the acuna cactus range over the past 30 years. It appears that a combination of drought stress, warmer winters, and insect attack (see Factor C. Disease or Predation, below) have reduced adult plant numbers, while heat stress, lack of precipitation, and seed predation (see Factor C. Disease or Predation, below) have combined to reduce or halt reproduction. Because the current drought is occurring on a regional scale, and because climatic models predict future regional droughts, it is likely that all populations of the ˜ acuna cactus will continue to decline due to drought and the effects of climate change. In addition, it appears that drought and climate change in combination with insect damage and predation, as a combined effect, is the more likely scenario for rangewide level ˜ impacts to acuna cacti (see Factor C. Disease or Predation, below). Most, if ˜ not all, of the acuna cactus populations are impacted by drought and the effects of climate change, including effects to both individual cacti and to productivity and establishment. Therefore, based on our review of the available information, we conclude that drought and the effects of climate change, combined with insect predation (see Factor C. Disease or Predation, below), rise to a rangewide level threat. Summary of Factor A In conclusion, based on our review of the best available information, we have determined that individual plant loss, as ˜ well as fragmentation of acuna cactus and associated pollinator populations due to the effects of urbanization; livestock grazing; nonnative, invasive plant species; and mining do not impact the species at a population level and ˜ therefore are not threats to the acuna cactus. Currently, 78 percent of the ˜ known living acuna cactus individuals occur along the border near OPCNM. Cross-border violators and associated CBP and LE off-road activities may be ˜ affecting individual acuna cactus plants and their habitat. If there is an increase ˜ in off-road activities in or near acuna cactus populations or habitat, the likelihood of loss of individuals or loss or modification of habitat also increases. In addition, a large amount of mortality has been documented within all populations that have been visited more than once, relating to a combination of the intricately correlated increases in drought and heat stress, warmer winter temperatures, and insect attack (see Factor C. Disease or Predation, below). Thus, based on our review of the best available scientific information, we conclude that loss and degradation of PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 60523 habitat due to off-road border activities, drought, and climate change, are threats ˜ to the acuna cactus and its habitat. Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes Unauthorized collection has, in the past, been identified as a threat to the ˜ acuna cactus (Phillips et al. 1982, p. 9; Phillips and Buskirk 1982, p. 2; Rutman 1996a, pers. comm.; Rutman 2007, p. 6). At OPCNM, a large number of individuals are located adjacent to Puerto Blanco Drive, which was formerly a scenic loop drive. Although historically collection is suspected to have occurred in this population (Buskirk and Phillips 1983, pers. comm.; Rutman 1996a, pers. comm.), the significance of this past collection varies. Buskirk (1981, p. 5) noted that he did not believe collection was a significant source of mortality between 1977 and 1981, yet Phillips and Buskirk (1982, p. 2) noted three mapped roadside cacti lost to collectors, stating that collecting could be a significant cause of loss in OPCNM. Additionally, Rutman (1996a, p. 2) noted that along the scenic drive road at OPCNM, considerable collection of the largest size class of plants occurred. This road was closed to visitors in 2003, and there are no plans to reopen it, making it highly unlikely that collection is an ongoing issue (Rutman 2011, pers. comm.; Pate 2012a, pers. comm.). On BLM-administered lands, the ˜ acuna cactus plants occur in very remote locations, and no reports of collection are known. Rutman (1995, p. 2) noted collection did not appear to be a threat to the population surrounding the Coffeepot Mountain plots during annual visits between 1988 and 1990. Similarly, no evidence of collection was seen during 2011 Service and BLM site visits to nearby populations within the Coffeepot ACEC (Service 2011a, p. 4). On State and private lands in the Florence area, Rutman (1995, p. 3) noted that population locations were published and, easy to access, and that, for many years, collectors have been taking plants. She also noted individual plants seen the previous year were missing, and no carcasses found upon revisiting (Rutman 1995, p. 3). No evidence of collection from visited sites was found during 2011 Service visits (Service 2011b, p. 1). Private lands in the Ajo area are also accessible, though we have no reports of collection there. Buskirk and Phillips (1983, pers. ˜ comm.) refer to some acuna cactus collection, but refer to it as relatively uncommon and unsystematic at present. No documented cases of unauthorized E:\FR\FM\03OCP2.SGM 03OCP2 60524 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules collection (in violation of the Arizona Native Plant Law) of this cactus have been found in any of the known populations. Heil and Melton (1994, p. ˜ 15) note that the acuna cactus is easy to grow and raise from seed and that species is rare in the gardens of cactus collectors. An investigator within the Office of Special Investigations of the Arizona Department of Agriculture stated that he does not believe ˜ collection of the acuna cactus is a threat to the species (Reimer 2011, pers. comm.). Therefore, based on our review of the available information, we conclude that, while there is evidence that unauthorized collection of the ˜ acuna cactus did occur in the past, it occurs to such an insignificant extent currently that it is not a threat to the ˜ acuna cactus, nor do we expect it to become a threat in the future. erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with Factor C. Disease or Predation In general, cacti are susceptible to attacks from numerous types of insects, ˜ and the acuna cactus is no exception. The interior flesh of cacti provides both a nesting area and food source for beetles, weevils, and other insects. Once an infestation has occurred, cacti can die from the eating and tunneling activities or from the introduction of fungus or disease. In addition, drought may cause physiological stress responses in plants, such as limiting their photosynthesis and cell growth. Plants already stressed from prolonged drought are more susceptible to insect attack and disease (Mattson and Haack 1987, p. 110). There are four native insects that have ˜ been documented to impact the acuna cactus. Of these, cactus weevils (Gerstaeckeria spp.) and cactus longhorn beetle (Moneilema gigas) are documented to be most responsible for ˜ the acuna cactus declines (Rutman 2007, p. 6; Johnson 1989, p. 10). Cactus weevils are stem-boring insects; the adults feed externally while the larvae feed internally (Burger and Louda 1995, p. 1560). Cactus longhorn beetle adults feed on pads or terminal buds of cacti; their larvae burrow into stems or roots causing the severing of root and stem, collapse, and death of plants (Kelly and Olsen 2011, p. 7; Johnson 1989, p. 10). Raske 1966 (p. 106) cites Dodd (1927) stating that the cactus longhorn beetle has one reproductive cycle per year; however, a noted cactus expert, Alan Zimmerman, believes that increased warming in recent decades facilitates longer breeding cycles and more reproduction in both the cactus longhorn beetle and cactus weevil (Rutman 2007, p. 6). VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:23 Oct 02, 2012 Jkt 229001 Other insects with lesser impact on ˜ the acuna cactus are snout moth (Yosemitia graciella) larvae and unknown ant species. Snout moth larvae are noted to feed internally on cacti (Simonsen and Brown 2009, entire) and on fruits, thus reducing seed set (Johnson 1992, p. 405). Johnson (1992, p. 405) noted snout moth predation accounted for a reduction in seed set of 35 percent in 50 monitored plants at OPCNM. Ants have been noted in greenhouse conditions and in the wild to consume and transport the ˜ acuna cactus seeds (Butterwick 1982– 1992, entire; Rutman 1996b, pers. comm.; Rutman 2001, pers. comm., p. 1; Anderson 2011, p. 1). In a similar species, Coryphantha robustispina ssp. robustispina (Pima pineapple cactus), ants have been documented eating fruits and transporting seeds (Baker 2011, pp. ii, 23). While ants do consume seed, they also scatter seed away from the mother plant thereby reducing predation by small mammals (O’Dowd and Hay 1980, p. 536; Vander Wall et al. 2005, p. 802). Ants may also aid in reducing the seedbank of competing plant species (O’Dowd and Hay 1980, p. 539). All of the above-mentioned insects have been documented at OPCNM near ˜ or on acuna cactus individuals (Johnson 1989, p. 10; Johnson 1992, p. 405; Rutman 1996b, pers. comm.; Rutman 2001, pers. comm., p. 1), with ants documented at Coffeepot Mountain (Butterwick 1982–1992, entire). It is likely that insect depredation occurs in other populations as well, though studies have not been conducted, and insects have not been collected in these populations. No diseases have been ˜ documented in the acuna cactus, though plants are exceptionally susceptible to bacterial rot after minor stem damage (Rutman 2007, p. 3). In 2011 site visits across the species’ range, a majority of ˜ living adult acuna cacti were in various stages of decline, with stems blackening from the base upward and resulting in eventual cactus death. The cause of this blackening is unknown; it could be natural aging of the plants or the result of stress, insect damage, or disease. A variety of small mammals, such as native ground squirrels, pack rats, rabbits, and mice, can severely damage or kill both mature and young cacti during times of drought (Kelly and Olsen 2011, pp. 8–9). There have been ˜ reports of loss of the acuna cactus due to small mammal depredation evidenced by scattered spines and rooted bases at OPCNM (Buskirk 1981, p. 5; Buskirk and Phillips, 1983 pers. comm.; Heil and Melton 1994, p. 15; Holm 2006, pp. 2–3). It is likely that PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 small mammal depredation occurs in other populations outside of OPCNM as well, though studies have not been conducted and small mammal occurrence in these populations has not been documented. In 2011, nearly all populations of the ˜ acuna cactus on BLM, State, and some private lands were visited by Service staff (Service 2011a, entire; Service 2011b, entire). In every population, some partially living and dead plants were found uprooted and toppled over. In 1996, there was a high mortality event associated with many live, reproductive plants found uprooted and lying on the ground in the Coffeepot Mountain population and the populations around Ajo (Rutman 2007, p. 3). There has been no explanation for this episode; however, there have been various hypotheses including vandalism, thrashers (birds) digging them up, and javelinas uprooting the plants. Given the severing of stem from root commenced when plants had been infested with cactus longhorn beetle, it is entirely possible that episodes of plants falling over occur following peak years for these insects, possibly in association with birds or other animals hearing and attempting to remove the insects within. There were above average temperatures in Ajo the 2 years preceding the 1996 uprooting event; this uprooting may have been correlated to increased insect activity and uprooting. There have been above average annual temperatures recorded at the Ajo Weather Station 15 times during 25 years of record keeping between 1975 and 2010 (WRCC 2012, entire). This trend is consistent both at OPCNM and in Florence, where 21 of 25 recent years and 19 of 25 recent years, respectively, had above average temperatures (WRCC 2012, entire). The increased warming in recent decades is likely benefiting ˜ insects and stressing acuna cactus plants, resulting in significantly increased mortality rangewide. Between 1982 and 1992, both recruitment and mortality were recorded within and outside of the established BLM plots at the Coffeepot ˜ Mountain acuna cactus population. Field notes from throughout the 10-year period of study indicate insect damage to individual plants has been ongoing within this population. Field notes included the following comments: tubercles with holes, damage on apex, exposed root, numerous ants, plant dying, insect damage to fruit, hollow inside, uprooted, chlorotic (yellowing), beetle wounds on side, unhealthy, damaged meristem, appears dying at the base, base rotting, sickly, and not rooted (Butterwick 1982–1992). In 1987, the E:\FR\FM\03OCP2.SGM 03OCP2 erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules BLM reported high mortality in this population with more dead plants observed (332) than living (310) (Rutman et al. 1987, p. 1). In 1989, the BLM reported a precipitous decline of this population (Johnson 1989, p. 18) with low or no recruitment since that time (Anderson 2011, entire). Within the monitoring plots at OPCNM, datasheets from 1986 categorized cacti as being: uprooted from the base, shell of spines, dead with upright carcass, stepped on, and missing, among others (Buskirk 1986, pers. comm., entire). Within these plots, adult recruitment has been observed in every year of monitoring since 1989; mortality has been observed in all but 2 years during this same period (NPS 2011a, p. 1). On average, the annual adult mortality within these plots is 12 percent, exceeding the annual recruitment of 7.7 percent (NPS 2011a, p. 1). The decrease in reproduction, increase in mortality, or a combination of both have resulted in the decline in plants within (NPS 2011a, p. 1) and outside of the plots at OPCNM. Across this population, the ˜ previous estimate of acuna cactus numbers were greater than 10,000 individuals (Buskirk 1981, p. 3); current estimates are between 1,000 and 2,000 plants total (Rutman 2011, pers. comm.). Within monitoring plots at Coffeepot Mountain, population decline has been dramatic with at least two episodes of 50 percent reductions reported from individuals in and around monitoring plots (Butterwick 1982–1992, entire; Rutman et al. 1987, p. 2; Anderson 2011, p. 2; Anderson 2012b, pers. comm.); at OPCNM, there has been a documented decline in the number of individuals on all six monitoring plots in all but 2 years since 1989 (NPS 2011a, p. 1), and in total population estimates between 1981 and 2011 (Buskirk 1981, p. 3; Rutman 2011, pers. comm.). In 2011, site visits to most of the remaining populations on BLM, State, and private lands indicated large proportions of the populations were dead with many plants uprooted, hollow plants, and many individuals in all size classes reported to be unhealthy or blackening from the base (Service 2011a, entire; Service 2011b, entire). Also in 2011, researchers in Mexico reported that 58.8 percent of the 1,601 total plants found were dead (Pate 2012b, pers. comm.). In conclusion, uprooting and depredation have been ongoing for at least several decades at OPCNM, at Coffeepot Mountain, and in all other populations. The pronounced decline in ˜ the acuna cactus numbers over the last three decades documented throughout the species’ range on BLM, State, VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:23 Oct 02, 2012 Jkt 229001 private, and lands in Sonora, Mexico, is of serious concern. It appears that the combination of drought stress and insect attack have reduced adult plant numbers and that warmer winters may be increasing insect numbers attacking ˜ acuna cacti. Most, if not all, of the populations are significantly impacted by predation; predation, in the form of insect attacks, occurs throughout the ˜ range of the acuna cactus. We also believe that the extent to which this ˜ threat affects the acuna cactus populations is interactive with the occurrence of drought and other climatic variables such as warmer ˜ winters. The ability of the acuna cactus populations to recover from insect attacks depends on the successful germination and survival of seedlings. However, these populations are also experiencing decreased reproduction, which may render the populations unable to recover as they continue to lose mature individuals, with low levels of seedling recruitment and survival. Therefore, based on our review of the available information, we conclude that predation is a threat that is resulting in significant population impacts to the ˜ acuna cactus, and this threat is expected to continue into the future. Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms Under this factor, we examine whether existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to address the threats to the species discussed under the other factors. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act requires the Service to take into account ‘‘those efforts, if any, being made by any State or foreign nation, or any political subdivision of a State or foreign nation, to protect such species * * *.’’ We interpret this language to require the Service to consider relevant Federal, State, and Tribal laws, plans, regulations, cooperative agreements, and other such mechanisms that may minimize any of the threats we describe in threat analyses under the other four factors, or otherwise enhance conservation of the species. We give strongest weight to statutes and their implementing regulations and management direction that stems from those laws and regulations. An example would be State governmental actions enforced under a State statute or constitution, or Federal action under statute. Having evaluated the significance of the threat as mitigated by any such conservation efforts, we analyze under Factor D the extent to which existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to address the specific threats to the species. Regulatory mechanisms, if they PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 60525 exist, may reduce or eliminate the impacts from one or more identified threats. In this section, we review existing State and Federal regulatory mechanisms to determine whether they effectively reduce or remove threats to ˜ the acuna cactus. Regarding the threat of unauthorized ˜ collection, the acuna cactus is protected by the Arizona Native Plants Law, which prohibits collection without obtaining a permit on all public lands, and directs that plants may not be moved off of private property without contacting the Arizona Department of Agriculture. Due to the difficulty in implementing this law, it has not been effective in reducing impacts from collection, nor does it protect habitat. However, no documented cases of unauthorized collection of this cactus have been found in any of the known populations in recent decades. There is little threat of collection on private lands due to restricted public access ˜ (see Factor B); the majority of the acuna cactus populations are on State and Federal lands. In addition, NPS regulations prohibit the collection or ˜ removal of the acuna cactus on NPS ˜ lands, where the largest known acuna cactus population occurs. The main ˜ road accessing the acuna cactus ˜ population in Acuna Valley in OPCNM is closed to the public, thus reducing impacts from collection to this population. Although the remoteness of many populations limits both visitation and enforcement of the existing regulatory mechanisms, unauthorized collection is reported to result in a relatively minor impact to this species. We conclude that the regulations that exist to protect against the impacts from over collection of the species, primarily the NPS regulation prohibiting removal and the closure of the primary access route in OPCNM, are serving to reduce the impacts from collection. There are no regulations in place that ˜ address threats to acuna cactus and its habitat from site degradation or that ˜ address the primary threats to acuna cactus of insect predation, drought, and the effects of climate change. Urban development; livestock grazing; nonnative, invasive plant species; unauthorized collection, and mining are not identified to occur at a level that is ˜ a threat to acuna cactus populations. However, without management of impacts from these activities, impacts could rise significantly. There are special management prescriptions in place to address some of these concerns on Federal lands. For example, the Sonoran Desert National Monument and OPCNM exclude livestock grazing and mining; promote the reduction of E:\FR\FM\03OCP2.SGM 03OCP2 erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 60526 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules nonnative, invasive plant species; and are unlikely to support urban development. In Mexico, a portion of the known population is within the boundary of Pinacate Biosphere Reserve, which may afford some protections. While management prescriptions with regard to these stressors may be applied opportunistically across different land management agencies within the region, they do afford some protection and minimize impacts to the species and its habitat. With respect to threats to the species caused by activities along the U.S.Mexico border, there are a number of Memorandum of Understanding and Biological Opinion documents that dictate certain actions be taken by CBP to reduce effects to resources in the United States and Mexico border region. These documents are primarily associated with habitat of the federally listed Sonoran pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra americana ssp. sonoriensis) and off-road activity, specifically identifying sensitive areas to avoid. These Memorandum of Understanding and Biological Opinions do provide some relief from the threats caused to the species resulting from cross-border violators and CBP enforcement activities because the ˜ acuna cactus shares a portion of the pronghorn habitat and these documents limit some direct impact to habitat. Likewise, CBP-sponsored projects, including the mapping of off-road tracks and revegetating unauthorized roads, may also benefit the species (Holm 2012a, pers. comm.). In cooperation with Service staff, CBP has begun efforts to educate Border Patrol agents on the ˜ locations and appearance of acuna cactus so that areas that support the species can be avoided to the maximum extent possible. Designated critical habitat in OPCNM will be marked on road atlases being prepared by OPCNM staff and provided to the agents patrolling in the OPCNM area. In addition, the efforts of CBP to stop cross-border violators in recent years by means of traffic barriers and other infrastructure has greatly reduced crossborder violator activities and afforded some protection to the habitat. However, due to the difficulty and ever-changing status of border issues, compliance with these agreements has been difficult. Reports indicate a two-track road and associated cross-border violator clothing were found in 2010 within one of the six long-term monitoring plots at OPCNM. The cross-border violator activities are, by their very nature, in violation of the law and regulations. VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:23 Oct 02, 2012 Jkt 229001 Therefore, we believe that regulations designed to protect the species and its habitat will be generally of little impact to alleviate the threats caused by activities of cross-border violators. As noted above, the interdiction efforts of the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP), including patrols, electronic surveillance and fence construction have contributed to a significant reduction in cross-border violator off-road traffic that has ˜ benefited the acuna cactus and other species. However, we do not find regulatory mechanisms to be adequate to directly address these threats discussed in Factor A. Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence We have evaluated the best available scientific information, and we did not find any indication of potential threats related to this factor. We considered such threats as small population size ˜ and overall rarity of the acuna cactus, but we did not find any indication that these are threats to the species. Therefore, we conclude that other natural or manmade factors are not ˜ threats to the acuna cactus. ˜ Proposed Determination for the Acuna Cactus We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the past, present, ˜ and future threats to the acuna cactus. We find that the species is in danger of extinction due to the current and ongoing modification and destruction of its habitat and range (Factor A) from long-term drought, effects of climate change, and ongoing and future border ˜ activities. The acuna cactus habitat is impacted across its range by long-term drought, warmer winters occurring in the past several decades and projected to continue with climate change, and insect predation. In addition, the ˜ majority of the acuna cactus individuals (78 percent) occur within 16.5 km (10.25 mi) of the border in either OPCNM or Sonora, Mexico. As described above, the complexities of addressing off-road excursions by crossborder violators result in unpredictable actions on the part of CBP and LE and ˜ threatens acuna cactus and its habitat. The primary threats to the species are due to drought, climate change, and insect predation. These threats are exacerbated at local scales by off-road excursions by cross-border violators and CBP and LE response. We do not find any threats to the species from unauthorized collection (Factor B). We find that predation, in combination with drought and heat stress, exacerbates the PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 threats to this species (Factor C). Although mechanisms are in place that afford some protection to the species and its habitat with regard to potential stressors to the species, there are no regulations in place to address insect predation, drought, and the effects of climate change. With regard to off-road border activity, although the interdiction efforts of CBP, including patrols, electronic surveillance and fence construction have contributed to a significant reduction in cross-border violator off-road traffic that has ˜ benefited the acuna cactus and other species, regulations have little impact to alleviate these threats. Therefore, we do not find regulatory mechanisms to be adequate to directly address these threats discussed in Factor A. Finally, we find other natural or manmade ˜ factors are not threats to the acuna cactus (Factor E). The elevated risk of extinction of the ˜ acuna cactus is a result of the cumulative stressors on the species and its habitat. Mortality of more than 80 percent of individuals has been documented within populations that have been surveyed more than once. This loss has also occurred on protected lands with ongoing management efforts ˜ for the acuna cactus, showing both a rapid and a severe decline to the ˜ species. In the acuna cactus, water and heat stress reduce flower and seed production, and seedling survival is dependent on summer precipitation and soil moisture. Warmer and drier winters combined with increased insect attack, negatively impacts the survivorship of reproductive adults. Of the remaining living individuals across the species’ range, a large portion were in various stages of deteriorating health, primarily blackening from the base upward, when visited by a botanist in 2011. Across populations, minimal or no recruitment has been seen in recent years. Throughout the species’ range, rainfall has been declining, and drought conditions have been dominant for several decades; climate change is anticipated to increase drought periods and warming winters. This combination is expected to continue the documented trend of mortality exceeding recruitment across all populations. When mortality exceeds recruitment in a population, the result is often a declining population. Given this, we consider none of the populations to be stable or secure. The factors significantly threatening the species are not expected to be abated in the foreseeable future, and some populations may have decreased to levels where they are no longer viable. All of the threats, combined with high E:\FR\FM\03OCP2.SGM 03OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules levels of mortality and low recruitment in the populations, contribute to a substantial risk of extinction and lead to ˜ our finding that the acuna cactus is in danger of extinction throughout its range; therefore, the species meets the definition of endangered. The Act defines an endangered species as any species that is ‘‘in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range’’ and a threatened species as any species ‘‘that is likely to become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range within the foreseeable future.’’ ˜ We find that the acuna cactus is presently in danger of extinction throughout its entire range based on rangewide documented rapid loss of individuals, decline in the health of many remaining individuals, little to no recruitment, and continuation of the threats, as described above. Therefore, on the basis of the best available scientific and commercial information, ˜ we propose listing the acuna cactus as an endangered species in accordance with sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act. ˜ Listing the acuna cactus as a threatened species is not the appropriate determination because the ongoing threats described above are severe enough to create the immediate risk of extinction. The continued loss of reproductive adults and juveniles poses a significant and immediate risk of extinction to the species throughout the species’ range, and are not restricted to any particular significant portion of that range. All of these factors combined lead us to conclude that the threat of extinction is high and immediate; thus, ˜ we conclude that the acuna cactus meets the definition of an endangered species. Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may warrant listing if it is an endangered or threatened species throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The threats to the survival of the species ˜ occur throughout the acuna cactus’ range and are not restricted to any particular significant portion of that range. Accordingly, our assessment and proposed determination applies to the species throughout its entire range. erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with Fickeisen Plains Cactus It is our intent to discuss below only those topics directly relevant to the listing of the Fickeisen plains cactus as endangered in this section of the proposed rule. Species Description The Fickeisen plains cactus is a small, unbranched to occasionally branched, globose (globular) cactus that retracts VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:23 Oct 02, 2012 Jkt 229001 into the soil after flowering and fruiting. Stems of mature Fickeisen plains cactus are 2.5 to 6.0 cm (1.0 to 2.4 in) tall and up to 5.5 cm (2.2 in) in diameter (Benson 1982, p. 749; Arizona Rare Plant Guide Committee 2001, unpaginated). The stems are covered with tubercles; each tubercle has 3 to 7 radial spines, 4 to 7 millimeters (mm) (0.15 to 0.27 in) in length, and 1 central spine (15 to 18 mm (0.59 to 0.70 in) long) that distinguishes the variety fickeiseniae from the variety peeblesianus (Benson 1982, p. 765). The central spine is whitish and curved upward. All spines are corky (spongy). The flowers are 2.5 cm (0.98 in) in diameter, cream-yellow or yellowishgreen in color, and produced on the apex of the stem. Flowers bloom from mid-April to mid-May, opening in the mid-morning for 1 to 2 days. An entire population generally completes anthesis (the period when the flower is open and functional) in 7 to 14 days (Travis 1987, p. 6), depending on the weather conditions (Navajo Natural Heritage Program (NNHP) 1994, p. 4). Fruits are produced in mid-May, are turbinate (top-shaped), and turn reddish-brown at maturity (AGFD 2011a, p. 1). The seeds are dark brown to black, 3 mm (0.11 in) long, and 2 mm (0.08 in) wide (AGFD 2011a, p. 1). The life span of the Fickeisen plains cactus is estimated to be between 10 to 15 years (Phillips et al. 1982, p. 9). Taxonomy The Fickeisen plains cactus was discovered near Cameron, Arizona, in the late 1950s, and was described in the scientific literature by Heil et al. (1981, pp. 28–31). The name Pediocactus peeblesianus var. fickeiseniae had not been validly published. Heil et al. (1981, p. 31) recognized the name and taxon in a review of the genus Pediocactus, and this name is accepted in the Flora of North America (Heil and Porter 2003, p. 213). Based on these references, we consider Pediocactus peeblesianus var. fickeiseniae to be a valid taxon. Other synonyms of Pediocactus peeblesianus var. fickeiseniae that have been used are Navajoa fickeisenii and Toumeya fickeisenii (Benson 1982, p. 955). The genus Pediocactus contains seven species; six of these are rare endemics of the Colorado Plateau region in Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah (Benson 1982, p. 749). There are two recognized varieties of Pediocactus peeblesianus, variety peeblesianus (Peebles Navajo cactus) and variety fickeiseniae (Porter 2002, pp. 15–16). According to Benson, the structural differences exhibited by Pediocacti PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 60527 among various sites, coupled with a poor seed dispersal mechanism and specializations to specific geology or soil type, indicate that the existing plants are probably relicts of a once widespread genus with a distribution fractured by climatic conditions (Benson 1982, p. 750). Biology The general biology of the Fickeisen plains cactus is similar to other species in the genus Pediocactus. The Fickeisen plains cactus is a cold-adapted plant that retracts into the soil during the winter (cold) and summer (dry) seasons, as well as during drought conditions. Plants may be completely buried underground or shrink down into the soil until the crown sits flushed with the soil surface (Phillips et al. 1982, p. 4). When temperatures rise in the spring and with adequate rainfall, plants emerge from beneath the surface to flower in mid-April. Spring flowering is believed to be influenced by cold temperatures and precipitation from the preceding winter months (Brack 2012, pers. comm.). After flowering and prior to the summer heat, plants set seed in June and shrink into the soil, losing onehalf their height above ground. Some plants may re-emerge in the autumn following monsoonal rains. The length of time a plant remains retracted can vary between individual plants. Hughes (2000a, p. 2) has documented some plants remaining retracted underground for at least 3 years. The Fickeisen plains cactus is also subject to root rot during very wet years and frost heaving. Locating individuals of the Fickeisen plains cactus can be difficult, even when their exact location is known, and therefore, searches are best done during their flowering period. Reproduction has not been specifically studied on the Fickeisen plains cactus. However, reproduction for plant species in the genus Pediocactus occurs by cross-pollination (Pimienta-Barrios and del Castillo 2002, p. 79). Species of small native bees are the primary pollinators. Species of hover flies and bee flies have also been observed visiting flowers of the Fickeisen plains cactus (Milne 1987, p. 21; NNHP 1994, p. 3; Peach et al. 1993, pp. 312–314; Tepedino 2000, p. 7; Tepedino 2012, pers. comm.). Hughes (1996a, p. 50) found that flowering and fruiting in the Fickeisen plains cactus occurs once an individual plant grows to 10 mm (0.39 in) in diameter and as an individual increases in size more fruit are produced. Specifically, he documented individuals less than 20.9 mm (0.82 in) in diameter produced 1.37 fruit on average (range of fruit produced E:\FR\FM\03OCP2.SGM 03OCP2 erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 60528 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules 1 to 3) compared to individuals at 50 mm (1.97 in) and larger, which produced 3.60 fruits on average (range of fruit produced 2 to 5). This correlation between larger sized individuals and increased fruit production has also been found in other Pediocactus species (Phillips et al. 1989, p. 4; Hreha and Meyer 2001, p. 86). This information suggests that larger, older individuals contribute more to the population growth rate by potentially having a greater influence on seed output than smaller, younger plants. Based on long-term monitoring information for the Fickeisen plains cactus, the majority of individuals observed tend to range between 20 mm (0.79 in) and 30 mm (1.18 in) in diameter. Population monitoring of the Fickeisen plains cactus suggests that this variety has a low reproductive capacity. In examining long-term monitoring information by the BLM, fruit production occurred irregularly over a 22-year period with 35 percent, on average, of the population reproducing. Hughes (2011, pers. comm.) found that 30 to 40 seeds are generally produced from a single fruit, and believed that low seed production hinders substantial increases in plant abundance from occurring, even during favorable weather conditions that would support germination (Hughes 1996a, p. 50). Thus, significant episodes of recruitment within populations on BLM lands reportedly occurred two to three times over a 9-year period from 1986 to 1995 (Hughes 1996a, p. 50). Phillips and Phillips (1995, p. 12) reported similar results for the Peebles Navajo cactus in which they documented moderate increases in population numbers roughly two to three times every 10 years. Episodic recruitment may play a role in increasing the threats to the species because adult mortality may continue at a high rate between periods of recruitment, lowering the reproductive potential of the population when conditions are favorable for seed germination. The mechanisms of seed dispersal in the Fickeisen plains cactus have not been investigated and are poorly understood. Most site visits to populations of the Fickeisen plains cactus have observed seedlings established very close to the adult plant (Goodwin 2011a, p. 9; NNHP 1994, p. 4). The general shared belief is that most species of Pediocactus, including the Fickeisen plains cactus, lack a good mechanism for seed dispersal, which is a contributing factor to its endemism and widely scattered, isolated VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:23 Oct 02, 2012 Jkt 229001 populations (Benson 1982, p. 750; Milne 1987, p. 4). Habitat The Fickeisen plains cactus is a narrow endemic restricted to exposed layers of Kaibab limestone on the Colorado Plateau. Plants are found in shallow, gravelly loam soils formed from alluvium, colluvium, or Aeolian deposits derived from limestone of the Harrisburg member of the Kaibab Formation and Toroweap Formation; Coconino Sandstone; and the Moenkopi Formation (Travis 1987, pp. 2–3; Arizona Geological Survey (AZGS) 2011; Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 2012). Most populations occur on the margins of canyon rims, on flat terraces or benches, or on the toe of well-drained hills with less than 20 percent slope; at elevations between 1,280 to 1,814 m (4,200 to 5,950 ft) (Arizona Rare Plant Guide Committee 2001, unpaginated; AGFD 2011b, entire; Hazelton 2012a, pers. comm.). Habitat of the Fickeisen plains cactus is within the Plains and Great Basin grasslands and Great Basin desert scrub vegetation communities (Benson 1982, p. 764; NatureServe 2011). Dominant native plant species that are commonly associated with these biotic communities include: Artemisia tridentata (sagebrush), Atriplex canescens (four-wing saltbush), Atriplex confertifolia (shadscale), Bouteloua eriopoda (black grama), Bouteloua gracilis (blue grama), Bromus spp. (brome), Chrysothamnus spp. (rabbitbush), Ephedra torreyana (Mormon tea), Eurotia lanata (winterfat), Gutierrezia sarothrae (broom snakeweed), Pleuraphis jamesii (James’s galleta), Oryzopsis hymenoides (Indian ricegrass), Sphaeralcea spp. (globemallow), and Stipa spp. (needlegrass). Other native cactus species that are commonly found include Agave utahensis (century plants) and Echinocactus polycephalus spp. (Brown 1994, pp. 115–121; Turner 1994, pp. 145–155; Hughes 1996b, p. 2; Goodwin 2011a, p. 4; NatureServe 2011). The Escobaria vivipara var. rosea (foxtail cactus) is typically found in close association with the Fickeisen plains cactus (Hughes 1996a, p. 47). The climate of the Great Basin Desert and on the Colorado Plateau is highly variable. The climate of the region is influenced by events in the tropical Pacific and northern Pacific Ocean (United States Geological Survey (USGS) 2002, p. 2). The amount of precipitation received locally varies by elevation and topography, and is patchy in its distribution. Precipitation is bimodal, occurring in the winter PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 (January to March) and summer (July to September) months. The average annual precipitation ranges from 15.2 to 35.5 cm (6 to 14 in) per year; snowfall accumulation averages 22.9 cm (9 in), primarily from January to February (WRCC 2012, entire). Winter precipitation is thought to be critical for the region to ensure soil moisture recharge and a reliable spring growing season (Travis 1987, p. 3; Comstock and Ehleringer 1992, pp. 196–199). Biological soil crusts are found on the Colorado Plateau in or near the Fickeisen plains cactus’ habitat (United States Forest Service (USFS) 1999, entire; BLM 2007a, p. 3–15). Biological soil crusts are formed by a community of living organisms that can include cyanobacteria, green algae, microfungi, mosses, liverworts, and lichens (Belnap 2006, pp. 361–362). These crusts provide many positive benefits to the larger vegetation community by providing fixed carbon and nitrogen on sparsely vegetated soils, soil stabilization and erosion control, water infiltration, improved plant growth, and seedling germination (Rychert et al. 1978, entire; NRCS 1997, pp. 8–10; Floyd et al. 2003, p. 1704; Belnap 2006, entire). Distribution and Range The Fickeisen plains cactus is found only on the Colorado Plateau in Coconino and Mohave Counties. The range of the Fickeisen plains cactus encompasses the Arizona Strip (i.e., the area north of the Colorado River to the Arizona-Utah border) from Mainstreet Valley in Mohave County to House Rock Valley in Coconino County, along the canyon rims of the Colorado River and Little Colorado River, to the area of Gray Mountain, and along the canyon rims of Cataract Canyon on the Coconino Plateau. The majority of the populations are small; some consisting of a few individuals (Table 3). Populations are widely scattered over a broad range and separated by topography. There seems to be abundant suitable habitat that is unoccupied by the plant for reasons unknown. One estimate of the range of the Fickeisen plains cactus is 12,750 square kilometers (sq km) (4,922 square miles (sq mi)) (NatureServe 2011, p. 2). We do not know what information was used to derive this estimate, and, therefore, it may not accurately reflect the current known range. The range of the Fickeisen plains cactus converges with the range of the endangered Pediocactus bradyi (Brady pincushion cactus) in House Rock Valley, and overlaps with the range of the threatened Pediocactus sileri (Siler pincushion cactus), and the Pediocactus E:\FR\FM\03OCP2.SGM 03OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules paradinei (Kaibab plains cactus), which is protected by a conservation agreement on the Arizona Strip (BLM 2011a, Figure 3.8–1). Very little is known about the historical range of the Fickeisen plains cactus. Benson (1982, p. 765) described the range as northern Arizona from the hills in northeast Mohave County to the vicinity of the Colorado and Little Colorado rivers near the Grand Canyon National Park and southeast Coconino County. He estimated the known range to be about 200 km (125 mi) of land. Based on the current spatial distribution of the Fickeisen plains cactus, the plant’s range has expanded roughly 72 km (45 mi) west of the Kaibab Plateau in Mohave County to include occupied areas in Mainstreet Valley, Hurricane Cliffs, and Clayhole Ridge on the Arizona Strip. The Fickeisen plains cactus population near Cataract Canyon was recently documented in 2006. The population is located below the Colorado River and south of the Grand Canyon National Park on the Cataract Ranch but does not appear to represent a range expansion for the species. Benson had identified two areas as occupied by Pediocactus peeblesianus varieties that correspond to the location of this population (Benson 1982, p. 765). One area, located below the Colorado River, was identified as a Fickeisen plains cactus occurrence. The second occupied area was located farther south of there but identified as a Peebles Navajo cactus occurrence. Both of these areas were later inventoried as part of a floristic survey in 2006, and the variety of Pediocactus peeblesianus observed was documented as the Fickeisen plains cactus (Goodwin 2006, p. 4; Goodwin 2011a, pp. 5–6). The Fickeisen plains cactus has also been documented on State land within the Boquillas Ranch, which is located to the west of the Cataract Ranch and is privately owned by the Navajo Nation (Goodwin 2006, p. 5; Chapman 2012, pers. comm.). Besides location coordinates, we do not have information describing the status of the Fickeisen plains cactus there. According to Goodwin (2006, pp. 4–5), two German botanists had discovered plants of Pediocactus peeblesianus on the Coconino Plateau in 1979, but the plants were thought to be of the variety maianus. Based on their field notes, visits to the area between 1980 and 2006 confirmed the locations of three occupied sites by the Pediocactus peeblesianus, later documented as the Fickeisen plains cactus. Two of these sites were on the Cataract Ranch while the third site is on State land leased to the Boquillas Ranch (Chapman 2012, pers. comm.). This area was revisited in 2012, but no documentation describing the site visit is available (Goodman 2012, pers. comm.; Hazelton 2012b, 60529 pers. comm.). Anecdotal information suggests that additional Fickeisen plains cacti and an abundant suitable habitat occur on the Boquillas Ranch (Chapman 2012, pers. comm. Goodwin 2012, pers. comm.). If additional Fickeisen plains cacti do exist here, it would increase the known range and distribution of the plant. Abundance and Trends About 1,150 Fickeisen plains cacti among 33 populations have ever been documented rangewide from 1962 to 2011 (Table 3) (AGFD 2011b, entire; Goodwin 2011a, p. 19; NNHP 2011a, entire). However, 504 individuals among 6 populations have been recently documented and are a subset of the 1,150 individuals. This difference in the number of individuals does not necessarily represent a decline; survey information for the remaining 27 populations is absent, and therefore their status is unknown. Additionally, the increase in plant numbers in the Cataract Canyon population from 2007 to 2011 is due to better detection between years and not to greater abundance. Based on these six documented populations, the breakout of the land ownership follows: BLM (26 percent), Kaibab National Forest (status unknown), State of Arizona (32 percent), the Navajo Nation (14 percent), and privately-owned lands (29 percent). TABLE 3—TOTAL DOCUMENTED FICKEISEN PLAINS CACTUS NUMBERS [1962 to 2011] Land owner First visited First count Beanhole Well ........................................................ Marble Canyon ....................................................... Gray Mountain (Mays Wash) ................................. South Canyon ........................................................ Toquer Tank ........................................................... Navajo .................................................................... Salaratus Draw I and II .......................................... Temple Trail ........................................................... Ward ....................................................................... Sunshine Ridge II .................................................. Clayhole Ridge ....................................................... Dutchman Draw ..................................................... North Canyon ......................................................... Sunshine Ridge ...................................................... Kaibab National Forest .......................................... Shinumo Wash ....................................................... Tiger Wash 2 ......................................................... Little Colorado River Overlook ............................... Little Colorado River Gauging Station ................... erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with Population BLM ............................... BLM ............................... BLM ............................... BLM ............................... BLM ............................... BLM ............................... BLM ............................... BLM ............................... BLM ............................... BLM ............................... BLM ............................... BLM ............................... BLM ............................... BLM ............................... Forest Service ............... NN ................................. NN ................................. NN ................................. NN ................................. 1979 ................. 1979 ................. 1981 ................. 1979 ................. 1986 ................. 1986 ................. 1986 ................. 1986 ................. 1986 ................. 1986 ................. 1987 ................. 1986 ................. 1987 ................. 1987 ................. Unknown .......... 1993 ................. 1993 ................. 1956 ................. 1999 ................. 29 mile Canyon ...................................................... Big Canyon ............................................................ West of Hellhole Bend ........................................... Small Ridge ............................................................ NN NN NN NN ................................. ................................. ................................. ................................. 2000 2002 2002 2004 ................. ................. ................. ................. Little Colorado River Gravel pit ............................. Shinumo Altar ........................................................ Tiger Wash 1 ......................................................... Gray Mountain (South of Cameron) ...................... NN NN NN NN ................................. ................................. ................................. ................................. 1956 1991 1993 1962 ................. ................. ................. ................. 3 ....................... 8 ....................... 29 ..................... 41 ..................... 8 ....................... 4 ....................... 17 ..................... 7 ....................... 12 ..................... 9 ....................... 23 ..................... 167 ................... 16 ..................... 12 ..................... ........................... 9 ....................... 11 ..................... Unknown ........... 1 (survey out of season). 2 ....................... 15 ..................... 5 ....................... 1 (survey out of season). Unknown ........... Unknown ........... 30 ..................... 4 ....................... VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:23 Oct 02, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03OCP2.SGM 03OCP2 Last visited Last count 1979 1979 1981 1987 1994 2001 2001 2001 2001 2004 2011 2011 2011 2011 2004 1993 1993 1997 1999 3 8 29 52 7 10 0 7 10 35 42 12 39 34 Unknown 9 11 15 1 2000 2002 2002 2004 2 15 5 1 2005 2005 2005 2009 21 7 2 3 60530 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules TABLE 3—TOTAL DOCUMENTED FICKEISEN PLAINS CACTUS NUMBERS—Continued [1962 to 2011] Population Land owner First visited First count Last visited Last count Hellhole Bend ......................................................... Salt Trail Canyon ................................................... Blue Spring ............................................................ Gray Mountain (Sewage Disposal Pond) .............. Cataract Canyon .................................................... Cataract Canyon .................................................... NN ................................. NN ................................. NN ................................. Private ........................... Private ........................... State .............................. 2009 2006 2005 1984 2007 2007 ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. 314 ................... 119 ................... 30 ..................... ........................... 54 ..................... 98 ..................... 2009 2011 2005 1984 2011 2011 314 70 30 4 146 161 TOTAL ............................................................ ........................................ ........................... ........................... .................... 1, 105 Notes: Navajo Nation (NN). TABLE 4—NUMBERS OF FICKEISEN PLAINS CACTI RECORDED IN BLM MONITORING PLOTS AND CLUSTER PLOTS [1986 to 2011] Dutchman Clayhole Sunshine Ridge North Canyon Navajo Sunshine Ridge II Salaratus I and II Temple Trail Toquer Tank ** Ward 1986 Plants outside plots*. 1986 ............ 1987 ............ 1988 ............ 1989 ............ 1990 ............ 1991 ............ 1992 ............ 1993 ............ 1994 ............ 1995 ............ 1997 ............ 1998 ............ 1999 ............ 2000 ............ 167 8 9 .................. ................. ................. ................. 17 ............ ............ ............ 201 21 107 102 185 186 194 219 168 168 188 122 49 45 37 .............. 23 35 31 32 37 44 34 38 30 21 16 17 20 14 16 27 28 33 36 7 13 16 11 21 26 28 22 4 ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. 0 ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. 2 ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. ................... ................... ................... ................... ................... ................... ................... 13 44 ................... ................... ................... ................... ................... 5 ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ 1 ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ 8 7 9 9 6 13 7 ............ 7 ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ 10 ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ 0 ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ 70 165 173 261 290 323 321 261 308 254 171 97 95 79 2001 ............ 2002 ............ 2003 ............ 40 30 50 63 60 56 34 24 24 10 ................. ................. 23 ................. ................. 0 ................... ................... 7 ............ ............ 0 ............ ............ 10 ............ ............ 190 126 130 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2011 45 34 36 32 23 33 12 59 59 48 38 40 37 42 6 .................. 12 ................ ..................... 8 .................. 33 ................ 43 ................ 44 ................ 32 ................ 35 ................ 25 ................ 7 .................. 6 .................. 5 .................. Not Observed. 3 .................. 12 ................ Not Observed. 7 .................. 33 ................ 26 ................ 30 ................ 23 ................ 33 ................ 34 ................ 40 40 32 39 33 31 39 ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. ................... ................... ................... ................... ................... ................... ................... ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ 151 166 142 139 119 134 127 Year ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ Total erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with Notes: * BLM reported counts of Fickeisen plains cacti outside of established monitoring plots for 1986 only. No monitoring occurred in 1996 by the BLM due to dry conditions resulting in plants retracted underground. No monitoring reports were submitted to the Service for the years 2010 and 2012. Our knowledge of abundance and trend information was assessed from annual monitoring reports by the BLM (1986 to 2011) and Navajo Nation (2006 to 2011). Each agency has monitoring plans that are set up to track specific information in each of their populations. However, there are differences in data collection, and this inconsistency makes it difficult to compare trends across the landscape and ownerships. Therefore, results are presented for each landowner separately. No monitoring program has been established for the Fickeisen plains cactus on the Kaibab National Forest and the Cataract Ranch. VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:23 Oct 02, 2012 Jkt 229001 Trend information from the five monitored plots indicates that these populations have experienced significant declines in plant numbers. Plant numbers in the four BLM plots increased by approximately 98 percent from 1987 to 1992, but declined by 59.5 percent from 1993 to 2011 (Table 4). The reported decline is based on the number of tagged Fickeisen plains cactus that are present (emergent and alive) during the monitoring period. If an individual tagged plant is retracted underground during the monitoring period, it is counted as missing or retracted but is not included in the live plant count. If that plant does not PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 emerge after 3 consecutive years, the BLM will mark the plant as dead. The Salt Trail Canyon plot on the Navajo Nation plot shows a 49 percent decline over the last 5 years. This decline is also based on the number of live, emergent plants counted during the monitoring period. Plants that are reportedly dead or missing are tallied separately in each successive year that monitoring occurs. Bureau of Land Management Lands— The BLM manages habitat for 13 documented Fickeisen plains cactus populations (Table 3) that occupy an estimated 36.9-ha (91.3-ac) area (BLM 2007b, p. 67) on the Arizona Strip. The total known population on the Arizona E:\FR\FM\03OCP2.SGM 03OCP2 erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules Strip has declined from 323 individuals in 1991 to 127 individuals in 2011 (Table 4). The Fickeisen plains cactus was first documented on the Arizona Strip in 1977 at Sunshine Ridge with the remaining populations discovered up through 1986 (Phillips 1979, entire; AGFD 2011b, entire). The populations are widely separated from one another (roughly 31 km (19 mi) apart) in geographically disjunct locations. In Mohave County, populations have been documented in Mainstreet Valley near Dutchman Draw, in Hurricane Valley near Toquer Tank, in Lower Hurricane Valley near Temple Trail, in Salaratus Draw in the Hurricane Cliffs, on Clayhole Ridge, and on Sunshine Ridge. Populations have also been documented in Coconino County near the canyon rims of Marble Canyon, South Canyon, and North Canyon Wash in House Rock Valley. Searches for the Fickeisen plains cactus after 1987 have not located any additional occurrences despite the abundance of suitable habitat present (Hughes 1996a, p. 47; Hughes 2011, pers. comm.). In 1986, the BLM established longterm monitoring at the Dutchman Draw, North Canyon wash, Clayhole Ridge, and Sunshine Ridge populations (Hughes 1996a, p. 47). The plots were located in populations that contained the densest number of Fickeisen plains cacti and were easily accessible (Hughes 2009, p. 28; Hughes 2011, pers. comm.). They were visited each year from 1986 to 2009, and in 2011, to record information on abundance, size (diameter), reproduction, recruitment, mortality, and missing or retracted plants. BLM classified plants into five different size classes based on measured width between 1987 and 1995. After 1997, two size classes were used to reflect the juvenile (0 to 15 mm (0.6 in)) and adult (16 to 31 mm and greater (0.63 to 1.22 in)) size classes. The changes to the size classes prevents comparing the data among years; however, it does provide some information regarding the proportion of the population in the small and larger size classes that can be used to describe recruitment. Besides the four plots, BLM established seven cluster plots: Navajo, Ward, Salaratus Draw 1, Salaratus Draw 2, Sunshine Ridge 2, Temple Trail, and Toquer Tank. Cluster plots consist of rebar centered among a small number of scattered individuals. These are visited once every 5 to 10 years for the purpose of recording presence/absence. Dutchman Draw—The Dutchman Draw plot is the largest plot, situated within tall, dense grass in Mainstreet Valley. It has experienced a 95 percent VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:23 Oct 02, 2012 Jkt 229001 decline in the last 18 years. Up until 1999, plant numbers in the plot accounted for 64 to 74 percent of the total reported numbers for the Arizona Strip population. Abundance in this plot increased during the late 1980s from 167 individuals to a high of 219 plants in 1992. As of 2011, only 12 plants occur in the plot. The plot experienced its highest number of seedlings from 1989 to 1992, a period when the BLM recorded plants in the smallest size class. Only one other seedling was detected in 1994. Between 1997 and 2005, the two size classes were relatively equal. After 2007, the larger size class showed an upward trend, while a significant drop occurred in the smaller size class. This gap between the two size classes has continued through 2011, in which 83 percent of the plot’s individuals are adult plants. There were a total of 111 plants counted as recruitment (plants with a diameter less than 20 mm (0.79 in)) with an average of 7 individuals per year; 94 percent of those were reported from 1994 to 2004. On average, 31 percent of tagged plants fruited in 5 of the 22 years of percent fruiting was recorded. From 2001 to 2011, 174 plants were reported missing or retracted (average 35 plants per year). Mortality totaled 257 plants over a 15-year period from 1987 to 2011 with 144 of those occurring in the year 2000. The BLM stated that the 144 mortalities included tagged plants that that were previously counted as retracted plants but because they had not been seen since the late nineties, they were assumed to be dead (Hughes 2000a, p. 2). In summary, this plot has shown a continued decline since 1992. Although many plants are within reproductive age, there have not been any significant increases in plant numbers. Mortality and the number of plants missing or retracted have been higher than the number of new recruits. With only 12 plants in 2011, we believe this plot could be extirpated in the near future. Clayhole Ridge—The Clayhole Ridge plot occurs on top of a limestone ridge (BLM 2007b, p. 67). Plant numbers have varied with a high of 63 individuals (2001) and a low of 16 individuals (1998). Since 2001, plant numbers have declined by 33 percent. As of 2011, the plot has 42 plants. No seedlings were reported from 1987 to 1995, when the small size classes were measured. During that period, 76 percent of the individuals were greater than 20.1 mm (0.79 in) in diameter, while 9 percent were less than 10 mm (0.39 in) in diameter. The gap between the small and larger size classes has continued PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 60531 through 2011, with 88 percent of the individuals in the larger size class. Hughes (1996b, p. 17) attributed this division to the lack of intensive surveys for seedlings. This plot had the highest percent of cactus producing fruit and in the most years compared to the other plots. Fruiting production occurred in 16 of the 22 years reported with 6 to 85 percent of tagged cactus fruiting in any given year. New recruits, however, appeared to be low, with a total of 34 new plants (average of 2 per year) reported in 11 of the 16 years. There were a total of 40 mortalities between 1988 and 2005, and 251 plants were reported missing or retracted from 1998 to 2009 (average of 21 plants per year). In summary, abundance has varied in this plot overall. Since 2001, plant numbers have declined by 33 percent. Even with the high number of plants that produced fruit and considering that larger individuals produced multiple fruit, recruitment appears to be poor. Mortalities, in combination with the number of plants missing or retracted, are substantially high in light of overall plant numbers. The years between 2000 and 2001 are the exception, when plant numbers increased from 20 to 63. Reasons attributed for the sharp increase are unknown and do not appear to be correlated to weather, as the spring of 2000 was very dry (Hughes 2000a, p. 1). Sunshine Ridge—The Sunshine Ridge plot is located along a ridgeline and downslope on a bench next to Toroweap Road (Hughes 1996b, p. 17). This plot has experienced great variations in plant numbers. Monitoring began with six plants in 1986, and as of 2011, the plot contained 34 plants. Plant numbers fluctuated from a high of 44 (1992) to none being observed in 2000, because they were either retracted or dead (Hughes 2000a, p. 1; Hughes 2005a, pers. comm.), possibly in response to below-average precipitation that year. The plot had two distinct periods of relatively high numbers; from 1990 to 1995, with an average of 35 plants, and from 2005 to 2011, with an average of 29 plants. The worst years occurred in between these peaks. The plot was vandalized in 1996, which may have contributed to the significant decline, although plants were not observed to have been damaged by the vandalism (Hughes 2005a, pers. comm.). From 1987 to 1995, 77 percent of individuals were greater than 10.1 mm (0.40 in) in diameter, while only two very small plants were discovered during this period. From 1997 through 2011, the majority of the plants were in the larger size class which currently includes 85 percent of the individuals in this plot. E:\FR\FM\03OCP2.SGM 03OCP2 erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 60532 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules Fruit production occurred in 10 of the 22 years, with 16 to 79 percent of tagged cacti fruiting. A total of 26 new recruits (average 1.7 per year) occurred in 7 of the 16 years reported. A total of 43 plants died, with 74 percent of those mortalities occurring from 1989 to 1995. There was also a total of 45 plants reported missing or retracted (average of 4 per year), with 82 percent of these reports occurring from 2006 to 2009. In summary, this plot has experienced great fluctuations in numbers but has maintained an average of 21 plants over the years. Reasons for the fluctuations have not been fully investigated. Despite a high percentage of plants fruiting, only two seedlings were documented over a 16-year period. Both mortality and the number of plants missing or retracted exceeds the number of new recruits. The status of the species in the plot appears to be unstable and trending towards decline. North Canyon—The North Canyon Plot occurs in House Rock Valley on two small hills near North Canyon wash. As of 2011, the plot contained 39 plants. Plant numbers have also varied and have not been investigated. From 1987 to 1991, plant numbers increased by approximately 55 percent, then declined by approximately 81 percent in 1992. The sharp decline was attributed to a high number of plants lost from rodent predation in 1992. Post 1992, plant numbers have gradually increased to a high of 40 in 2004 and 2005, and currently fluctuate between 31 and 39 individuals. Size structure has been dominated by larger individuals since 2000; few to no seedlings have been reported. From 1988 to 1995, 85 percent of plants were greater than 10.1 mm (0.40 in) in diameter. No small-sized plants were found during these years. From 1997 through 2002, the size class distribution was relatively equal. After 2002, a shift occurred, with an increase in the number of individuals in the larger size class and a decrease in the number in the smaller size class. Currently, 90 percent of plants are in the larger size class. Fruit production occurred in 11 of the 22 years reported, with 8 to 64 percent of tagged cactus fruiting. There were 31 new recruits (average of 2 plants per year) in 10 of 16 years reported. There were a total of 37 mortalities, including the 26 deaths in 1992. A total of 72 plants were reported missing or retracted (about 6 plants per year); 65 percent of those occurred from 2002 to 2005, when the plot also increased in numbers. In summary, the plot has maintained between 31 and 39 individuals since 2004. Given the size structure, the plot VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:23 Oct 02, 2012 Jkt 229001 appears to be dominated by aging adult cactus. Very few small plants were documented between 1986 and 1995. In addition, mortality, combined with the number of plants missing or retracted, exceeds recruitment. This plot is trending towards decline due to poor recruitment and the current size-class distribution. Information collected on the seven cluster plots was reported in BLM’s 2001 annual monitoring report and is limited to count data (Roaque 2012, pers. comm.). The Navajo and Ward clusters plots are located in proximity to the Dutchman Draw population. In 1986, 4 plants were found at Navajo and 12 at Ward. Visits to these sites in 1993 reported zero plants in both plots. These sites were last visited in 2001 and 10 plants each were found in both plots. No information describing the 1993 visit was provided in the monitoring report. Reported numbers for Salaratus Draw 1 and Salaratus Draw 2 were 5 and 12, respectively in 1986 (BLM 1986, p. 2) and, 2 and 11 plants, respectively in 1993. In 1994, the Service visited Salaratus Draw sites and counted 14 plants in Salaratus Draw I and 30 plants in Salaratus Draw II (Brooks 1995, p.1). Both of these sites were last visited in 2001 and zero plants were reported (Roaque 2012, pers. comm.). We do not have locations of these sites, in relation to the other, on file. Because the BLM referred to these sites as simply Salaratus Draw in their 1986 annual monitoring report and we do the same in this document unless specificity between the two sites is called for. The Sunshine Ridge II cluster plot had 9 plants in 1986 and 23 plants in 2001. The Temple Trail cluster plot had 5 plants in 1986, 1 plant in 1993, and 7 plants in 2001. The Toquer Tank cluster plot was visited regularly from 1986 to 1991. The reported number of plants found during that time ranged from 8 in 1986, up to 13 in 1991, to 7 in 1994 (Table 4) (Roaque 2012, pers. comm.; AGFD 2011b, entire). Information from BLM’s annual monitoring reports for the years 1995 through 2000 noted ‘‘no observations’’ for the Toquer Tank cluster plot but did not provide an explanation to what this meant. We do not know if this signifies that the cluster plot was not visited or whether a visit did occur but no Fickeisen plains cacti were observed at the time. Subsequently, the BLM no longer included Toquer Tank in their monitoring reports. Despite the confusion with Toquer Tank and the length of time since the Salaratus Draw cluster plots were last visited, we believe these areas may still PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 be occupied by the species. When Hughes last visited Salaratus Draw I and II in 2001, he noted that both sites were very dry (Roaque 2012, pers. comm.) and plants may have been retracted at the time. Hughes further noted that the cluster plots are located in areas with dense grass in which, the plants are difficult to find if they are not in bloom. We do not have any additional information to describe the conditions at the Toquer Tank cluster plot; however a visit to the area is warranted. We are seeking any information about the status of the Fickeisen plains cactus at these three areas, specifically information to describe abundance, health, and age-class diversity of the plants. We also seek information describing the status of its habitat and any land use activities occurring within occupied areas (see Information Requested). We also have limited information about the three populations located in House Rock Valley where the Fickeisen plains cactus has been documented, but these areas have not been visited in over 18 years. The populations are located at Beanhole Well, Marble Canyon, and South Canyon in House Rock Valley near the North Rim of the Grand Canyon National Park. The Beanhole Well population is located north of the South Canyon site and just south of Highway 89A near the Vermillion Cliffs. This is a small population that was discovered in 1979, and contained only three plants (Anderson and Gierisch 1979, p.1; AGFD 2011b, entire). Field notes described the plants as healthy, scarce, and with several size classes present. The site had been revisited by Hughes, and while occupied habitat was observed, no plant numbers were reported to us (Calico 2012, pers. comm.). The only available information about the Marble Canyon site was that 8 plants were documented there in 1979 within a 100-by 100-m area (0.06-by 0.06-mi) (Phillips 1979, p. 3). Near the canyon rim of South Canyon, a total of 41 plants among three populations were observed in 1979 within a 1,000-by 200m (0.62-by 0.12-mi) area. Only three plants were noted having several size classes present; plants appeared healthy but scarce. In 1987, 52 plants were observed during a soil study at the South Canyon site (AGFD 2011b, entire). Travis (1987, p.4) observed animal burrows at the site with the Fickeisen plains cactus found in the disturbed ground. A short-term monitoring plot was established there from 1982 until 1989 (Phillips et al. 1982, p. 7). The only available information described poor recruitment E:\FR\FM\03OCP2.SGM 03OCP2 erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules in the plot, which was attributed to below average precipitation (Service 2001a, p. 1). The site was last visited in 1993 by Hughes (Roaque 2012, pers. comm.), who had observed several Fickeisen plains cacti but did not provide specific information on plant numbers. We are seeking any information about the status of the populations at these three areas, specifically information to describe abundance, health, and age-class diversity of Fickeisen plains cactus. We also seek information describing the status of its habitat and any land use activities occurring within occupied areas (see Information Requested). Navajo Nation Lands— The Navajo Nation lists the Fickeisen plains cactus as a Group 3 species on the Navajo Endangered Species List, which is a ‘‘species or subspecies whose prospects of survival or recruitment are likely to be in jeopardy in the foreseeable future’’ (Navajo Nation Division of Natural Resources 2008). There are 15 known populations of the Fickeisen plains cactus on the Navajo Nation (NNHP 2011a, p. 1). Eleven populations contain fewer than 20 plants, while three and possibly five populations contain only two to three individuals (Table 3). Three hundred and fourteen plants occur in a single population discovered in 2009. This site was visited in February 2012 with monitoring planned in the near future. Only 4 of the 15 populations have been visited more than one time by the Navajo Nation Heritage Program staff (NNHP 2011a, p. 1). They reported substantial decreases in plant numbers recorded during their most recent visits to two of these populations; the other two populations appeared stable. We do not have information on the total amount of occupied habitat of the Fickeisen plains cactus on the Navajo Nation. Surveys for the Fickeisen plains cactus on the Navajo Nation occurred in 1994, when 280 individuals were located (NNHP 1994, p. 3). Re-surveying of known populations between 2004 and 2005 resulted in only half of the 15 populations located and substantially fewer plant numbers than the 280 previously reported (Roth 2005, pers. comm.). In 2006, a monitoring plot was established at one of their largest populations (Salt Trail Canyon) (Roth 2007, p. 3). The plot has been monitored annually except for 2010, to estimate population trends and record reproductive efforts. In 2006, 119 plants were recorded within the plot. Plant numbers increased to 143 individuals in 2007, but this rise was primarily due to increased survey efforts that year (Roth VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:23 Oct 02, 2012 Jkt 229001 2008, p. 6). Since 2007, plant numbers have declined by 49 percent with 70 plants found as of 2011 (NNHP 2011b, p. 2). In 2009, 31 plants were found dead or could not be relocated with 8 new recruits. In 2011, 28 plants were found dead or were not located with one new seedling observed (NNHP 2011b, p. 3). Of the remaining plant in the plot, their observed condition, mean diameter, and reproductive output declined as well. From 2006 to 2008, the majority of plants were rated in excellent condition. The number of plants rated fair or poor increased from 4 in 2008, to 23 in 2009. These patterns may have been influenced by aboveaverage rainfall in 2005 and 2007, but below-average precipitation in 2008 through 2010, on the Navajo Nation (NNHP 2011b, p. 3). The mean diameter of plants between 2008 and 2009 was 28 mm (1.10 in). By 2011, the mean diameter declined by 5 mm (0.20 in) as a result of the cactus shrinking rather than a loss of plants in that size class. The plot has been dominated by the larger size classes with 1 percent of the plants recorded as seedlings. Reproductive structures observed in 2009 and 2011 were flower buds, flowers both at and past their peak, and aborted flower buds, an observation which was similar to phenological results in 2008. In general, reproductive effort in 2009 was moderate, while in 2011 it was extremely low compared to 2008. In 2008, 205 reproductive structures were observed on 98 plants, and this was attributed to above-average rainfall in 2007, whereas 2008 and 2010 had below-average rainfall (NNHP 2011b, p. 3). In summary, short-term results demonstrate a continued decline over the last 5 years. Mortality, combined with the number of plants missing between years, is exceeding the number of smaller, young plants observed. In addition, the reproductive output appears to be low, in that no fruit were observed, and was likely influenced by below-normal precipitation. Kaibab National Forest Lands—The Kaibab National Forest has recorded two limited occurrences of the Fickeisen plains cactus (USFS 2005, p. 148; AGFD 2011b, entire). These occur near the National Forest boundary of the North Kaibab Ranger District below the eastern and western edges of the Kaibab Plateau. The total number of plants that occur is unknown, but the population is considered to be small with only a few individuals (Phillips 2005, pers. comm.). Additionally, the amount of habitat is considered to be very limited and located in remote areas far removed PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 60533 from management actions. Beyond their discovery, the Kaibab National Forest has not monitored these plants. Occupied areas are managed for multiple uses but the predominant uses are wildlife habitat, livestock grazing, and recreation. Additional suitable habitat is believed to exist in the Lower and Upper Basin areas on the Tusayan Ranger District. Surveys for the Fickeisen plains cactus are needed in order to verify this (USFS 2009, p. 72). State and Private Lands—A large occurrence of the Fickeisen plains cactus was documented in 2006, near the rim of Cataract Canyon on Cataract and Espee Ranches, which is owned and managed by Babbitt Ranches, LLC. These ranches are located on the Coconino Plateau south of the Grand Canyon National Park. The land within Cataract Ranch includes 18,210 ha (45,000 ac) of private land and 53,823 ha (133,000 ac) of land leased from the State of Arizona (The Nature Conservancy (TNC) 2000, p. 4). On December 7, 2000, TNC acquired 13, 953 ha (34,480 ac) of the privately owned parcels and placed these lands under a conservation easement; TNC refers to the easement land as the Cataract Natural Reserve Land (TNC 2000, p. 22). The easement land forms a large contiguous block in the southern portion of Cataract Ranch, but is interspersed among numerous parcels of State land in the northern portion of the ranch (TNC 2000, p. 3). The Espee Ranch is adjacent to the western boundary of the Cataract Ranch and includes State and private lands. Surveys for the Fickeisen plains cactus on the Espee Ranch were planned for spring of 2012; the status of that survey is unknown. From 2006 to 2011, Goodwin located 307 Fickeisen plains cacti at 37 sites while conducting a general floristic inventory on the Cataract and Espee Ranches (Goodwin 2006, p. 7; Goodwin 2008, pp. 8–10; Goodwin 2011a, pp. 1– 9). The number of plants recorded at each site was detected using a 5–10 minute visual search of the area (Goodwin 2011b, pers. comm.). About 146 Fickeisen plains cacti are located on the Cataract Natural Reserve Land, and 161 plants are on State land (Goodwin 2011a, pp. 18–20). Only two mature plants were located on the Espee Ranch. Goodwin defined sites as physical breaks in the habitat separating one occupied area from another (Goodwin 2011b, pers. comm.). Occupied sites had an average of 8.3 plants (range of 1 to 32 individuals) within a 0.10-ha (0.25ac) or smaller sized area. About 30 percent (92 of 307 plants) of the plants observed were classified as immature E:\FR\FM\03OCP2.SGM 03OCP2 erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 60534 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules plants that appear to be of less than breeding age. The distribution of the plants appears to be loosely associated with the Cataract drainage. Most occupied areas occurred no farther than 3.22 to 4.83 km (2 to 3 mi) from the rim of the canyon and covered a 48-km (30mi) linear area (Goodwin 2011a, p. 7). No formal surveys or permanent monitoring plots have been established. The Fickeisen plains cactus has been documented on a mix of Federal, tribal, and private land near the vicinity of Gray Mountain. These areas have not been visited for many years, and the status of the plants is unknown. Information from the AGFD Heritage Data Management System noted that a Fickeisen plains cactus found on the Navajo Nation near the town of Gray Mountain was collected as a herbarium specimen in 1962 (AGFD 2011b, entire). This site was believed to have been revisited in 1977, but location information provided from that visit was too vague. The area was last visited in 2009 by the Navajo Nation botanist and three plants were found (NNHP 2011a, p. 2). In 1984, four Fickeisen plains cacti were found in the same vicinity, south of the Navajo Nation but on private land near a sewage disposal pond on the western side of Highway 89. This site has not been revisited since 1984. Across the highway on the eastern side, 29 live and 4 dead Fickeisen plains cacti were found in 1981. The AGFD Heritage Data Management System noted that plants were scattered near Mays Wash where BLM, State, and privately owned lands occur (AGFD 2011b, entire); however the location information suggests most plants are found on BLM lands. In 1983, a monitoring plot was established but there is no information that describes those efforts or results. The area was last visited in 1984, and four plants were observed, three of which were in bloom. In summary, of the 1,150 Fickeisen plains cacti among 33 populations that have been documented since 1962, we only have recent information pertaining to the status of 504 individuals among 6 populations. We acknowledge that additional Fickeisen plains cacti may be present in the other 27 known populations, but these have not been visited for over 18 years, and the status of the plant is unknown. Of the six populations, five are currently monitored. These five plots are within the largest populations on the Arizona Strip and one of the largest populations on the Navajo Nation. Long-term results from the BLM show a 59.5 percent decline in plant numbers for the four monitored plots combined since 1992. The decline appears to be a result of VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:23 Oct 02, 2012 Jkt 229001 higher rates of missing or retracted plants and mortality over several consecutive years and low seedling recruitment. Adult plants, which produce more fruit and have a greater reproductive output then immature plants have been removed from the BLM populations and are not being replaced by new recruits. Short-term monitoring results from the Salt Trail Canyon population on the Navajo Nation indicate plant numbers have declined by 49 percent in the last 5 years. This population is also dominated by older adult individuals that appear to have low reproductive output based on aborted reproductive structures observed in 4 of the 5 years monitoring occurred, with high mortality compared to recruitment. Of these five populations, the observed decline in seedling recruitment and survival is difficult to attribute to a single cause; it is more likely associated with a combination of environmental factors that are acting together. The reproductive capacity for the Fickeisen plains cactus is considered to be naturally low (e.g., low seed production and poor dispersal mechanism), in which, introducing external factors that may place additional stress on the life history characteristics of these populations may further inhibit population growth. Because these five monitoring plots are located in large populations and have demonstrated significant decreases in plant numbers, it is likely that the smaller, isolated populations whose status is unknown are experiencing similar declines. The Fickeisen plains cactus on the Cataract Ranch is the exception. This population is the only location showing relatively good ageclass diversity (30 percent of the population is considered to be immature); however, there is no longterm monitoring information for this area to draw conclusions. This area has the largest population of the Fickeisen plains cactus, but only 29 percent of those individuals are protected under the conservation easement. Based on the best available information on the species, the known numbers of the Fickeisen plains cactus have declined. It is likely that the species will continue to decline, for the reasons described below, as mature plants die and few seedlings are present to replace them. The viability of the five monitored populations has been reduced due to low recruitment and the loss of mature, reproductive plants. If the threats described below continue to affect these populations, the long-term viability of the populations may be compromised. We acknowledge that the PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 observed declines are restricted to monitoring plots that may not accurately reflect rangewide trends. In addition, our inability to say with certainty that plants that have been recorded as missing or retracted are dead may mean that we have underestimated the decline. However, we conclude, based on the information analyzed, that the largest populations have declined, and that recruitment is reduced or nonexistent for the monitored populations. Summary of Factors Affecting the Fickeisen Plains Cactus Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range Based on the habitat characteristics described above, potential factors that may affect the habitat or range of the Fickeisen plains cactus are discussed in this section, including: (1) Livestock grazing; (2) nonnative, invasive species; (3) uranium mining; (4) road construction and maintenance; (5) ORV use and recreation; (6) commercial development; and (7) drought and climate change. Livestock Grazing The habitat of the Fickeisen plains cactus has been grazed since the late 1800s, and continues to be used for grazing by cattle, domestic sheep, and feral horses. In general, livestock grazing may result in direct loss or damage to the Fickeisen plains cactus and the habitat that supports its persistence as a result of trampling, compacting soil, increasing erosion, losing the soil seed bank, introducing invasive species, and disturbing native pollinators (Klemmedson 1956, p. 137; Ellison 1960, p. 24; Fleischner 1994, entire; Trimble and Mendel 1995, pp. 234–240; Kearns et al. 1998, p. 90; DiTomaso 2000, p. 257). For the Fickeisen plains cactus, the risk of trampling is greatest when plants emerge above ground at the same time that cattle occupy the area. Given their small size and lack of hard spines, plants are vulnerable to being stepped on and may be killed or damaged as a result (Phillips and Phillips 1995, p. 6). During the wet winter months when rainfall is sufficient, water may collect in pockets of bedrock on the canyon rims, attracting livestock to these areas. Although most plants retract in winter, those plants whose crown sits above the surface are still vulnerable to trampling and risk damage to their meristem. Plants can also be dislodged by cattle as they wander through an occupied area. Increased grazing pressure can E:\FR\FM\03OCP2.SGM 03OCP2 erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules negatively impact Fickeisen plains cactus habitat. The soil where plants occur is shallow, sandy, and easily compactible, and may be covered by biological soil crusts, which are easily damaged by trampling (NRCS 1997, p. 10; Evans and Johansen 1999, p. 185). Livestock concentrating within occupied areas can lead to soil compaction and erosion that may decrease the ability of the soil to store seed and support seedling establishment, and may prevent plants from seasonally retracting underground (BLM 2007b, p. 74). Bureau of Land Management Lands— Livestock grazing has occurred on the Arizona Strip and within the habitat of the Fickeisen plains cactus since the mid-1800s (BLM 2007a, p. 3–123). Unregulated use of the rangeland between the late 1880s and early 1900s resulted in overgrazing and rangeland deterioration. The passage of the Taylor Grazing Act (43 U.S.C. 315) in 1934 led to grazing reform and the establishment of allotments, kind and number of livestock, and seasons-of-use. Between the late 1950s and 1980s, the BLM made further adjustments in livestock numbers and the season-of-use, and implemented regulated grazing systems and management plans. Compared to 1900s, the current permitted level of grazing has been substantially reduced. The land and the vegetation community is slowly recovering, with habitat improvements noted by the BLM over the last several decades. Although populations of the Fickeisen plains cactus persisted during past years of overgrazing, we do not have information to describe any historical effects grazing may have had to the plant. All habitat occupied by the Fickeisen plains cactus on the Arizona Strip occurs within active grazing allotments (BLM 2007b, p. 67). The Dutchman Draw plot is located in the Mainstreet Allotment and within a transitional pasture that is used in May for 2 to 4 weeks; the Clayhole Ridge plot is located within a single pasture of the White Pockets Allotment and has season-long grazing from mid-October to June; the Sunshine Ridge plot is within the Wildband pasture of the Wildband Allotment that is used from mid-June to September; and the North Canyon plot is within Rider Point pasture of the Soap Creek Allotment that has winterspring use. The Salaratus Draw population is in the Salaratus pasture that is used in the winter season. Plants in the Temple Trail cluster plot are in the Temple Trail Allotment, Beanhole Well plants are in the Beanhole Allotment, and Toquer Tank plants are in the Toquer Tank Allotment (BLM VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:23 Oct 02, 2012 Jkt 229001 2008a, Appendix C). The Beanhole, Soap Creek, Temple Trail, and Wildband Allotments are categorized as ‘‘improve allotments.’’ These are ‘‘managed to improve resource conditions or conflicts and receive the highest priority for funding and management actions’’ (BLM 2007a, p. 3– 124). The Mainstreet, Toquer Tank, and White Pockets Allotments are managed as ‘‘maintain allotments.’’ These allotments are managed ‘‘to maintain current satisfactory resource conditions and are actively managed to ensure that resource values do not decline’’ (BLM 2007a, p. 3–124). The Mainstreet Allotment is managed under a best pasture system, which attempts to match cattle movements with variable precipitation patterns and seasonal forage production rather than strict rotational schedules (Howery et al. 2000, entire). Forage utilization levels for key species are authorized at the 50 percent average of the current years’ growth (BLM 2007a, 3–125). We do not have trend information describing rangeland conditions for the pastures occupied by the Fickeisen plains cactus. Available information indicates varying levels of grazing use across occupied habitat on the Arizona Strip (Brooks 1995, p.1; Roaque 2011, pers. comm.). Impacts associated with livestock grazing have documented direct mortality to the Fickeisen plains cactus from trampling. Over a 17-year period, monitoring by the BLM detected 12 Fickeisen plains cacti killed from trampling. Three plants died at Clayhole Ridge following heavy spring rains. Hughes (1988, p. 2) documented cattle had congregated in the area of the Fickeisen plains cactus, and it appeared that considerable bull fighting occurred, resulting in disturbance to the plant and the soil. Seven plants died from trampling at Sunshine Ridge, including a large mature plant and five seedlings in 2001 (Hughes 2004, p. 2), and two plants died from trampling at Dutchman Draw (Hughes 2000a, p. 2). In House Rock Valley, the risk of trampling to the Fickeisen plains cactus may be greatest during the wet winter months when rainfall is sufficient to provide water for cattle on the canyon rims and into occupied habitat (Hughes 2001, pers. comm.). Because not all plants retract completely underground, directly stepping on the plant can damage the meristem and prevent flower production in the future. There is evidence from other monitored Pediocactus species that trampling can impact numerous plants and often results in direct mortality. The BLM conducts similar monitoring for the Pediocactus bradyi (Brady PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 60535 pincushion cactus) as they do for the Fickeisen plains cactus. Over a 14-year period, Hughes (2005b, p. 17) reported two plants killed in the monitored plots from trampling. However, in response to the Service’s concern for grazing impacts to the Brady pincushion cactus, the BLM established linear transects to determine livestock damage to the Brady pincushion cactus along the rim of Marble Canyon (Service 2001b, entire). The results showed that 15 Brady pincushion cacti were killed from trampling in the 3 years the transects were monitored (Hughes 2005b, p. 17). Hughes commented that the soil was wet and hoof prints were deep in the soil. Clark and Clark (2008, p. 3), monitoring the Pediocactus winkleri (Winkler pincushion cactus), found that 58 of 107 (54 percent) plants were stepped on directly by cattle over a 13year period, with some plants stepped on more than once. Thirty-five of those plants died immediately from being trampled, while of those that survived, 60 percent eventually died within 4 years of their trampling injury. This provides some evidence that damage caused to plants from trampling may not be readily apparent immediately after the event. We anticipate that more Fickeisen plains cacti have died from being stepped on, either immediately or later in time, but are not being detected through the current monitoring methods (Service 2000, p. 2; Service 2007a, p. 8). In the House Rock Valley, past heavy use of the range, in conjunction with arid conditions and drought, has resulted in degradation of the rangeland (Grand Canyon Trust (GCT) 2011) and slowed grassland regeneration. The North Canyon population was located in the Cram Allotment, which has been conjoined into the Soap Creek Allotment within the Kane Ranch. The BLM had identified the western half of the Cram Allotment as having a severe overgrazing problem historically and up until 1996. The North Canyon population occurred in the area heavily grazed (Hughes 2000b, p. 21). An October 1995 site visit to the Cram Allotment by Service staff reported that the number of cattle had been reduced from 150 head yearlong to 50 head in the winter-spring season due to the poor condition of the allotment (Brooks 1995, p. 1). In 1995, the BLM installed new water sources on the eastern half of the allotment and blocked water tanks from filling up on the western half. This was anticipated to reduce livestock use on the western half and help to alleviate grazing pressure within occupied Fickeisen plains cactus habitat (Hughes 2000b, p. 22). In 2003 to 2004, the E:\FR\FM\03OCP2.SGM 03OCP2 erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 60536 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules permittee of the Cram Allotment, now Soap Creek Allotment sold all of the livestock and grazing ceased on the Kane Ranch until 2005. During the period from 2003 to 2005, the Fickeisen plains cactus in the North Canyon plot experienced the greatest increase in the number of plants observed in the plot since 1986. In 2005, the GCT and Conservation Fund purchased the grazing lease and currently maintain a reduced number of cattle on the allotment compared to previous levels (GCT 2011). They conducted a baseline ecological assessment and found nonnative, invasive species, particularly cheatgrass, abundant on the Kane Ranch in House Rock Valley and the range in poor quality likely from past heavy winter grazing. In addition, rangeland recovery has been slow due of the arid climate and drought conditions, such that forage productivity, vegetative cover, and soil stability are low (GCT 2011). The GCT began an experimental reseeding project and is investigating restoration techniques of the desert grassland community. These efforts, if successful, would improve the quality of habitat for the Fickeisen plains cactus. In summary, the Fickeisen plains cactus populations on BLM lands are within active grazing allotments. The timing of when cattle are present within occupied Fickeisen plains cactus habitat varies among the four populations but corresponds to the periods when the plants are emergent, and also when they flower and produce fruit. Direct mortality from trampling has resulted in the documented loss of 12 plants, but more plants have likely been affected. Over time, losses to mature individuals or damage caused by trampling that prevents future reproduction will result in population declines. The rangeland that supports habitat for the Fickeisen plains cactus experienced past overgrazing. Although current grazing levels are far reduced from historic levels, the rangeland continues to be grazed during periods of drought. Information from the BLM and GCT suggests that the seasonal variation and changes in the timing of precipitation have resulted in slowed recovery of the rangelands from historic overgrazing and heavy, winter grazing over the past few years. These effects have likely diminished the quality of suitable habitat, particular in the Sunshine Ridge and North Canyon wash plots that are being managed to improve resource conditions or conflicts. Both of these plots have shown great fluctuations in plant numbers that may be correlated with habitat deterioration from livestock grazing coupled with climate VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:23 Oct 02, 2012 Jkt 229001 conditions. In addition, heavy use in occupied Fickeisen plains cactus habitat during times when the plant may already be stressed from drought may be contributing to the plant’s poor or nonexistent germination and recruitment. The Fickeisen plains cactus appears to be able to rebound when the grazing pressure has been removed, as demonstrated in the North Canyon plot. However, if the population numbers are too low—such as the Dutchman Draw plot—recovery may be very slow, or may not occur. Navajo Nation Lands—Livestock grazing on the Navajo Nation has occurred since the 1880s, primary by domestic sheep and cattle. Stocking rates and the impact of grazing on the landscape have varied over the years (NNHP 2011a, p. 2). Overgrazing was documented in the past (Libecap and Johnson 1980, pp. 71–75; Richmond and Baron 1989, entire) and remained problematic through the mid-1990s (HCN 1996, p. 2). We do not have information on the current grazing levels, but similar to the BLM land, drought conditions have compounded rangeland recovery from past heavy use necessitating balancing rangeland capacity, family-owned herd sizes, and local economies (Redsteer et al. 2010, pp. 5–6, 11). Navajo Nation also supports an estimated 30,000 feral horses that contribute to and cause overgrazing problems (Navajo Times 2012). Attempts to control the feral horse population continue to be an ongoing issue on the Navajo Nation. Livestock grazing is managed by the District Grazing Committees, Farm Boards, and Eastern Navajo Land Board members. Oversight and technical assistance is provided by the Grazing Management Office under the Navajo Nation Department of Agriculture. In general, grazing permits are authorized year round on the west side of the Navajo Nation, while the Eastern Navajo authorizes seasonal permits for the mountainous areas (Hazelton 2012c, pers. comm.). Grazing permits are held by individuals for a certain number of animal units. The grazing permits are generally considered permanent and are inherited by the spouse or children within a family. Livestock rotation is at the discretion of the families that own the livestock. All areas occupied by the Fickeisen plains cactus on the Navajo Nation are potentially subjected to impacts associated with this grazing (NNHP 2011a, p. 1). However, monitoring has not been conducted in such a way to assess the overall impacts of grazing to the Fickeisen plains cactus and its habitat. Notes from the Navajo Nation PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Heritage Program pertaining to the 15 known Fickeisen plains cactus populations indicate some livestock impacts have been observed within the 3 largest populations (Hellhole Bend, Salt Trail Canyon, and Blue Spring) (NNHP 2011a, p. 4). A 2012 site visit to the Hellhole Bend population observed habitat disturbance by feral horses and sheep, but no impacts to plants were observed (Robertson 2012, p. 1). Some of the native vegetation within occupied habitat appeared to have been heavily grazed, likely attributable to animals seeking forage following a dry winter. Livestock damage by sheep was observed at the Salt Trail Canyon population in 2005 (Roth 2007, p. 2) and again in 2008, with nine livestockrelated mortalities. Roth (2008, p. 2) documented six dead plants located within a depression in the ground that was believed to have been dug by sheep that bedded down on top of the plants. Monitoring of the plot in 2011 found some evidence that the plot had been disturbed by animals (i.e., one plant appeared to have been partly eaten) and may have contributed to the high mortality that year (NNHP 2011b, p. 4). An October 2011 site visit by the Service observed the habitat had been disturbed by feral horses and sheep concentrating in the area. We do not know at this time how frequent or how long this site may be used by livestock. The only other available information documented hoof prints of cattle and sheep near a cluster of the Fickeisen plains cactus at Shinumo Altar in 1991; one cactus had been partially uprooted and was lying in a hoof print (NNHP 1994, p. 5). Kaibab National Forest Lands—On the North Kaibab Ranger District, the Fickeisen plains cactus occurs in the Slide Pasture of the Central Winter Allotment that is also part of the Kane Ranch. The Slide Pasture has not been grazed since 2002 (Phillips 2012, p. 1). In addition, the Central Winter Allotment was closed to grazing from 1996 to 2001 due to the 21,448-ha (53,000-ac) Bridger-Knoll wildfire. The habitat type within 3.2 km (2 mi) of the Fickeisen plains cactus population is not suitable for livestock; there are occasional sagebrush, but no understory grasses. A 2011 Kane Ranch Environmental Assessment is currently in process that would address the impacts of livestock grazing to the Fickeisen plains cactus. Populations on the eastern side of the forest boundary are within the Grand Canyon National Game Preserve, which has no livestock grazing. State and Private Lands—The Cataract Ranch has been utilized for E:\FR\FM\03OCP2.SGM 03OCP2 erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules livestock grazing for well over 100 years. Livestock grazing, by cattle and horses, occurs within occupied Fickeisen plains cactus habitat but is managed differently than grazing on the BLM and Navajo Nation and is not comparable. While the cattle operations are vital to the Cataract Ranch, livestock grazing is managed in a manner that is consistent with the philosophies, values, and conservation ethic of the Babbitt Ranches. For example, cattle operations are one component of the Cataract Ranch, but the Ranch and the other Babbitt Ranches are managed in a holistic manner that incorporates ecology (wildlife habitat, vegetation diversity, watershed health, historical preservation, cultural values, and recreation), the local and regional economies, and the local and regional human community (Babbitt Ranches 2012, entire). Therefore, herd sizes are not adjusted in response to seasonal availability of water and forage due to drought but are managed together with rangeland health, watershed, and wildlife habitat. More specific to the Fickeisen plains cactus, Goodwin (2011a, p. 8) noted no habitat impacts from grazing in this population while conducting searches for the plant from 2006–2011. Additionally, a land assessment by TNC determined that much of Cataract Ranch remains in an undisturbed, natural state (TNC 2000, p. 1), and the general ecological conditions of the land are excellent (TNC 2011, p. 9). While the Fickeisen plains cactus remains vulnerable to being stepped on by cattle or horses, we anticipate that livestock grazing would not rise to a population-level threat based on habitat conditions. We, therefore, do not anticipate livestock grazing on the Cataract Ranch to be a threat to the Fickeisen plains cactus and its habitat. In summary, all habitat for the Fickeisen plains cactus occurs in areas that have been grazed and will continue to be grazed in the future. Heavy grazing has been documented on approximately 40 percent of its range, including the Arizona Strip and Navajo Nations lands, with the latter being largely unregulated grazing management. Although current grazing pressures across the range of the Fickeisen plains cactus are far below the levels of the late 1800s, the continued presence of Fickeisen plains cactus does not suggest grazing has no effect on the plant. Based on available information, the rangelands are still recovering from past heavy grazing across the range of the Fickeisen plains cactus. Continued grazing on the BLM and Navajo Nation during the prolonged drought in the late 1990s and local droughts in the 2000s VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:23 Oct 02, 2012 Jkt 229001 has added to rangeland deterioration and changes to the vegetation community, while the drier climate is compounding recovery of the grasslands that support habitat for the Fickeisen plains cactus. Long-term monitoring has documented direct mortality to the Fickeisen plains cactus from livestock. More plants on the BLM lands have likely been killed or damaged from trampling, especially given evidence of trampling on other Pediocactus species, but for which the effects are not captured during the monitoring period. Trampling has removed adult individuals from the population. While this occurs infrequently and affects a few plants, it contributes to population declines and may exacerbate the effects of small population size (see Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence section). Thus, livestock grazing, in and of itself, may not rise to a populationlevel threat for the Fickeisen plains cactus, but when combined with additional stressors such as nonnative species, drought, and climate change, rodent and rabbit predation (discussed below), the combined effect will likely produce population-level impacts to the Fickeisen plains cactus. Therefore, we believe that livestock grazing, in conjunction with other factors, is a threat to the Fickeisen plains cactus and its habitat. Nonnative, Invasive Plant Species A potential threat to the Fickeisen plains cactus and its habitat is nonnative, invasive species. The spread of nonnative, invasive species is considered the second largest threat to imperiled plants in the United States (Wilcove et al. 1998, p. 608). Invasive plants—specifically exotic annuals— negatively affect native vegetation, including rare plants. One of the most substantial effects is the change in vegetation fuel properties that, in turn, alter fire frequency, intensity, extent, type, and seasonality (Menakis et al. 2003, pp. 282–283; Brooks et al. 2004, p. 677; McKenzie et al. 2004, p. 898). Shortened fire return intervals make it difficult for native plants to reestablish or compete with invasive plants (D’Antonio and Vitousek 1992, p. 73). Invasive plants can exclude native plants and alter pollinator behaviors (D’Antonio and Vitousek 1992, pp. 74– 75; DiTomaso 2000, p. 257; Traveset and Richardson 2006, pp. 211–213; Cane 2011, pp. 27–28). For example, cheatgrass and red brome outcompete native species for soil nutrients and water (Aguirre and Johnson 1991, pp. 352–353; Brooks 2000, p. 92), as well as PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 60537 modify the activity of pollinators through producing different nectar from native species (Levine et al. 2003, p. 776) or introducing nonnative pollinators (Traveset and Richardson 2006, pp. 208–209). Introduction of nonnative pollinators or production of different nectar can lead to disruption of normal pollinator interactions for the Fickeisen plains cactus. Within the range of the Fickeisen plains cactus habitat, the BLM identified 15 nonnative, invasive species: 9 that are designated as noxious weeds in Arizona and 6 nonnative species that are not listed as noxious weeds on the Arizona Strip (BLM 2007a, pp. 3–34). The Cataract Ranch identified 26 nonnative, invasive species on their land. Some of these species are the same species that are also found on the BLM (Goodwin 2011a, p. 11). Those nonnative, invasive species that are common to both landowners include Acroptilon repens (Russian knapweed), Alhagi maurorum (camelthorn), Bromus tectorum (cheatgrass), B. rubens (red brome), Halogeton glomeratus (halogeton), Salsola tragus (Russian thistle), and Taeniatherum caputmedusae (medusahead). In addition, Roth (2007, p. 2) documented Erodium cicutarium (redstem filaree) within Fickeisen plains cactus habitat on the Navajo Nation. On the Arizona Strip, we have some information on the distribution of nonnative, invasive species relative to the Fickeisen plains cactus. Generally, the majority of nonnatives occur near areas between Mainstreet Valley and just east of Hurricane Cliffs (BLM 2007a, Figure 3–12), where Fickeisen plains cactus populations are scattered. During a site visit in 2011, Russian thistle was identified in the Dutchman Draw plot, but any negative effects the species may have on the plant have not been documented by the BLM. Cheatgrass, at varying levels of abundance, is found on the Kane Ranch in House Rock Valley. Based on preliminary modeling results that predict the probability of cheatgrass occurrence, the probability of cheatgrass occurrence appears to be low within in the vicinity of the Fickeisen plains cactus at North Canyon wash, although cheatgrass is present within proximity to the canyon rims. On the Kaibab National Forest, cheatgrass is the only nonnative, invasive species known to exist in the Fickeisen plains cactus habitat (USFS 2005, p. 139). According to the Forest, cheatgrass occurs in very low densities and is not expected to increase due to lack of available substrate and minimal habitat disturbance. However, the GCT, through their modeling, identified a E:\FR\FM\03OCP2.SGM 03OCP2 erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 60538 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules high probability of cheatgrass occurrence just south of occupied Fickeisen plains cactus habitat (GCT 2011). If this patch is ignited by a lightning strike, there is the potential for cheatgrass to carry a fire into the area where the Fickeisen plains cactus occurs. Another concern would be if a high density patch of cheatgrass were ignited but the fire stops short of Fickeisen plains cactus habitat, the areas burned could facilitate the spread of cheatgrass towards occupied Fickeisen plains cactus habitat, where the cactus could potentially decrease in density and cheatgrass become a prolific competitor. On the Navajo Nation, the presence of invasive, annual grasses may have contributed to the decline of the Fickeisen plains cactus within the Salt Trail Canyon (Roth 2007, p. 2). During high rainfall years, high densities of red brome and redstem filaree have dominated the habitat in the Salt Trail Canyon monitoring site (Roth 2008, p. 4). Roth (2005, p. 1) observed an overall decline in the Fickeisen plains cactus population at that time, finding more numbers of the Fickeisen plains cacti in areas where fewer exotic grasses occurred. Red brome is known to deplete soil water faster and at greater depths than native annual species (Brooks 2009, p. 118), and can germinate before native annuals in years with low precipitation and earlier in the season (Salo 2004, p. 293). Higher densities of red brome may also reduce the germination of native plant species (Brooks and Esque 2000, p. 40). Red brome is an early flowering, winter annual species that utilizes winter precipitation (Rice et al. 1992, pp. 32, 38; Salo 2004, p. 291). Fickeisen plains cactus is also a species that germinates early in the spring, and, although no studies have investigated the relationship of nonnative, invasive annuals on the seed germination of the plant (Roth 2008, p. 4), the occurrence of red brome and redstem filaree are likely to result in competition for resources the Fickeisen plains cactus depends on. Cheatgrass and red brome can increase in abundance after a wildfire and increase the chance for more frequent fires (D’Antonio and Vitousek 1992, pp. 74–75; Brooks 2000, p. 92; Brooks and Pyke 2001, p. 5). In addition, cheatgrass invades areas in response to surface disturbances (Hobbs and Huenneke 1992, pp. 324–325, 329, 330). Cheatgrass and red brome are likely to increase due to climate change (see ‘‘Drought and Climate Change’’ discussion, below) because nonnative, invasive annuals increase biomass and VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:23 Oct 02, 2012 Jkt 229001 seed production at elevated levels of carbon dioxide (Smith et al. 2000, pp. 80–81; Ziska et al. 2005, p. 1328). The Fickeisen plains cactus has likely evolved adaptions to low intensity, frequent grass fires but may not survive high intensity fires even at low fire return intervals. Some of the Fickeisen plains cacti populations occur on ledges and in areas with sparse vegetation away from annual grasses and would likely not be impacted. However, there are some populations, such as Dutchman Draw, Sunshine Ridge, and the Salt Trail Canyon, where invasive, annual grasses could facilitate the spread of fire into occupied habitat and impact the population. It is difficult to know for certain if cheatgrass could affect the Fickeisen plains cactus or its habitat on the Kaibab National Forest. With the probability of high densities of the species surrounding the plant, the potential for negative impacts does exist. In other species of Pediocactus, monitoring of the Pediocactus paradinei (Kaibab plains cactus) exposed to different fire intensities indicated high intensity fires resulted in plant mortality (Warren et al. 1992, abstract). There is also evidence suggesting that invasion and dominance of cheatgrass following a past fire may have contributed to the decline or loss of some Kaibab plains cactus in the House Rock Valley (USFS 2007, p. 47), suggesting that fire could impact the Fickeisen plains cactus in a similar manner. At this time, however, we do not have sufficient information to evaluate whether the presence of nonnative, invasive species would facilitate the spread of wildfires into Fickeisen plains cactus habitat. In summary, nonnative, invasive species such as cheatgrass, red brome, and redstem filaree grow rapidly and are prolific seed producers in wet years. Although we lack site-specific information on where nonnative, invasive species occur, we do know they occur in varying densities within or near the Fickeisen plains cactus. Invasion of these species may contribute to the low recruitment of the Fickeisen plains cactus by inhibiting seedling germination due to competition and increasing the plant’s risk of exposure to high intensity fires. Densities of the nonnative, invasive species may increase due to climate change (see ‘‘Drought and Climate Change’’ section, below) because invasive annuals increase biomass and seed production at elevated levels of carbon dioxide (Brooks and Pyke 2001, p. 42; Bradley 2009, p. 203). Based on available information, we anticipate that densities of nonnative, invasive species will PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 increase in the future. Therefore, we consider nonnative, invasive species to be a threat to the Fickeisen plains cactus. Uranium Mining High-quality uranium ore deposits are found on the Arizona Strip and on the Coconino Plateau. Interest in the region’s uranium deposits increased in 2008, as the price for uranium ore rose, and applications for new mining claims were sought on public lands surrounding the Grand Canyon. In response, the Secretary of the Interior signed Public Land Order Number 7787 (PLO 7787) effectively withdrawing 407,335 ha (1,006,545 ac) of Federal mineral estates within three parcels from any individual or company making a new mining claim under the Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 22 et seq.) for a 20-year period (BLM 2012a, pp. 1–4). Existing locatable mineral operations in the withdrawal area will continue to be managed under the current Federal land agency regulations. However, notices of intent or plans of operations submitted after the effective date of the withdrawal for mineral exploration or development on BLM and the National Forest System lands on claims pre-dating the withdrawal would not be able to proceed unless the mining claim was determined to be valid under the Mining Law of 1872 as of the date of the segregation from new mining claims (July 21, 2009). Sampling may still occur on claims pre-dating the withdrawal to support the mineral examination. In the event the claims are determined to be valid, mining activities could occur at some point in the future (BLM 2011a, 2–14). There are three Fickeisen plains cactus populations in two parcels of the withdrawal area boundary. The Sunshine Ridge population is in the North parcel; the North Canyon wash and the Kaibab National Forest populations are in the East parcel (BLM 2011a, Figure 3–8.1). The mineral withdrawal essentially removed the potential for negative effects on the Fickeisen plains cactus and its habitat that would be associated with the location and development of new mining claims for the longevity of PLO 7787. Although, if the development of existing valid mining claims in the East parcel were to proceed, we anticipate that the potential for adverse effects from the mine on the North Canyon wash population would be low. This is primarily due to plants growing on ledges and along the rim of the wash, where mineral activity would not likely occur. We also anticipate this low impact scenario to be likely for the E:\FR\FM\03OCP2.SGM 03OCP2 erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules Kaibab National Forest population due to its proximate location near canyon rims. On the North Parcel, there are six mines surrounding the Sunshine Ridge population (BLM 2011a, Figure 2.4–2). Two mines (Hack Canyon and Hermit mines) are located in close proximity to the Sunshine Ridge population but are currently in reclamation status and no impacts to the population are anticipated. Three mines (Arizona 1, Kanab North, and Pinenut) have an approved plan of operation and pre-date the withdrawal. All three are located well outside of occupied Fickeisen plains cactus habitat. The Arizona 1 mine has been operating since late 2009 (BLM 2012b, p. 6), and no impacts to the plants have been documented by the BLM. The Pinenut mine is scheduled to begin operations in 2012 (McKernan 2012, pers. comm.), but due to its distance from the Sunshine Ridge population, no impacts are anticipated. The Kanab North mine is operating under interim management (e.g., standby status) and will begin reclamation activities in the summer of 2012. The sixth mine, EZ Mine, is located to the west of the population and proposed for development. The potential direct and indirect effects to the Fickeisen plains cactus would be the loss, removal, or injury of plants and loss of habitat from the development of the mine but also habitat degradation or fragmentation from road construction, material transport, and new power lines (Payne et al. 2010, pp. 8–9; BLM 2011a, p. 2–15). The BLM, however, will complete a project-specific environmental analysis in the near future that addresses site-specific analysis, findings, and decisions regarding the EZ Mine, and what plan of operations will be made (BLM 2011a, pp. 2–29–2–30). We anticipate the opportunity to work with BLM and address any potential negative impacts from this mine on the Fickeisen plains cactus at that time. In addition, the North Parcel has seven breccia pipes that are confirmed to have uranium resources, and those uranium resources have been estimated (BLM 2011a, pp. 3– 35–3–36; BLM 2012b, p. 7). Any mining claim containing these seven breccia pipes would be able to demonstrate valid existing rights and would be mined. If one of the claims were to be developed into a mine, the BLM would take measures to minimize impacts to the Fickeisen plains cactus, such as conducting preconstruction surveys to flag avoidance areas and minimize impacts to the species (BLM 2007b, pp. 74–76). VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:23 Oct 02, 2012 Jkt 229001 Lands on the Arizona Strip that are outside of the withdrawal area boundary are open to uranium mineral development (BLM 2008a, pp. 1–20). Because the Fickeisen plains cactus occurs in small, isolated areas on particular soil types, small disturbances to the vegetation and soils may reduce suitable habitat; increase the erosion potential; enable invasion of nonnative, invasive plants; and increase the risk of mortality from clearing, crushing, or trampling associated with developing mining sites (Service 2007a, p. 90; BLM 2011a, p. 4–154). The BLM anticipates a very low likelihood that any such project would be proposed within the habitat of the Fickeisen plains cactus. If such a project is proposed, the BLM would take measures to minimize impacts to the Fickeisen plains cactus as described above (BLM 2007b, pp. 74– 76). On the Coconino Plateau, just south of the Grand Canyon National Park, there is a continued interest in uranium mining on State land. The company VANE Minerals holds mineral rights (or mineral interest to mine uranium) on a large number of properties that are spread over an area of approximately 16,187 sq km (6,250 sq mi) (VANE Minerals 2012) and that include occupied Fickeisen plains cactus habitat on State land within the Cataract Ranch. The company has completed surface drilling for their Wate Uranium Breccia Pipe—located 9 miles south of the Grand Canyon National Park and near the Hualapai Indian Reservation. The company is pursuing a mineral lease from the Arizona State Land Department for ‘‘uranium exploitation’’ of the Wate deposit and for preliminary efforts regarding development of the mine. No Fickeisen plains cactus has been documented in this general area, and therefore the plant would not be affected by development of a mine. Exploration drilling has been conducted for twelve additional uranium mineralized breccia pipes that are located within 32 km (20 mi) of the Wate deposit (SRK Consulting 2011, p. 14–1). No mineral resources for these have been established as of 2011, but if a uranium resource is confirmed, a potential exists for a mine to be developed. If that occurs and depending on location information, there is a potential for construction and operations to impact the Fickeisen plains cactus on State land within Cataract Ranch. Direct and indirect impacts would be the same as those identified for the Sunshine Ridge population. However, any development, including mining and associated roads PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 60539 from State land that would need to cross onto land in the Cataract Natural Reserve Land, would be prohibited. Additionally, the location of some Fickeisen plains cacti growing near the rim of Cataract Canyon may be protected from development activities, but those located 4.8 km (3 mi) from the rim could potentially be impacted. Loss of individual plants would lead to declines in the Cataract Ranch population, which is currently the largest known population, and hinder the ability of the Fickeisen plains cactus to increase its distribution in this area. It would also contribute to the further decline of the rangewide population. In summary, PLO 7787 effectively withdrew over 407,335 ha (1,006,545 ac) of federal mineral estates for a 20-year period; this action removes the immediate threat of habitat loss or degradation associated with development of new uranium mines to the Fickeisen plains cactus populations in House Rock Valley, in the Kaibab National Forest, and on Sunshine Ridge. We acknowledge the possibilities that valid existing mining claims in the withdrawal area boundary could result in the development of a uranium mine in the future. If that happens, we are less concerned with the three populations being adversely affected because of the specific location of the plants near canyon rims. For land on the Arizona Strip that is outside of the withdrawal boundary area, we anticipate a low probability that Fickeisen plains cactus populations would be impacted by future uranium development. If a mine were to be developed near occupied habitat, the BLM would implement avoidance measures to reduce or minimize impacts to the Fickeisen plains cactus, which we anticipate would be incorporated into their analyses for the development of the EZ Mine. On State land, the potential for uranium mining could result in direct mortality and loss of habitat within the Cataract Ranch population. However, most plants are located in close proximity to the rim of Cataract Canyon and would not likely be affected by mining construction or operations. Additional protection to the plant is provided through the terms of the conservation easement, which prohibits new development, including mining, on those parcels, thus preventing new roads or right-of-ways from State lands crossing onto private lands. Therefore, based on available information, we do not anticipate that development of a uranium mine would rise to the level of significance and meaningfully impact the Fickeisen E:\FR\FM\03OCP2.SGM 03OCP2 60540 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules plains cactus and its habitat. Thus, we conclude that uranium mining is not a threat to the Fickeisen plains cactus or its habitat. erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with Road Construction and Road Maintenance Roads can destroy or modify habitat and increase human access that may lead to trampling (discussed below). Additionally, road construction can lead to increased erosion, and vehicle traffic on unimproved roads can result in increased atmospheric dust and dust deposition on vegetation. Road maintenance on U.S. Highway 64 near the Navajo Nation resulted in three Fickeisen plains cacti being salvaged from the existing right-of-way and a fourth cactus protected by fencing (Arizona Department of Transportation 1992, p. 1). Road maintenance also contributed to an unknown amount of habitat loss or disturbance, which was likely small in size. We analyzed road maintenance and considered it a potential threat to the Fickeisen plains cactus in the November 9, 2009, Candidate Notice of Review (74 FR 57804). On the Arizona Strip, the Fickeisen plains cactus occurs next to roads that receive routine maintenance. The cactus grows close to and, in some cases, in the middle of existing unpaved but well-maintained roads, making it highly vulnerable to becoming crushed or injured by motorized vehicles. Road maintenance activities had resulted in the mortality of a few individuals of the Fickeisen plains cactus on BLM land. These appear to have been isolated occurrences that happen infrequently and impacted a small number of individual plants. Future road construction associated with both uranium and urban development may impact plants that occur on non-BLM lands. However, future road construction is anticipated to be localized in time and space, and would not rise to the level of becoming a significant threat to the Fickeisen plains cactus. Therefore, we do not consider road construction and road maintenance to be a threat to the Fickeisen plains cactus. Off-Road Vehicle Use and Recreation Off-road vehicles are a means of transportation and a form of recreation in the range of the Fickeisen plains cactus. On the Arizona Strip, the BLM limits motorized and mechanized vehicle use within Fickeisen plains cactus habitat to existing routes and trails. However, motorized vehicles may pull off a designated route up to 30.5 m (100 ft) on either side of the centerline to camp. There is the potential for VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:23 Oct 02, 2012 Jkt 229001 vehicles to injure or kill a Fickeisen plains cactus and impact its habitat by pulling off the roadway to park or turn around (BLM 2007b, p. 75). Plants growing along the Navajo Trail near Mainstreet Valley have been affected by drivers pulling off designated routes in the past (Hughes 2005, pers. comm.). Disturbance from ORV use associated with unauthorized camping was documented in House Rock Valley, where a driver drove off-road towards the canyon rim near the South Canyon population (Service 2007b, p. 1). These are the two documented reports that we have of the Fickeisen plains cactus being impacted by ORV use on BLM lands since 2005. In reviewing the BLM’s monitoring reports, there were no documented mortalities associated with ORV use to the Fickeisen plains cactus over the 23 years the plant was monitored. Most of the Fickeisen plains cactus habitat on the Navajo Nation is accessible by dirt two-track roads. Although traffic in these areas is light, and there is an extensive network of existing dirt roads, new roads are continually being created, presumably by locals herding livestock (NNHP 2011a, p.1). No plants have reportedly been impacted, but there is potential for habitat degradation as a result. In addition, 9 of the known 15 populations are located along the scenic canyon rims of Marble Canyon and the Little Colorado River gorge, where tourist traffic is concentrated. Car tires and foot traffic have been documented as damaging the Fickeisen plains cactus at some of these sites (NNHP 1994, p. 5; NNHP 2011a, p. 1). These impacts are likely to increase in the future as there are future plans to develop tourist activities on Navajo land near Marble Canyon and the Little Colorado River gorge (NNHP 2011a, p. 1). On the Cataract Ranch, increased recreation, primarily associated with hunting, has been observed since 2006. Hunting relies on the use of ORV to retrieve wildlife and access camp sites. However, no impacts to the Fickeisen plains cactus related to recreational activities or ORV use have been observed while conducting searches for the plant on the Cataract Ranch (Goodwin 2011a, p. 8). In summary, the habitat of the Fickeisen plains cactus is mostly open with flat topography. With most plants growing along scenic canyon rims, there is an increased risk of plants being destroyed or damaged by vehicles driving off-road for recreational purposes. We identified ORV use as a potential threat to the Fickeisen plains cactus in our annual assessment for PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 candidate species (most recently at 75 FR 69222, November 10, 2012). At this time, however, we cannot quantify the extent of ORV-use impacts on the taxon or its habitat, but they continue at some unknown level. Most documented occurrences happened in the past and were isolated occurrences. ORV use may become a threat to the Fickeisen plains cactus in the future but at this time, we do not consider it to be a threat to the plant or its habitat. Commercial Development The Navajo Nation is currently interested in developing its land along the canyon rims of Marble Canyon and the Little Colorado River gorge to increase tourism and create more jobs that would boost their local economy (NNHP 2011a, p. 1; Navajo-Hopi Observer 2012). The Navajo Nation President recently signed a nonbinding agreement with a local Arizona developer that lists a resort hotel and spa, restaurant, half-mile river walk, and recreational vehicle park among the attractions that would enable tourists to easily descend into the Grand Canyon. While we do not have specific information about these plans, development along the rim of the Little Colorado River has the potential to impact the Salt Trail Canyon population located nearby. Trampling of plants by people and loss of plants and habitat to make way for development are both of concern. Available information suggests that plans for the proposed development have not begun (NNHP 2011a, p. 1) and may still be in the early design phase. The Salt Trail Canyon is a known recreational site located to the north of the Fickeisen plains cactus population. Aside from use by hikers, the area is used by Federal and State agencies as a point of entry to conduct native fish surveys in the Little Colorado River. Overall use of the area appears to be minimal, and no recreational impacts to the Fickeisen plains cactus have been observed. A popular tourist destination that has existed for many years occurs within the Fickeisen plains cactus population that is adjacent to a Little Colorado River overlook. This population was last visited in 1997, and contained 15 plants distributed among two ridges (NNHP 2011a, p. 4). Abundant foot traffic within occupied habitat was identified as a threat to the population by the Navajo Nation Heritage Program. Although the tourism at this site will continue in the future, most foot traffic is confined to paved sidewalks leading towards the canyon rim and outside of occupied habitat. An additional population occurs east of the overlook E:\FR\FM\03OCP2.SGM 03OCP2 erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules area that is also well known among plant enthusiasts and, as a consequence, frequently visited (NNHP 1994, p. 5). This population was last visited in 1999, and one individual was located (Table 3). The timing of the visit was outside of the flowering season, making it difficult to locate plants (NNHP 2011a, p. 4). Both of these areas are easily accessible from the highway and receive a large number of visitors. Trampling of plants and habitat disturbance associated with tourism may increase in the future simply due to the popularity of this site and the accessibility of plants next to the highway. Although habitat disturbances to the Fickeisen plains cactus have occurred here in the past and may be occurring presently, we have no information to be able to quantify this threat. There is also a potential for human development to expand into or next to the Fickeisen plains cactus habitat on the Navajo Nation. A land dispute between the Navajo and Hopi Tribes resulted in the implementation of a construction ban in 1966 that limited development (Maxx 2012, p. 2). That ban was lifted in 2009, but no development has occurred due to the poor economy. The land has remained mostly undeveloped, but the ability to construct new homes or make improvements provides Tribal members access to areas previously restricted. If this occurs, we do not anticipate the Fickeisen plains cactus to be significantly impacted because new home locations would not be near the canyon rim where the plant occurs. Additionally, the Fickeisen plains cactus is listed as a Group 3 species on the Navajo Endangered Species List, which is a ‘‘species or subspecies whose prospects of survival or recruitment are likely to be in jeopardy in the foreseeable future’’ (Navajo Nation Division of Natural Resources 2008, entire). Its listed status on tribal land, in addition to the location of the Salt Trail Canyon population within an area designated as a Preserve, would likely reduce or minimize impacts to the population (see Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms, below). In summary, commercial development associated with tourism activities has impacted the Fickeisen plains cactus’ habitat. Impacts to occupied habitat near the Little Colorado River overlook were documented in the past and are ongoing. This population is small and would benefit from a current site visit. Plans for future commercial development near Marble Canyon and VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:23 Oct 02, 2012 Jkt 229001 the Little Colorado River gorge may substantially impact the Salt Trail Canyon population through potential habitat loss or disturbance. The Salt Trail Canyon population is one of the larger populations on the Navajo Nation and rangewide. Losses to this population would result in further declines to the rangewide population. However, the protected status of the Fickeisen plains cactus and its occurrence within a designated Preserve would to minimize or reduce potential impacts from future commercial development. In addition, we do not have any information to indicate whether plans to develop commercial properties will occur in the future. Therefore, the threat of commercial development is not impending, and we do not consider this a threat at this time or within the near future. Drought and Climate Change For background information, please refer to the first paragraph of the ‘‘Drought and Climate Change’’ discussion under Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of its Habitat or Range in the Summary of ˜ Factors Affecting the Acuna Cactus. As previously discussed, the Fickeisen plains cactus is an endemic species with localized, small populations. In addition, these populations are restricted to very specific soil types. Global climate change exacerbates the risk of extinction for species that are already vulnerable due to low population numbers and restricted habitat requirements. Predicted changes in climatic conditions include increases in temperature, decreases in rainfall, and increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide in the American Southwest (Easterling et al. 2000, pp. 2072–2073; IPCC 2007, p. 48; Archer and Predick 2008, pp. 23–24; Karl et al. 2009, p. 129). Although we have no information on how the Fickeisen plains cactus will respond to effects related to climate change, persistent or prolonged drought conditions are likely to reduce the frequency and duration of flowering and germination events; lower the recruitment of individual plants; compromise the viability of populations; and impact pollinator availability, as pollinators have been documented to become locally extinct during periods of drought (Memmott et al. 2007, pp. 713–715). The smallest change in environmental factors, especially precipitation, plays a decisive role in plant survival in arid regions (Jordan and Nobel 1981, pp. 904–905; Nobel 1984, pp. 310, 316). PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 60541 In the last 30 years, the Colorado Plateau has experienced a 0.2 to 0.5 °C (32.36 to 32.9 °F) increase in average temperature, particularly in average fallwinter temperatures. Future climate projections forecast increases in both the average and extreme temperatures that are expected to result in less available soil moisture for plants (Schwinning et al. 2008, p. 14). In addition, the Colorado Plateau may be shifting towards a climate of reduced winter precipitation over the next 20 to 30 years. Winter accumulation, which recharges the soil moisture needed for spring vegetative growth, was below average in 11 years from 1996 to 2007. Similarly, spring precipitation was below average in 8 years from 1996 to 2006 (Hereford 2007, p. 6). By 2090, precipitation is predicted to decline by as much as 5 percent across the Colorado Plateau, placing greater stress on native plants and resulting in a greater susceptibility of existing ecosystems to be replaced by nonnative, invasive plant species (BLM 2011b, entire). The Fickeisen plains cactus is adapted to the semi-arid climate of the Colorado Plateau by retracting underground in response to dry and cold climatic conditions. Weather patterns, timing of precipitation, and cool nighttime lows influence germination and seedling establishment of the Fickeisen plains cactus (Brack 2012, pers. comm.). If climate patterns move towards more aridity, the reproductive output of the Fickeisen plains cactus may be reduced. Increases in summer temperatures may lead to longer periods of time that the plant remains retracted underground, and temperatures may rise to a level that is beyond the plants’ natural threshold for survival. Studies on cacti seedling survival have shown that seedlings are able to survive long periods of drought when they are larger and have the capacity to store enough water to endure their first dry season (Nobel 1984, p. 316). Seedlings of the Fickeisen plains cactus have been observed under mature plants, which act as nurse plants; the shading provided by a parent or nurse rock may increase their survival (NNHP 1994, p. 4). Increases in soil temperatures, coupled with belowaverage precipitation, may increase seedling mortality. A study published in 2012 modeled the species’ distribution of endemic plants on the Colorado Plateau (Krause and Pennington 2012, entire). It identified limiting factors that define the habitat needs of the species and the top-five predictor variables that influence their distribution. In level of E:\FR\FM\03OCP2.SGM 03OCP2 erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 60542 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules importance, the model included the Fickeisen plains cactus’ and ranked the minimum temperature of the coldest month second, precipitation of driest quarter third, and isothermality fourth in predicting Fickeisen plains cactus distribution (Krause and Pennington 2012, p. 140). Of emphasis was the variable isothermality, the mean day-tonight temperature range compared to the annual temperature range, in predicting endemism on the Colorado Plateau. As nighttime lows during the winter season are predicted to increase, isothermality or the reduction in daily temperature variance may hinder seedling germination for the Fickeisen plains cactus for reasons discussed above. On BLM lands, observed trend information from the four monitoring plots appear to correlate with changes in climate patterns. Increases in plant numbers and observed seedlings were documented between 1986 and roughly 1992. These years were characterized as a wet period where the annual precipitation was above the regional median on the Colorado Plateau (USGS 2002, p. 2). After 1992 through approximately 2005, when the region experienced a prolonged drought, the Fickeisen plains cactus among the plots experienced variable decreases in plant numbers. Monitoring of the Fickeisen plains cactus during years with belowaverage precipitation documented low recruitment, increased rodent predation, and an increase in the number of plants retracted or missing (Hughes 1988, p. 1; Hughes 1996c, p. 1; Roaque 2012, pers. comm.). In total, 817 plants were recorded as missing or retracted over the 13 years when this parameter was recorded. The years with the highest number of missing plants were from 1999 to 2007, the time period that corresponds to the drought in the Southwest. We do not believe all 817 missing plants are attributed solely to drought, but drought is likely a significant contributing factor to the observed decline in the populations. The Navajo Nation is in one of these driest areas in the State. About 45 percent of all annual precipitation occurs during the warmer months of July through September. Climate data are variable on the reservation, but longterm information shows a drying trend has occurred since 1944, and a warming trend has occurred since the mid-1970s (Navajo Times 2011). The drought in the Four Corners region was officially recorded from 1999 to 2009, although many residents believe it began in 1996, which would make it the longest drought in Navajo history. The effects of the last drought have been particularly VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:23 Oct 02, 2012 Jkt 229001 extreme on the population. For example, from 2001 to 2002, Navajo officials reported 30,000 cattle mortalities from lack of water and forage. Many traditional people on the reservation live in subsistence lifestyles. Over half of the population lives without indoor plumbing and are dependent on hauling water. Their water supplies are derived from shallow aquifers and are sensitive to dry conditions. When availability is low, families often use water supplies intended for livestock (Redsteer et al. 2010, p. 2). In interviews with 50 tribal elders, Redsteer et al. (2010, p. 7) summarized the most common observations regarding drought: (1) Long-term decreases in the amount of annual snowfall over the past century; (2) decline in surface water features and water availability; (3) disappearance of springs and of plant and animal populations; and (4) changes in the frequency of wind, sand, and dust storms. These have been corroborated with other findings. Weiss et al. (2009, p. 5923) found that a significant increase in evapotranspiration occurred during the warmer months of the 2000s drought due to higher temperatures. It is likely that above-average spring temperatures are linked to a decrease in the amount of new growth among plants. It has been suggested that warmer spring temperatures lead to early germination. Plants respond by ending dormancy and begin using available soil moisture earlier and more quickly in the season. Then, they must survive longer dry periods before the start of the monsoons (Redsteer et al. 2010, p. 7). Seasonal increases in temperature and changes in the timing of precipitation have likely influenced the observed 49 percent decline in the Salt Trail Canyon population. The observed low recruitment, high number of plants missing between years, and mortality can be thus be partly attributed to the drought (NNHP 2011b, pp. 4–5). Corresponding with regional climate patterns, annual precipitation during the monitoring period was below average for each year except for 2007. Winter precipitation was uncommonly high during 2005, the year before the monitoring plots were installed, and in 2010, the year that the plots were not monitored. While several winter storms came through the region, total rainfall accumulation was still below average during the 2011 monitoring period. Many of the plants that could not be located in 2011 were assumed dead because their vigor during previous surveys was rated as ‘‘poor’’ in 2009 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 (NNHP 2011b, p. 3). Some of these plants may have been retracted at the time. However, many plants observed between 2008 and 2011 failed to produce fruit or flower, and fruit buds were observed to be aborted. This suggests low seed production, which would cause that population to decline over time. In summary, the climate on the Colorado Plateau and Navajo Nation is predicted to become warmer with reduced precipitation in the future. We have strong evidence to suggest that the Fickeisen plains cactus is being impacted by drought coupled with increased annual temperatures. We believe that the high number of dead and missing or retracted plants in all plots monitored is influenced by belowaverage winter or spring precipitation at the time when plants need soil moisture to flower. Poor reproduction in the Fickeisen plains cactus is likely to worsen in the future if climatic patterns shift towards becoming more arid with increased winter nighttime temperatures. With climatic models predicting future regional droughts, it is likely that all populations of the Fickeisen plains cactus will continue to be affected by drought and climate change. However, it is not clear if drought or climate change, of themselves, present population-level threats of extinction. It appears that drought and climate change in combination with rodent predation (see Factor C. Disease or Predation, below), as a combined effect, is the more likely scenario for population-level impacts to the plant. Additionally, the small and declining populations of the Fickeisen plains cactus make the species susceptible to natural environmental variability, including climate conditions. Therefore, based on our review of the available information, we conclude that climate change and drought are threats to the Fickeisen plains cactus populations. Summary of Factor A Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial information, we conclude that fire associated with nonnative, invasive plant species; uranium mining; road construction and road maintenance; ORV use; and commercial development are not threats to the Fickeisen plains cactus and its habitat. We have determined that direct loss of plants and habitat loss and modification due to the direct and indirect effects of livestock grazing; nonnative, invasive plant species; and drought and climate change are threats to the Fickeisen plains cactus. These threats, in and of E:\FR\FM\03OCP2.SGM 03OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with themselves, may not result in significant population-level impacts to the Fickeisen plains cactus. However, the above factors appear to be acting synergistically, placing a major stress on the known plants monitored rangewide with little indication of population growth and age-class diversity. The populations for which we do not have reliable and current information on their status are likely in decline. These populations are also being impacted by drought and are also susceptible to the same level of threats as the monitored populations. Thus, the combined effects of each threat elevate the intensity and scope of impacts to the Fickeisen plains cactus and its habitat to where these threats are significant over time. Therefore, based on our review of the available information, we conclude that the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the Fickeisen plains cactus habitat or range is a threat to the species. Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes Unauthorized collection is a potential threat for all species of cacti, but it is a specific and definite threat for the genus Pediocactus. Their small size, large attractive flower, and rarity make Pediocactus species in general highly sought by collectors, growers, or gardens (Benson 1982, p. 243). Pediocactus are difficult to grow and maintain in cultivation. As plants grown in backyard gardens die, there is more demand for replacement plants. Unauthorized collection is currently a continuing problem for populations of the threatened Pediocactus winkleri (Winkler cactus) in south-central Utah (NPS 2004, p. 1; Borthwick 2012, pers. comm.). We identified unauthorized collection of the Fickeisen plains cactus as a potential threat in our 2006 Candidate Notice of Review (71 FR 53756) and as a minor threat in our 2010 Species Assessment and Listing Priority Assignment Form. Phillips et al. (1982, p. 5) considered the Fickeisen plains cactus to be highly sought after and collected by commercial cactus collectors or hobbyists wherever it was found. For the period 1994 to 1997, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) annual report documented a total of 5 specimens and 5015 seeds of Fickeisen plains cactus exported (Service 2001a, p. 4). However, we do not know what impact the unauthorized collection had on the Fickeisen plains cactus during that time. We are not aware of any evidence of unauthorized collection of VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:23 Oct 02, 2012 Jkt 229001 the Fickeisen plains cactus within the last ten years. The BLM and the Navajo Nation have not observed or documented incidences of Fickeisen plains cacti being collected on their lands. In addition, we do not have information from the Arizona Native Plant Division indicating that unauthorized collection of Fickeisen plains cactus from their natural habitat has occurred (Reimer 2012, pers. comm.). Furthermore, apprehension of collectors or enforcement of the law is difficult for Pediocactus species considering they occur in remote areas that are not regularly patrolled. Currently, collection pressure on the Fickeisen plains cactus and demand for plants in the wild appears to be low for several reasons. Over the past 20 years, there has been increased sensitivity towards collection of rare plants from their natural populations among collectors who are satisfied with taking photographs rather than live specimens (Brack 2005, pers. comm.; Brack 2012, pers. comm.). Secondly, the Fickeisen plains cactus has been difficult to grow in cultivation mainly because of its specificity to particular climate conditions (cold winter temperatures) (Brack 2012, pers. comm.). However, more experienced growers have successfully propagated seeds and grown seedlings in captivity. Growers in Europe have successfully gown the Fickeisen plains cactus in cultivation because their climate is similar to that of the Colorado Plateau (Brack 2012, pers. comm.). Currently, the Fickeisen plains cactus is available from commercial vendors who can meet the market demand for this rare plant which has helped alleviate collection pressures. Seeds of the Fickeisen plains cactus are also readily available for sale on the Internet to cactus hobbyists. In summary, unauthorized collection is a threat for some Pediocactus species and a potential threat for the Fickeisen plains cactus. Based on the best available information, we have no evidence suggesting that overutilization of the Fickeisen plains cactus for recreational, scientific, or educational purposes has occurred or is negatively affecting individuals or populations within the species’ range. We also have no evidence to suggest that overutilization of the Fickeisen plains cactus will occur in the future to such an extent that the survival of the species would be compromised. Therefore, overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes is not considered to be a threat to the Fickeisen plains cactus now, nor do we expect it to be in the future. PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 60543 Factor C. Disease or Predation We are aware of a single report of a potential diseased plant in the Shinumo Altar population on the Navajo Nation. In 1991, a mature plant in poor condition was observed to have a large hole through its caudex with orange-red material there. We have no further information regarding disease in other Fickeisen plains cactus populations. Therefore, we do not consider disease to be a threat to the Fickeisen plains cactus. Rodent and Rabbit Predation Small mammal herbivory on cactus species is known to occur during dry conditions when animals seek available moisture from the plant or available food from cactus fruit (Butterwick 1987, p. 3; Phillips and Phillips 2004, pp. 14– 15; Sivinski and McDonald 2007, p. 104). Because of their small size and spongy spines, the Fickeisen plains cactus may be less protected from animals than other spiny cactus species. Herbivory, primarily by rodents, on the Fickeisen plains cactus has been reported only on BLM lands; however, it likely occurs throughout the range. The BLM reported a total of 56 plant mortalities associated with rodent predation in the years 1988, 1989, 1990, and 1992. All of the four plots have had reported rodent predation. The greatest losses were reported at Dutchman Draw plot, with 21 plants lost between 1988 and 1990 (Hughes 1988, p. 2; Hughes 1989, p. 2; Hughes 1990, p. 2), and 26 plants at the North Canyon plot in 1992 (Roaque 2012, pers. comm.). Correspondingly, the winter-spring precipitation in 1992 was below average. Small mammal burrows have been observed at the Dutchman Draw, Clayhole Ridge (Robertson 2011, p. 1), and South Canyon (Travis 1987, p. 4) populations. We do not have information about these burrows; however, they may be contributing to the high number of missing or retracted plants within plots. Hughes (1996a, p. 51) believed that heavy cattle grazing may in some part contribute to high incidences of rodent predation through competition for available forage, particularly during periods of drought that, in turn, cause rodents to eat the cactus. While the relationship between drought and rodent predation is less obvious on BLM lands, mortality associated with rodent herbivory on other Pediocactus species suggests that the Fickeisen plains cactus is likely being impacted rangewide in a similar fashion. Monitoring efforts on other Pediocactus species reported high rates E:\FR\FM\03OCP2.SGM 03OCP2 60544 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules of plant mortality associated with rodent herbivory. The BLM found that rodent predation resulted in 81 Brady pincushion cactus mortalities over a 15year period (BLM 2007b, p. 55). Phillips and Phillips (1995, p. 7) reported 23 Peebles Navajo cactus individuals were lost due to herbivory in 1989, which was attributed to a dry and warmer than normal winter. Sivinski and McDonald (Service 2010, p. 5) identified rabbit and rodent predation as a significant cause of mortality on the Pediocactus knowltonii (Knowlton’s cactus). They also found that predation rates increase during periods of drought, and no significant germination events had been observed over a 14-year period (Service 2010, p. 12). They infer that low recruitment may be due to high seed predation by rodents in 1993, and they find that seeds of mature fruit are readily eaten by rodents as the fruit ripens, resulting in little seed left to mature. We acknowledge that small mammal herbivory is natural under drought conditions. While the data are variable for the Fickeisen plains cactus, there is adequate evidence from monitoring studies on this species and other Pediocactus species that rodent predation is high in drought years. Climatic conditions throughout the Southwest are predicted to continue to warm with less precipitation in the future as previously discussed. We, therefore, anticipate that rodent or rabbit herbivory may increase in the future as a result of predicted changes in climate. In addition, rodent predation results in the mortality of a large number of individuals, effectively causing population declines in a population that is already small in number. Although we lack clear evidence of the scope of the impact that rodent predation has had on the Fickeisen plains cactus and its seeds, taken in conjunction with other habitat disturbances occurring across its range, low recruitment, and small population size, rodent predation is likely to rise to the level where it becomes a threat to the plant. erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms Please refer to the two introductory paragraphs of the Factor D discussion ˜ presented above for the acuna cactus. There are no existing laws or regulations in place that address the primary threats to the Fickeisen plains cactus and its habitat from livestock grazing; nonnative, invasive species; rodent predation; drought; or climate change. Those legal and regulatory mechanisms VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:23 Oct 02, 2012 Jkt 229001 that are in place appear to be adequate to protect the plant. The Fickeisen plains cactus is listed as a highly safeguarded native plant under the Arizona Native Plant Law (Arizona Revised Statutes, Chapter 7, 2007, entire). Removal of highly safeguarded native plants and their parts is prohibited on public land except by permit. They are also protected from international trade by CITES; however, CITES does not regulate take or domestic trade. While these measures lessen the impact from regulated collection, as described above, there is no indication that an active trade for this plant exists or poses a threat to this plant. The BLM lists the Fickeisen plains cactus as a sensitive species (BLM 2007a, p. 3–87). As described in the BLM Manual section 6840 (BLM 2008b, pp. 37–38), the BLM will focus sensitive species management on maintaining species’ habitat in functional ecosystems, ensuring the species is considered in land management decisions, and prioritizing conservation that emphasizes habitat needs for the species, thereby preventing the need to list the species under the Act. The BLM has the ability to implement conservation measures and best management practices to reduce the threats to the Fickeisen plains cactus from livestock grazing, but we are not aware of any efforts to minimize cattle impacts to the plant or its habitat. In their approved 2008 Resource Management Plan, the BLM designated vegetative habitat areas at Twist Hills and Upper Clayhole Valley for the Fickeisen plains cactus (BLM 2008a, p. 2–41). Management actions that apply to vegetative habitat areas include increased emphasis on protection of the species; increased consideration during National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) analyses; and the ability to modify, mitigate, postpone, or restrict proposed actions to minimize effects to the species. Speciesspecific conservation measures will apply to management of these and all other areas of occupied and unoccupied habitat for special status species. Because these vegetative habitat areas were recently designated, beneficial effects to the plant and its habitat have yet to be documented. On the Navajo Nation, the Fickeisen plains cactus is a Group 3 species on the Navajo Endangered Species List. Group 3 species are those ‘‘species or subspecies whose prospects of survival or recruitment are likely to be in jeopardy in the foreseeable future’’ (Navajo Nation Division of Natural Resources 2008, entire). Species listed PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 pursuant to the Navajo Nation Tribal Code 17, Subsection 507 are protected by take (17 N.N.C. § 507). In addition to its listed species protection, 9 of the 15 populations are within areas designated as a Preserve, including the three largest populations. No new activity or development is allowed within these Preserves, unless it is compatible with management goals established by the Navajo Nation Department of Fish and Wildlife for that area. Any development project proposed within a Preserve requires a biological evaluation be prepared. The biological evaluation must demonstrate that the development activity is compatible with management goals for the Preserve, as defined by the Navajo Nation Department of Fish and Wildlife Resource Land Use Clearance Policies. These policies are also used by Navajo Nation Department of Fish and Wildlife to ensure that proposed development activity in a Preserve will not negatively affect any listed species, including the Fickeisen plains cactus. It does not, however, apply to daily activities, such as livestock herding and any tourist activities that cannot be easily regulated (e.g., driving and parking at unofficial overlooks) (Hazelton 2012c, pers. comm.). It also does not include approved pre-existing activities. On the Cataract Ranch, privately owned parcels occupied by the Fickeisen plains cactus are under a conservation easement held by TNC (TNC 2000, entire). These deeded lands prohibit any development activities from occurring on these parcels and protect the inherent value of the land for perpetuity. Daily activities such as livestock grazing and range improvements are permitted. Approximately 29 percent of the known Fickeisen plains cactus population is protected by the conservation easement. In summary, there are no existing legal or regulatory mechanisms in place to address the primary threats to the Fickeisen plains cactus and its habitat. While the BLM has the ability to provide habitat protection for the Fickeisen plains cactus, any actions would be voluntary under conservation measures aimed to improve the status of sensitive species. The existing legal or regulatory mechanisms that are currently in place do appear to provide adequate protection to the Fickeisen plains cactus and its habitat in the manner they were intended to provide. E:\FR\FM\03OCP2.SGM 03OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with Small Population Size The Fickeisen plains cactus is a rare, endemic cactus that is restricted to a particular soil type. Factors such as the small population size, low population density, the isolation of populations between occurrences, and a poor mechanism for seed dispersal renders this cactus vulnerable to extinction from human and natural disturbances. We recognize that this species appears to have always been rare, yet continues to survive, and could be well equipped to continue to exist into the future. Many naturally rare species have persisted for long periods within small geographic areas, and many naturally rare species exhibit traits that allow them to persist despite their small population sizes. Consequently, the fact that a species is rare does not necessarily predispose it to being an endangered or threatened species. However, this species has shown a marked decline in recent years, and populations across its range do not appear to be recovering. This indicates that there is a heightened risk of extinction, and the contributing factors of ever decreasing population size, coupled with poor seed dispersal, increase the extinction risk. Small populations that are restricted by habitat requirements are more vulnerable to the effects of climate change, such as prolonged droughts and increased fire frequencies. Although small population size and climate change make the species intrinsically more vulnerable, we are uncertain whether they would rise to the level of threat by themselves. However, when combined with the threats from livestock grazing, rodent and rabbit predation, and nonnative, invasive species, small population size likely exacerbates the effects of these threats on the Fickeisen plains cactus. Proposed Determination for the Fickeisen Plains Cactus We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the past, present, and future threats to the Fickeisen plains cactus. We find that the species is in danger of extinction due to the current and ongoing modification and destruction of its habitat and range (Factor A) from ongoing and future livestock grazing; nonnative, invasive species; and long-term drought. The most significant factors threatening the Fickeisen plains cactus across its range are long-term drought and warmer winters occurring in the past several VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:23 Oct 02, 2012 Jkt 229001 decades and projected to continue with the effects of climate change. We find that livestock grazing and nonnative species, in combination with drought and climate change, exacerbate the threats to this species (Factor A). We also find predation (Factor C) and other natural or manmade factors are threats to the Fickeisen plains cactus (Factor E). We do not find any threats to the species from unauthorized collection (Factor B). We find no inadequate existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D). The Act defines an endangered species as any species that is ‘‘in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range’’ and a threatened species as any species ‘‘that is likely to become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range within the foreseeable future.’’ We find that the Fickeisen plains cactus is presently in danger of extinction throughout its entire range based on documented loss of individuals on the majority of its range, little to no recruitment, and continuation of the threats, as described above. Therefore, on the basis of the best available scientific and commercial information, we propose listing the Fickeisen plains cactus as an endangered species in accordance with sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act. The elevated risk of extinction of the Fickeisen plains cactus is a result of the cumulative stressors on the species and its habitat. We have detailed information about population trends from 5 large populations, all of which show a significant decline in overall population, reduction in reproductive adults, little to no seedlings, and low representation of age-class diversity. The decline of these 5 populations is likely indicative of what is occurring in other populations that are smaller, more isolated and not as well studied. Some of these smaller populations have already shown declines in plants numbers; at some sites, plants no longer are found. Information from the 27 populations would increase our knowledge of the species, but it is uncertain if these populations will be monitored in the future due to resource limitations and access to the land. Losses of adult plants in a naturally rare, endemic species exacerbate the species vulnerability to extinction because the older, larger adults contribute more to the population’s growth. In the Fickeisen plains cactus, water and heat stress results in reduced flower and seed production, and seedling survival is dependent on winter precipitation and soil moisture. Climate change is anticipated to PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 60545 increase drought periods and warming winters. This combination is expected to continue the documented trend of mortality exceeding recruitment across all populations. All of these factors contribute together to heighten the risk of extinction and lead to our finding that the Fickeisen plains cactus is in danger of extinction, and thus meets the definition of an endangered species. Listing the Fickeisen plains cactus as a threatened species is not the appropriate determination because the ongoing threats described above are severe enough to create the immediate risk of extinction. The continued loss of reproductive adults without adequate recruitment poses a significant and immediate risk of extinction to the species throughout the species’ range, and is not restricted to any particular significant portion of that range. All of these factors combined lead us to conclude that the threat of extinction is high and immediate, thus warranting a determination of endangered species status rather than threatened species status for the Fickeisen plains cactus. Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may warrant listing if it is an endangered species or a threatened species throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The threats to the survival of the species occur throughout the Fickeisen plains cactus’ range and are not restricted to any particular significant portion of that range. Accordingly, our assessment and proposed determination applies to the species throughout its entire range. Available Conservation Measures for ˜ the Acuna Cactus and the Fickeisen Plains Cactus Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions, requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness and conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies; private organizations; and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the States and requires that recovery actions be carried out for all 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. Subsection 4(f) of E:\FR\FM\03OCP2.SGM 03OCP2 erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 60546 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules the Act requires the Service to develop and implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and threatened species. The recovery planning process involves the identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the species’ decline by addressing the threats to its survival and recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a point where they are secure, selfsustaining, and functioning components of their ecosystems. Recovery planning includes the development of a recovery outline shortly after a species is listed, preparation of a draft and final recovery plan, and revisions to the plan as significant new information becomes available. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to be used to develop a recovery plan. The recovery plan identifies sitespecific management actions that will achieve recovery of the species, measurable criteria that determine when a species may be downlisted or delisted, 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 (comprised of species experts, Federal and State agencies, nongovernment 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 Web site (https://www.fws.gov/ endangered), or from our Arizona Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal agencies, States, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or solely on non-Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and Tribal lands. If these species are 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 VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:23 Oct 02, 2012 Jkt 229001 nongovernmental organizations. In addition, under section 6 of the Act, the State of Arizona would be eligible for Federal funds to implement management actions that promote the ˜ protection and recovery of the acuna cactus and the Fickeisen plains cactus. Information on our grant programs that are available to aid species recovery can be found at: https://www.fws.gov/grants. ˜ Although the acuna cactus and the Fickeisen plains cactus are only proposed for listing under the Act at this time, please let us know if you are interested in participating in recovery efforts for either of these species. Additionally, we invite you to submit any new information on these 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 endangered or threatened 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 formal consultation with the Service. Federal agency actions within both species’ habitat that may require conference or consultation, or both, as described in the preceding paragraph include any management actions that could result in impacts to soil characteristics or seedbank viability, pollinators or their habitat, and associated native vegetation community, and any other landscape-altering activities on Federal lands administered by Federal agencies, such as: Issuance of section 404 Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) permits by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; construction and management of gas pipeline and power line rights-of-way by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; reauthorization of grazing permits by the BLM and the U.S. Forest Service, and construction PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 and maintenance of roads or highways by the Federal Highway Administration. The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to endangered plants. All prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act, implemented by 50 CFR 17.61, apply. These prohibitions, in part, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to import or export, transport in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of a commercial activity, sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce, or remove and reduce the species to possession from areas under Federal jurisdiction. In addition, for plants listed as an endangered species, the Act prohibits the malicious damage or destruction on areas under Federal jurisdiction and the removal, cutting, digging up, or damaging or destroying of such plants in knowing violation of any State law or regulation, including State criminal trespass law. Certain exceptions to the prohibitions apply to agents of the Service and State ˜ conservation agencies. The acuna cactus and the Fickeisen plains cactus are protected under the Arizona Native Plant Law as a highly safeguarded plant, which makes it unlawful for any person to destroy, dig up, cut, collect, mutilate, harvest or take, and place into possession any of these plants on public lands (Arizona Revised Statutes, Chapter 7, 2007, entire). However, the Arizona Native Plant Law does not prohibit landowners from removing or destroying protected plants on their property. They are required to notify the Arizona Department of Agriculture 20 to 60 days prior to destruction of a protected native plant on their private property. However, the Arizona Native Plant Law does not afford protection to the habitat of either cactus species, and ˜ there is no protection for the acuna cactus or the Fickeisen plains cactus on State lands, above what is allowable under the Arizona Native Plant Law. We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities involving endangered and threatened plant species under certain circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.62 for endangered plants, and at 17.72 for threatened plants. With regard to endangered plants, a permit must be issued for the following purposes: For scientific purposes, or for the enhancement of propagation or survival of the species. 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 E:\FR\FM\03OCP2.SGM 03OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules 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 species proposed for listing. The following activities could potentially result in a violation of section 9 of the Act. Unauthorized collecting, handling, possessing, selling, delivering, carrying, or transporting of the species, including import or export across State lines and international boundaries, except for properly documented antique specimens of these taxa at least 100 years old, as defined by section 10(h)(1) of the Act. 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). Critical Habitat erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 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. 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 VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:23 Oct 02, 2012 Jkt 229001 ensure, in consultation with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other conservation area. Such designation does not allow the government or public to access private lands. Such designation does not require implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by nonFederal landowners. Where a landowner requests Federal agency funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed species or critical habitat, the consultation requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the Act would apply, but even in the event of a destruction or adverse modification finding, the obligation of the Federal action agency and the landowner is not to restore or recover the species, but to implement reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. Under the first prong of the Act’s definition of critical habitat, areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they contain physical or biological features (1) 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 and biological features within an area, we focus on the principal biological or physical constituent elements (primary constituent elements such as roost sites, nesting grounds, seasonal wetlands, water quality, tide, soil type) that are essential to the conservation of the species. Primary constituent elements are the specific elements of physical or biological features that provide for a species’ life-history processes, and are essential to the conservation of the species. Under the second prong of the Act’s definition of critical habitat, we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. We designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species only when a PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 60547 designation limited to its range would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species. Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific data available. Further, our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act (published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the Information Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106–554; H.R. 5658)), and our associated Information Quality Guidelines, provide criteria, establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that our decisions are based on the best scientific data available. They require our biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of the best scientific data available, to use primary and original sources of information as the basis for recommendations to designate critical habitat. When we are determining which areas should be designated as critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the information developed during the listing process for the species. Additional information sources may include the recovery plan for the species, articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans developed by States and counties, scientific status surveys and studies, biological assessments, other unpublished materials, or experts’ opinions or personal knowledge. Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species. For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that habitat outside the designated area is 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 of section 9 of the Act if actions occurring in these areas may affect the species. Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed species outside their designated critical E:\FR\FM\03OCP2.SGM 03OCP2 60548 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 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 for the Acuna Cactus and the Fickeisen Plains Cactus 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 designate critical habitat at the time the species is determined to be an endangered or threatened species. Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that the designation of critical habitat is not prudent when one or both of the following situations exist: (1) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity, and identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the degree of threat to the species; or (2) such designation of critical habitat would not be beneficial to the species. There is no documentation that the ˜ acuna cactus and the Fickeisen plains cactus are threatened by collection. Therefore, they are unlikely to experience increased threats by the identification and mapping of critical habitat. In the absence of a finding that the designation of critical habitat would increase threats to a species, if there are any benefits to a critical habitat designation, then a prudent finding is warranted. The potential benefits of designation include: (1) Triggering consultation under section 7 of the Act, in new areas for actions in which there may be a Federal nexus where it would not otherwise occur because, for example, it is or has become unoccupied or the occupancy is in question; (2) focusing conservation activities on the most essential features and areas; (3) providing educational benefits to State or county governments or private entities; and (4) preventing people from causing inadvertent harm to the species. The primary regulatory effect of critical habitat is the Act’s section 7(a)(2) requirement that Federal agencies refrain from taking any action that destroys or adversely modifies ˜ critical habitat. At present, the acuna VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:23 Oct 02, 2012 Jkt 229001 cactus and the Fickeisen plains cactus occurs on Federal, State, Tribal, and private lands in Arizona. Lands proposed for designation as critical habitat would be subject to Federal actions that trigger the section 7 consultation requirements. These include land management actions and permitting by the BLM, OPCNM, and ˜ BMGR for the acuna cactus; and by the BLM and Kaibab National Forest for the Fickeisen plains cactus. In addition, lands proposed for designation as critical habitat, whether or not under Federal jurisdiction, may be subject to Federal actions that trigger the section 7 consultation requirement, such as the granting of Federal monies or Federal permits. There may also be some educational or informational benefits to the designation of critical habitat. Educational benefits include the notification of lessees and the general public of the importance of protecting habitat. Although we make a detailed determination of the habitat needs of a listed species during the recovery planning process, the Act has no provision to delay designation of critical habitat until such time as a recovery plan is prepared. We reviewed the available information pertaining to habitat characteristics where these two species are located. This and other information represent the best scientific data available and lead us to conclude that the designation of critical habitat is ˜ prudent for the acuna cactus and the Fickeisen plains cactus. Critical Habitat Determinability for the ˜ Acuna Cactus and the Fickeisen Plains Cactus As stated above, section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires the designation of critical habitat concurrently with the species’ listing ‘‘to the maximum extent prudent and 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) Information sufficient to perform required analyses of the impacts of the designation is lacking, or (ii) The biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well known to permit identification of an area as critical habitat. When critical habitat is not determinable, the Act provides for 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 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 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 acuna cactus and the Fickeisen plains cactus. ˜ Acuna Cactus Physical or Biological Features In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing to designate as critical habitat, we consider the physical or biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species and which may require special management considerations or protection. These include, but are not limited to: (1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal behavior; (2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements; (3) Cover or shelter; (4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development) of offspring; and (5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historical, geographic, and ecological distributions of a species. We derive the specific physical or biological features required for the ˜ acuna cactus from studies of this species’ habitat, ecology, and life history as described below. We have determined that the physical or biological features described below are ˜ essential for the acuna cactus. Habitat for Individual and Population Growth, Including Sites for Germination, Pollination, Reproduction, Pollen and Seed Dispersal, and Seed Banks Pollination and Pollen Dispersal— Preservation of the mix of species and interspecific interactions they encompass greatly improves the chances for on-site survival of rare species (Tepedino et al. 1996, p. 245). Bee nesting habitat, foraging plants, and corridors must be preserved to protect ˜ the acuna cactus (Buchmann 2012, pers. comm.; McDonald 2007, p. 4). The ˜ acuna cactus relies solely on the production of seeds for reproduction, with pollination highly linked to the ˜ acuna cactus’ survival. A lack of pollinators would lead to a reduction of seed production that would lead, in turn, to a gradual reduction in the seed bank (Wilcock and Neiland 2002, p. 276). Although viability of seed in the E:\FR\FM\03OCP2.SGM 03OCP2 erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules seed bank is unknown, germination trials in the greenhouse suggest the seeds are short-lived (Rutman 2007, p. 7), thus this could result in decrease in ˜ the acuna cactus population’s persistence. Successful pollination depends on the pollinator species needed and the distance the pollinator can travel between flowers (McDonald 2005, p. ˜ 15). Acuna cacti are pollinated by a suite of bees from the Andrenidae, Anthophoridae, Anthophorinae, Halictidae, and Megachilidae families; however, the most abundant, robust, and consistent visitors in a 2-year study at OPCNM were leafcutter bee (Megachile palmensis) and cactus bee (Diadasia rinconis) (Johnson 1992, p. 406). Leafcutter and cactus bees are native cactus specialist bees requiring a ˜ sufficient quantity of the acuna and other cacti pollen throughout their foraging season to provide a continuous source of pollen to provision their nests and support their own survivorship (Blair and Williamson 2008, p. 428). No studies of pollinator dispersal distance have been conducted for the ˜ acuna cactus; however, in a study of a similar rare cactus of Arizona’s Sonoran Desert, the Pima pineapple cactus, McDonald (2005, p. 29) determined that the maximum distance that the cactus bees travelled between Pima pineapple cactus individuals was 900 m (2,953 ft). The maximum distance travelled by the leafcutter bee is thought to be less than this (Buchmann 2012, pers. comm.). This distance around individual cacti is needed to support pollinator foraging, nesting, and survivorship. Therefore, based on our review of the best available information, we identify a pollination area with a radius of 900 m (2,953 ft) around each reproducing ˜ acuna cactus plant as a physical or ˜ biological feature of acuna cactus habitat. Seed Dispersal, Germination, Growth, and Seed Banks—Bare soils within the ˜ seed dispersal range of the acuna cactus are necessary for recruitment and soil seed banking. Primary and secondary dispersal of these seeds can occur via a number of mechanisms including gravity, ants, wind, or rain (Butterwick 1982–1992, entire; Rutman 1996b, pers. comm.; Rutman 2001, pers. comm.; Anderson 2011, p. 1). Primary dispersal is the movement of seeds short distances from the plant, whereas secondary dispersal involves the redistribution of seeds by living (e.g., insects) or non-living (e.g., wind) factors (van Rheede van Oudtshorrn and van Rooyen 1999, pp. 186–187). As evidenced by their commonly ˜ clumped habit, the majority of the acuna VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:23 Oct 02, 2012 Jkt 229001 cactus seeds are dispersed by gravity; that is, they fall very close to the mother plant, which serves as a nurse plant for germination (Johnson et al. 1993, p. 178). Although with this type of dispersal the distance seeds travel is limited, the immediate environment of the mother plant is typically very suitable for establishment, and these seeds have a better chance of germination, establishment, and survival than seeds dispersed by other mechanisms (van Rheede van Oudtshorrn and van Rooyen 1999, p. 91). Ants have been reported to both transport and consume the seeds of the ˜ acuna cactus (Butterwick 1982–1992, entire; Rutman 1996b, pers. comm.; Rutman 2001, pers. comm.; Anderson 2011, p. 1). Transported seeds may be dropped, discarded, or buried at either an appropriate or inappropriate depth for germination and emergence (van Rheede van Oudtshorrn and van Rooyen 1999, p. 15). Transported seed has the benefit of reduced competition from other seeds and reduced rodent predation found near the mother plant (O’Dowd and Hay 1980, p. 536; Vander Wall et al. 2005, p. 802). The maximum distance seeds are dispersed by ants is typically less than 3 m (9.8 ft) and rarely more than 10 m (32.8 ft) (van Rheede van Oudtshorrn and van Rooyen 1999, p. 186). The maximum distance seeds are dispersed by wind depends on many factors including the height of the plant, characteristics of the surrounding vegetation, seed mass and size, and wind conditions (van Rheede van Oudtshorrn and van Rooyen 1999, p. 186). Secondary dispersal by wind can be farther in deserts, where vegetation is widely spaced and interspaces between trees and shrubs support wind velocities as much as four times higher than under trees and shrubs (van Rheede van Oudtshorrn and van Rooyen 1999, p. 187). Wind-blown soil, litter, and small seeds accumulate under shrubs and trees, or in soil surface depressions (Shreve 1942, p. 205; van Rheede van Oudtshorrn and van Rooyen 1999, p. 187). Dispersal of seed from rain wash or sheet flow over the ground is considered to occur across a relatively short distance; in hot deserts, many plants disperse seed by rain (van Rheede van Oudtshorrn and van Rooyen 1999, pp. ˜ 69, 76). The distance that the acuna cactus seeds travel by either wind or water is not known; however, spacing of associated nurse trees and shrubs where soil, litter, and seed could accumulate is roughly 8 m (26.2 ft). This number was determined by using the average height PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 60549 of the largest tree associate, palo verde, as height and density are closely related (Shreve 1942, pp. 202–203; Kearney and Peebles 1951, p. 407). Therefore, based on our review of the best available information regarding the maximum distance that seed may be expected to disperse, and within which ˜ the acuna cactus seed banks, seedling establishment, and seedling growth can occur, we identify bare soils immediately adjacent to and within 10 m (32.8 ft) of existing reproductive ˜ acuna cactus plants as a physical or ˜ biological feature of acuna cactus habitat. Appropriate Geological Layers and Topography That Support Individual ˜ Acuna Cactus Plants Geology—Bedrock and soil chemistry could help explain the current ˜ distribution of the acuna cactus across small islands of habitat in southern Arizona. Various reports describe the ˜ acuna cactus occurring on both fine and course textured soils derived from volcanic, granitic, and metamorphic rocks (Geraghty and Miller 1997, p. 3; Rutman 2007, pp. 1–2). Specifically, parent rock materials of preferred habitat include extrusive felsic volcanic rocks of rhyolite, andesite, and tuff, and intrusive igneous rocks composed of granite, granodiorite, diorite, and quartz monzonite (Rutman 2007, pp. 1–2). We applied this knowledge of the ˜ acuna cactus geologic habitat preference by analyzing geology features and known plant locations attained for populations occurring within the United States using Geographic Information Systems (GIS). We determined 11 geologic feature classes that occur ˜ within the known locations of the acuna cactus in the United States (Arizona State Land Department 2012, GIS data layer). These feature classes can be summarized as Volcanic rocks from the middle Miocene to Oligocene and from the Jurassic; Granitoid rocks from the early Tertiary to Late Cretaceous and from the Jurassic; Granitic rocks from the early Tertiary to Late Cretaceous; Metamorphic rocks from the early Proterozoic; and surficial deposits from the Holocene to the latest Pliocene. Therefore, based on our review of the best available information regarding bedrock geology and associated soils ˜ required by the acuna cacti, we identify the presence of any one of these 11 feature classes as a physical or ˜ biological feature of acuna cactus habitat. These feature classes can be further summarized to include the following rock types as identified in the literature for this species: rhyolite, andesite, tuff, granite, granodiorite, E:\FR\FM\03OCP2.SGM 03OCP2 60550 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with diorite, or Cornelia quartz monzonite (Rutman 2007, pp. 1, 2). ˜ Topography—The acuna cactus is known to occur in valley bottoms and on ridge tops or small knolls, on slopes up to 30 percent (Phillips et al. 1982, p. 4; Geraghty and Miller 1997, p. 3). We ˜ applied this knowledge of the acuna topographic habitat preference by analyzing topography features using a digital elevation model in GIS. Therefore, based on our review of the best available information regarding topography, we identify valley bottoms, ridge tops, and small knolls with slopes of 30 percent or less as a physical or ˜ biological feature of acuna cactus habitat. Appropriate Vegetation Community and Elevation Range That Support ˜ Individual Acuna Cactus Plants Nurse Plants—Known populations of ˜ the acuna cactus have been reported from between 365 and 1,150 m (1,198 to 3,773 ft) elevation within the paloverdecacti-mixed scrub series of the Arizona Upland Subdivision of the Sonoran Desert-scrub (Brown 1994, p. 200; Arizona Rare Plant Guide Committee 2001, unnumbered pages; AGFD 2011, entire). This scrubland or low woodland contains leguminous trees, shrubs, and succulents including Cercidium microphyllum (palo verde), Olneya tesota (ironwood), Larrea tridentata var. tridentata (creosote bush), Ambrosia spp. (bursage), and Carnegia gigantea ˜ (saguaro). The acuna cactus seedlings benefit from the protection of these native Sonoran Desert trees and shrubs, ˜ as well as other larger acuna cacti that act as nurse plants by providing protection from temperature extremes and physical damage (Felger 2000, p. 208; Johnson et al. 1993, p. 178). The ˜ acuna cactus individuals are generally more robust in these situations, as opposed to in open, exposed locations (Felger 2000, p. 208). Therefore, based on the information above, we identify the presence of creosote bush, ironwood, palo verde, and other native protective plants to be a physical or ˜ biological feature necessary for acuna cactus survival. Native Vegetation Dominance—The ˜ acuna cactus habitat should be relatively free from perennial grass invaders as these alter structure, function, dominance, and disturbance regimes, and have been shown to drastically lower species diversity, within the Sonoran Desert (Olsson et al. 2012, p. 10). Such changes have great ˜ potential to impact acuna cacti and their pollinators. In addition, such introduced grasses as buffelgrass form continuous mats and remove open bare VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:23 Oct 02, 2012 Jkt 229001 ground for nesting bees such as Diadasia spp. (Buchmann 2007, p. 13). These bees move nesting sites yearly to shed parasites, therefore requiring the continued availability of sandy, welldrained, bare ground available to create nests (Buchmann 2012, pers. comm.). Therefore, based on our review of the best available information, we identify Sonoran Desert-scrub habitat dominated by native plant species to be a physical ˜ or biological feature necessary for acuna cactus survival. Primary Constituent Elements for the ˜ Acuna Cactus Under the Act and its implementing regulations, we are required to identify the physical or biological features ˜ essential to the conservation of acuna cactus in areas occupied at the time of listing, focusing on the features’ primary constituent elements. We consider primary constituent elements to be the elements of physical or biological features that provide for a species’ lifehistory processes and are essential to the conservation of the species. Based on our current knowledge of the physical or biological features and habitat characteristics required to sustain the species’ life-history processes, we determine that the primary constituent elements specific to ˜ the acuna cactus are: (i) Native vegetation within the Paloverde-Cacti-Mixed Scrub Series of the Arizona Upland Subdivision of the Sonoran Desert-scrub at elevations between 365 to 1,150 m (1,198 to 3,773 ft). This vegetation must contain predominantly native plant species that: ˜ a. Provide protection to the acuna cactus. Examples of such plants are creosote bush, ironwood, and palo verde; b. Provide for pollinator habitat with a radius of 900 m (2,953 ft) around each ˜ individual, reproducing acuna cactus; c. Allow for seed dispersal through the presence of bare soils immediately adjacent to and within 10 m (32.8 ft) of ˜ individual, reproducing acuna cactus. (ii) Soils overlying rhyolite, andesite, tuff, granite, granodiorite, diorite, or Cornelia quartz monzonite bedrock that are in valley bottoms, on small knolls, or on ridgetops, and are generally on slopes of less than 30 percent. Special Management Considerations or Protection When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing contain features which are essential to the conservation of the species and which may require special management PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 considerations or protection. The features essential to the conservation of ˜ the acuna cactus may require special management considerations or protection to reduce the following threats: livestock grazing; border activities; ORV use; mining; and nonnative, invasive plant species. Currently some of these threats are not identified to occur at a level that threatens populations with extinction; however without management of these threats, they could rise to this level. Refer to the five-factor analysis above for more information on these threats. Management activities that could ameliorate these threats include, but are not limited to, improving habitats and potentially increasing plant population numbers on lands the BLM, NPS, or the State of Arizona currently holds or may hold in the future. Special management to protect the features essential to the conservation of the species include conservation measures and actions to minimize effects of livestock grazing, road and trail building; construction of new border control facilities, towers or fences, ORV use, and mining, and to control nonnative, invasive plants on these lands. These management activities will protect the essential physical or biological features for the species by maintaining native vegetation communities, preserving soil characteristics, and providing habitat for ˜ the acuna cactus and its pollinators. Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best scientific data available to designate critical habitat. We review available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of the species. In accordance with the Act and its implementing regulation at 50 CFR 424.12(e), we consider whether designating additional areas—outside those currently occupied as well as those occupied at the time of listing— are necessary to ensure the conservation of the species. We are proposing to designate critical habitat in areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing, as described above in the proposed rule to ˜ list the acuna cactus, and contain sufficient elements of physical or biological features to support lifehistory processes essential for the conservation of the species. We also are proposing to designate specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing that we have determined to be essential to the conservation of the species. We reviewed available information and supporting data that pertain to the E:\FR\FM\03OCP2.SGM 03OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with ˜ habitat requirements of the acuna cactus. This information included research published in peer-reviewed articles and presented in academic theses and agency reports, as well as data collected from long-term monitoring plots, interviews with experts, and regional climate data and GIS coverage. Sources of information include, but are not limited to, Brown 1994, Buchmann 2007, Butterwick 1982–1992, Felger 2000, Holm 2006, Johnson 1992, Johnson et al. 1993, McDonald 2007, Olsson et al. 2012, Phillips et al. 1982, NPS 2011a, NPS 2011b, Rutman 2007, Van Rheede van Oudtshorrn, K. and M.W. van Rooyen 1999, and WRCC 2012. Based on this information, we developed a strategy for determining which areas meet the ˜ definition of critical habitat for acuna cactus. Occupied Area at the Time of Listing In identifying proposed critical ˜ habitat units for acuna cactus, we proceeded through a multi-step process. ˜ We obtained all records for acuna cactus distribution from AGFD, as well as both published and unpublished documentation from our files. There is no information on the historical range of this species; survey results confirm that plant distribution is comprised of disjunct occupied habitat in two general areas of south-central Arizona. Our approach to delineating critical habitat units was applied in the following manner: ˜ (1) We overlaid acuna cactus locations into a GIS database. This provided us with the ability to examine slope, aspect, elevation, geologic type, vegetation community, and topographic features. These data points verified and slightly expanded the previously ˜ recorded elevation ranges for acuna cactus. (2) In addition to the GIS layers listed above, we then included a 900-m (2,953ft) buffer around known populations to ensure that all potential pollinators would have a sufficient land base to establish nesting sites and to provide ˜ pollinating services for acuna cactus, as described in Physical or Biological ˜ Features for the Acuna cactus above. (3) We then drew critical habitat boundaries that captured the locations elucidated under (1) and (2) above. Critical habitat designations were then mapped using Albers Equal Area (Albers) North American Datum 83 (NAD 83) coordinates. We defined six units within the current distribution of the species in two general areas of south-central Arizona. Two of the subunits are not occupied at the time of listing; the VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:23 Oct 02, 2012 Jkt 229001 remaining units and subunits contain approximately 2,730 individuals. Within these units and subunits, several geologic, topographic, elevation, slope, and vegetation community features have been defined which, in combination, ˜ create appropriate acuna cactus habitat that is essential to the conservation of the species, though not all lands containing this combination support the ˜ acuna cacti. Areas Essential for the Conservation of ˜ Acuna Cactus Outside of Occupied Areas As discussed above in the five-factor analysis and ‘‘Drought and Climate Change’’ section, with reduced annual precipitation over the past 30 years, ˜ mature acuna cactus plants produce fewer flowers and seeds, and seedling establishment and survival does not offset mortality. Increased insect attack, possibly due to warmer winter temperatures throughout the region, in combination with water and heat stresses, have resulted in a documented mortality of more than 80 percent of individuals within populations that have been visited more than once. Although the specific water needs of ˜ the species are unknown, acuna cactus seedlings require adequate precipitation for survival, and adults require precipitation for flowering and fruit set. To determine what amount of precipitation is adequate, we analyzed precipitation monitoring records from OPCNM. Through our analysis, we ˜ determined the acuna cactus flower production and recruitment peaked in 1992, when 902 flowers were produced (Holm 2006, p. 2–10) following a winter period with total precipitation of 29.7 cm (11.66 in) (WRCC 2012, entire). Flower production reached measured lows in 1999, 2002, and 2006 (NPS 2011a, p. 2), years when total winter precipitation ranged between 2.2 and 3.3 cm (0.85 and 1.3 in) (WRCC 2012, entire). Similarly, recruitment peaked in the early 1990s (Holm 2006, p. 2–6; NPS 2011a, p. 1), following a 1990 summer period with 24.6 cm (9.7 in) of precipitation (WRCC 2012, entire). Therefore, based on our review of the best available information, we identify that areas that currently receive 29.7 cm (11.66 in) or higher total yearly ˜ precipitation are necessary for the acuna cactus reproduction and survival due to the continuing and impending regionwide drought. Following determination of critical habitat as outlined in the previous section, we then used an overlay of the areas containing appropriate geology, vegetation community, percent slope, and elevation, as defined in the physical PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 60551 and biological features, plus Parameterelevation Regressions on Independent Slopes Model (PRISM) climate data, to map areas that contain the correct geology, vegetation community, elevation range, and slope range, and that receive 29.7 cm (11.66 in) or more annual precipitation over a 30-year average (see the Physical or Biological ˜ Features for the Acuna catus above). The result was additional polygons representing suitable habitat which are not known to be occupied at the time of listing, but that contain appropriate habitat for the species, and are more northerly, higher in elevation, and receive higher mean annual ˜ precipitation than other acuna cactus habitat. It is generally recognized that as climate change progresses, species will move both north and upslope to adapt to hotter and dryer climate (Lesica and McCune 2004, p. 687). Our reasoning in defining these two additional areas as critical habitat is that they will provide the greatest probability of higher precipitation and cooler temperatures of ˜ the available acuna cactus habitat throughout south-central Arizona, and thus provide an avenue for natural expansion of the species’ range (small mammals and birds likely disperse the red fruits) and for off-site conservation efforts (transplant populations). Areas that currently support the cactus will, hopefully, continue to support the cactus in the future; however, given the ongoing drought and the predictions for reduced precipitation throughout the region, we conclude that additional areas are essential to the conservation 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 for the ˜ acuna cactus. The scale of the maps we prepared under the parameters for publication within the Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect the exclusion of such developed lands. Any such lands inadvertently left inside critical habitat boundaries shown on the maps of this 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. E:\FR\FM\03OCP2.SGM 03OCP2 60552 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules habitat areas we describe below constitute our current best assessment of areas that meet the definition of critical ˜ habitat for the acuna cactus. The six units we propose as critical habitat are: (1) Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, (2) Ajo, (3) the Sauceda Mountains, (4) the Sand Tank Mountains, (5) Mineral Mountain, and (6) Box O Wash. Table 5 shows the occupied units. The critical habitat designation is defined by the map or maps, as modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the end of this document in the rule portion. We include more detailed information on the boundaries of the critical habitat designation in the preamble of this document. We will make the coordinates or plot points or both on which each map is based available to the public on https:// www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2012–0061, on our Internet sites https://www.fws.gov/ southwest/es/arizona/, and at the field office responsible for the designation (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT above). ˜ TABLE 5—OCCUPANCY OF THE ACUNA CACTUS BY PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS Occupied at time of listing? Unit Proposed Critical Habitat Designation ˜ for Acuna Cactus We are proposing six units as critical ˜ habitat for the acuna cactus. The critical 1. Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument Unit: Dripping Spring ....................... ˜ TABLE 5—OCCUPANCY OF THE ACUNA CACTUS BY PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS—Continued Occupied at time of listing? Unit ˜ Acuna Valley ........................... 2. Ajo Unit: Townsites ................................ Little Ajo Mountains ................ 3. Sauceda Mountains Unit: Coffeepot Mountain ................. Cimarron Mountain ................. 4. Sand Tank Mountains Unit: Javelina Mountain ................... Sand Tank Mountain ............... 5. Mineral Mountain Unit ................ 6. Box O Wash Unit ....................... Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. No. Yes. No. Yes. Yes. The approximate area of each proposed critical habitat unit is shown in Table 6. Yes. ˜ TABLE 6—PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS FOR THE ACUNA CACTUS Federal State Tribal Private Total Ha (Ac) Unit Ha (Ac) Ha (Ac) Ha (Ac) Ha (Ac) Subunit 1. Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. Dripping Spring .... 1,591 (3,931) 0 0 0 1,591 (3,931) ˜ Acuna Valley ....... 2,416 (5,971) 0 0 0 2,416 (5,971) Unit Total ...... .............................. 4,007 (9,902) 0 0 0 4,007 (9,902) 2. Ajo .................... Townsites ............ Little Ajo Mountains. 89 (220) 106 (263) 0 0 0 0 330 (815) 141 (347) 419 (1,035) 247 (610) Unit Total ...... .............................. 195 (483) 0 0 470 (1,162) 666 (1,645) Coffeepot Mountain. Cimarron Mountain. 1,481 (3,659) 0 156 (385) 0 1,637 (4,044) 0 0 2,100 (5,190) 0 2,100 (5,190) .............................. 1,481 (3,659) 0 2,256 (5,575) 0 3,737 (9,234) Javelina Mountain 911 (2,251) 0 0 0 911 (2,251) Sand Tank Mountain. 3,107 (7,677) 0 0 0 3,107 (7,677) Unit Total ...... .............................. 4,018 (9,928) 0 0 0 4,018 (9,928) 5. Mineral Mountain. 6. Box O Wash .... .............................. 874 (2,160) 217 (537) 0 0 1,092 (2,697) .............................. 1,378 (3,404) 5,556 (13,729) 0 1,287 (3,180) 8,221 (20,314) Grand Total ... .............................. 11,953 (29,536) 5,773 (14,266) 2,256 (5,575) 1,757 (4,342) 21,740 (53,720) 3. Sauceda Mountains. Unit Total ...... 4. Sand Tank Mountains. erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 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 ˜ acuna cactus, below. VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:23 Oct 02, 2012 Jkt 229001 Unit 1: Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument Unit 1 is located within OPCNM, in southwestern Pima County, Arizona. The unit consists of two subunits totaling 4,007 ha (9,902 ac), of which all PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 is federally owned land. The Federal land is administered by the NPS. ˜ Unit 1a: Acuna Valley—Unit 1a consists of 2,416 ha (5,971 ac) in central OPCNM. Lands within this subunit are occupied at the time of listing with the ˜ largest known population of the acuna E:\FR\FM\03OCP2.SGM 03OCP2 erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules cactus, approximately 2,000 individuals. This subunit contains all of the primary constituent elements of the physical or biological features essential ˜ to the conservation of the acuna cactus. Unit 1b: Dripping Spring—Unit 1b consists of 1,591 ha (3,931ac) in ˜ southern OPCNM. An acuna cactus herbarium specimen was collected from within this unit in 1952. A general location was recorded on this specimen, and from this information, a GIS map was created by the AGFD. Because OPCNM personnel were not aware that ˜ an acuna cactus had been collected in this area, they did not revisit the area to survey for the species and are not able to survey now due to security issues along the border. We believe there is a possibility this population remains extant because: (1) We know of no other ˜ acuna cactus population that has been extirpated. This unit is in the center between the two largest known populations, which are located in the United States and Mexico. There have been no natural, environmental changes from climate change, drought, or insect ˜ predation that have caused an acuna cactus population in the two largest known populations to be extirpated. Because this unit is centered between the two largest known populations, we have no evidence to indicate that climate change, drought, or insect predation have extirpated this population. (2) Episodic recruitment events during years of higher than average precipitation may have occurred in this population since the time of its ˜ discovery. The acuna cactus may not have been reproducing offspring in periods of drought years, but there have been periods since 1952 there was enough precipitation that would have resulted in higher than average reproduction. In his 3-year study of the ˜ reproductive ecology of the acuna cactus in Unit 1a, Johnson (1992, pp. 403, 405) concluded that the positive association of rainfall and annual variation in the number of flowers produced indicates that water availability limits flower production in this species. Within monitoring plots established by Buskirk in 1977 (Buskirk 1981, p. 1), total flowers counted peaked at 902 in 1992 (Holm 2006, p. 10); corresponding precipitation during the winter of 1992–1993 was 29.7 cm (11.66 in) (WRCC 2012, entire). Even though cacti in this unit were not monitored, it is likely that recruitment events during years of higher than average precipitation may have occurred in this population. (3) This species appears to be fairly long-lived. The OPCNM has been monitoring individuals for 35 VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:23 Oct 02, 2012 Jkt 229001 years in Unit 1a, and it is likely that individuals have a life span that is much longer. Even though this plant has not been looked for in this unit since 1952, it is likely that some individuals, or their offspring, that were alive in 1952 remain in this unit today. (4) Even though illegal border activities may have potentially caused damage to the ˜ acuna cactus and its habitat in this unit, we have no evidence to indicate that these activities have occurred at such a ˜ level the acuna cactus population in this unit has been extirpated. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, we consider this subunit occupied at the time of listing. This subunit contains all of the primary constituent elements of the physical or biological features essential ˜ to the conservation of the acuna cactus. Grazing and mining are not permitted within OPCNM; however, off-road border-related activities do occur in OPCNM. Special management considerations or protections may be required within each subunit to address off-road border-related human disturbances, invasive plant removal, ˜ and insect predation in acuna cactus habitat. Unit 2: Ajo Unit 2 is located in and near the town of Ajo in southwestern Pima County, Arizona. The unit consists of two subunits totaling 666 ha (1,645 ac). This unit contains 195 ha (483 ac) of federally owned land and 470 ha (1,162 ac) of private land. The Federal land is administered by the BLM. Subunit 2a: Townsites—Subunit 2a consists of 330 ha (815 ac) of private land and 89 ha (220 ac) of BLM land in and around the town of Ajo, Arizona. This subunit is comprised of three ˜ separate populations of the acuna cactus on private and BLM lands, which are close enough in proximity to be combined within the 900 m (2,953 ft) radius defined for pollinators. Lands within this subunit are occupied at the time of listing; the combined number of plants occurring within this subunit is 33. This subunit contains all of the primary constituent elements of the physical or biological features essential ˜ to the conservation of the acuna cactus. Subunit 2b: Little Ajo Mountains— Subunit 2b consists of 106 ha (263 ac) of BLM lands and 141 ha (347 ac) of private lands south of the town of Ajo, Arizona. Lands within this subunit are occupied at the time of listing, containing seven individual plants. This subunit contains all of the primary constituent elements of the physical or biological features essential to the ˜ conservation of the acuna cactus. PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 60553 The features essential to the conservation of the species within both subunits are threatened by mining, urban development, off-road border activities, and exotic plant invasion. Special management considerations or protections may be required within the subunits to minimize habitat fragmentation; to minimize disturbance ˜ to acuna cactus individuals, soil, and associated native vegetation; and to prevent or remove invasive, exotic ˜ plants within the acuna cactus habitat. Unit 3: Sauceda Mountains Unit 3 is located in the Sauceda Mountains of northwestern Pima and southwestern Maricopa Counties, Arizona. This unit consists of two subunits totaling 3,737 ha (9,234 ac). This unit contains 1,481 ha (3,659 ac) of federally owned land and 2,256 ha (5,575 ac) of Tribally owned land. The Federal land is administered by the BLM and BMGR; the Tribal land is administered by the Tohono O’odham Nation. We will coordinate with the Tribe and examine what conservation actions, management plans, and commitments and assurances for the ˜ acuna cactus occur on these lands for potential exclusion from the final designation of critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Subunit 3a: Coffeepot Mountain— Subunit 3a consists of 1,637 ha (4,044 ac) in the Sauceda Mountains of northwestern Pima and southwestern Maricopa Counties, on and near Coffeepot Mountain. This subunit is comprised of four separate populations on lands administered by the BLM (1,102 ha (2,724 ac)), the BMGR (378 ha (935 ac)), and the Tohono O’odham Nation (156 ha (385 ac)), which are close enough in proximity as to be combined within the 900 m (2,953 ft) radius defined for pollinators. Lands within this subunit are occupied at the time of listing; the combined number of plants occurring within this subunit is 445. This subunit contains all of the primary constituent elements of the physical or biological features essential ˜ to the conservation of the acuna cactus. The features essential to the conservation of the species within subunit 3a are threatened by mining, grazing, and off-road border activities. Special management considerations or protections may be required within the unit to minimize habitat fragmentation; to minimize disturbance to individual ˜ acuna cactus individuals, soil, and associated native vegetation; and to prevent or remove invasive, exotic ˜ plants within acuna cactus habitat. Subunit 3b: Cimarron Mountain— Subunit 3b consists of 2,100 ha (5,190 E:\FR\FM\03OCP2.SGM 03OCP2 60554 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules ˜ has not been surveyed for the acuna ˜ cactus, and no acuna cacti are known to occur there at the time of listing. Modeling demonstrated that this subunit contains suitable habitat for the species. The area also receives higher mean annual precipitation (greater than 29.7 cm/year (11.69 in/year)), a factor found to be necessary for the conservation of the species. Therefore, this subunit is essential for the ˜ conservation of the acuna cactus because it provides space for the growth and expansion of the species, especially in the face of ongoing drought and climate change model predictions. ˜ ac) of potential acuna cactus habitat all on land owned by the Tohono O’odham Nation. This unit has not been surveyed ˜ ˜ for the acuna cactus, and no acuna cacti are known to occur here at the time of listing. Modeling demonstrated that this subunit contains suitable habitat for the species. In addition, the area receives higher mean annual precipitation (greater than 29.7 cm/year (3.82 in/ year)), a factor found to be essential for the conservation of the species (see the ˜ Acuna Cactus Physical or Biological Features section above). Therefore, this subunit provides space for the growth and expansion of the species, particularly in the face of ongoing drought and climate change model predictions, and is essential for the conservation of the species. Unit 4: Sand Tank Mountains Unit 4 is located in the Sand Tank Mountains of southwestern Maricopa County, Arizona. This unit consists of two subunits totaling 4,018 ha (9,928 ac), all of which is federally owned land. The Federal land is administered by the BLM and BMGR. Subunit 4a: Javelina Mountain— Subunit 4a consists of 911 ha (2,251 ac) of land within the Sonoran Desert National Monument administered by the BLM. This subunit contains three separate populations totaling 200 individuals. This subunit contains all of the primary constituent elements of the physical or biological features essential ˜ to the conservation of the acuna cactus. Grazing and mining are not permitted within the Sonoran Desert National Monument and the BMGR; however, offroad border-related activities and trespass livestock grazing may occur in Subunit 4a. Special management considerations or protections may be required within Subunit 4a to address increased off-road border-related human disturbances; to minimize disturbance ˜ to acuna cactus individuals, the soil, and associated native vegetation; and to prevent or remove invasive, exotic ˜ plants within acuna cactus habitat. Subunit 4b: Sand Tank Mountain— Subunit 4b consists of 3,107 ha (7,677 ˜ ac) of potential acuna cactus habitat within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (140 ha (347 ac)) and the BMGR (2,967 ha (7,331 ac)). This unit individuals. This unit contains all of the primary constituent elements of the physical or biological features essential ˜ to the conservation of the acuna cactus. Livestock grazing and ORV activity occur on this unit, and mining occurs nearby. Special management considerations or protections may be required within the unit to minimize habitat fragmentation; to minimize ˜ disturbance to acuna cactus individuals, soil, and associated native vegetation; and to prevent or remove invasive, ˜ exotic plants within acuna cactus habitat. Unit 5: Mineral Mountain Unit 5 consists of 1,092 ha (2,697 ac) on Mineral Mountain of north-central Pinal County, Arizona. This unit contains 874 ha (2,160 ac) of federally owned land and 217 ha (537 ac) of State-owned land. The Federal land is administered by the BLM (873 ha (2,158 ac)) and the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) (1 ha (2 ac)). This unit contains five separate known populations totaling at least 30 individuals on lands administered by the BLM and the State of Arizona. This unit contains all of the primary constituent elements of the physical or biological features essential to the ˜ conservation of the acuna cactus. Livestock grazing and ORV activity occur on this unit, and mining occurs nearby. Special management considerations or protections may be required within the unit to minimize habitat fragmentation; to minimize ˜ disturbance to acuna cactus individuals, soil, and associated native vegetation; and to prevent or remove invasive, ˜ exotic plants within acuna cactus habitat. Fickeisen Plains Cactus Unit 6: Box O Wash Unit 6 consists of 8,221 ha (20,314 ac) near Box O Wash of north-central Pinal County, Arizona. This unit contains 1,378 ha (3,404 ac) of federally owned land, 5,556 ha (13,729 ac) of Stateowned land, and 1,287 ha (3,180 ac) of privately owned land. The Federal land is administered by the BLM (1,058 ha (2,615 ac)) and BOR (320 ha (790 ac)). This unit contains three separate populations totaling at least 11 Physical or Biological Features We derive the specific physical or biological features required for the Fickeisen plains cactus from studies of the species’ habitat, ecology, and life history as described below. We have determined that the Fickeisen plains cactus requires the following physical and biological features: Space for Individual and Population Growth, and for Normal Behavior and Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals or Other Nutritional or Physiological Requirements The Fickeisen plains cactus is a narrow endemic with a limited distribution in northern Arizona on the Colorado Plateau. Within its range, the Fickeisen plains cactus requires the appropriate soils, associated geologic formations, slope, drainage, and plant community within the landscape to provide space for individual growth and population growth and to provide food, water, air, light, minerals or other nutritional or physiological requirements. The Fickeisen plains cactus is found on soils formed from alluvium, colluvium, or Aeolian deposits derived from limestone of the Harrisburg member of the Kaibab Formation and Toroweap Formation, underlain with Coconino Sandstone, and sandstone and mudstone of the Moenkopi Formation (Billingsley et al. 2001, entire; AZGS 2011). Several occurrences are located on or in close proximity to active or quaternary faults. TABLE 7—SOIL CLASS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FICKEISEN PLAINS CACTUS HABITAT erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with Soil class associations Percent slope Strych very gravelly loam ............................................................................................................................................... Mellenthin-Rock outcrop-Torriorthents complex ............................................................................................................. Mellenthin-Tanbark complex ........................................................................................................................................... Moenkopie-Goblin complex ............................................................................................................................................ Dutchman-McCullan complex ......................................................................................................................................... Twist sandy loam ............................................................................................................................................................ VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:23 Oct 02, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03OCP2.SGM 03OCP2 2–10 percent slope. 10–70 percent slope 5–50 percent slope. 5–50 percent slope. 1–10 percent slope. 2–10 percent slope. Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules 60555 TABLE 7—SOIL CLASS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FICKEISEN PLAINS CACTUS HABITAT—Continued Soil class associations Percent slope erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with Mellenthin very gravelly loam ......................................................................................................................................... Saido-Brinkerhoff complex .............................................................................................................................................. Kinan gravelly loam ........................................................................................................................................................ Mellenthin-Progresso complex ....................................................................................................................................... Kinan-Pennell complex ................................................................................................................................................... Pennell cobbly loam ....................................................................................................................................................... Pennell gravelly sandy loam ........................................................................................................................................... Monierco clay loam ......................................................................................................................................................... Monue-Seeg complex ..................................................................................................................................................... Hajisho-Cataract family-Shinume complex ..................................................................................................................... Hajisho-Seeg complex .................................................................................................................................................... Salten-Meriwhitica-Wayneco-Tassi family, complex ...................................................................................................... Winona gravelly loam ..................................................................................................................................................... Winon stony loam ........................................................................................................................................................... Winon-Boysag gravelly loam .......................................................................................................................................... Winona-Rock outcrop ..................................................................................................................................................... The Fickeisen plains cactus is affiliated with several soil series across its range (Table 7). The Fickeisen plains cactus is found on nonsaline to slightly saline soils that are shallow to moderately deep; well-drained; and consisting of gravelly loam, fine sandy loam, gravelly sandy loam, clay loam, and cobbly loam (NRCS 2012), with a soil pH between 7.9 to 8.4 (NatureServe 2011; NRCS 2012). The fine textured and very loose soil texture may enable the plant to be completely buried once retracted (NNHP 1994, p. 3), thereby protecting the apex from exposure to low temperatures during the winter season. The Fickeisen plains cactus is found at elevations from 1,310 to 1,813 m (4,200 to 5,950 ft). These elevations support between 15.25 and 35.56 cm (6 to 14 in) of annual rainfall, although precipitation patterns and monthly amounts are highly variable within the range of the Fickeisen plains cactus. Plants are found growing on mesa tops or plateaus and depositional areas consisting of flat terraces and benches, along the margins of canyon rims or on the toe of well-drained hills. Individuals are found on the western, southwestern, and southern-facing exposures with slopes of 0 to 20 percent (Arizona Rare Plant Committee 2001, unpaginated; AGFD 2011a, p. 2), although most plants are observed on slopes less than 10 percent. The Fickeisen plains cactus occurs within the Plains and Great Basin grasslands and Great Basin desert scrub vegetation communities (Benson 1982, p. 764; NatureServe 2011). Dominate native plant species that are commonly associated with these biotic communities include: Artemisia tridentata (sagebrush), Atriplex canescens (four-wing saltbush), Atriplex confertifolia (shadscale), Bouteloua VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:23 Oct 02, 2012 Jkt 229001 eriopoda (black grama), Bouteloua gracilis (blue grama), Bromus spp. (brome), Chrysothamnus spp. (rabbitbush), Ephedra torreyana (Mormon tea), Eurotia lanata (winterfat), Gutierrezia sarothrae (broom snakeweed), Pleuraphis jamesii (James’s galleta), Oryzopsis hymenoides (Indian ricegrass), Sphaeralcea spp. (globemallow), and Stipa spp. (needlegrass). Other native cactus species that are commonly found include Agave utahensis (century plants), Echinocactus polycephalus spp. and Escobaria vivipara var. rosea (foxtail cactus) (Brown 1994, pp. 115–121; Turner 1994, pp. 145–155; Hughes 1996b, p. 2; Goodwin 2011a, p. 4; NatureServe 2011). The Fickeisen plains cactus is found growing in open, sparsely vegetated areas in full sun but also in areas of dense grass cover. Seedlings and adult Fickeisen plains cacti observed growing underneath a shrub canopy or from clumps of grama grass appeared to be larger and fuller than those in open areas. Some type and amount of canopy cover may create suitable microhabitat conditions that enhance Fickeisen plains cactus’ survival by providing protection from the sun and wind, and by decreasing the rate of evapotranspiration (Milne 1987, p. 34). In order for the Fickeisen plains cactus to produce flower and set seed in the spring, adequate soil moisture during the winter is necessary (Brack 2012, pers. comm.). The general soil moisture recharge period across its range is from December to March (Travis 1987, p. 3), when temperatures and soil evaporation are low. Accumulated soil moisture is usually depleted by the summer months in which the Fickeisen plains cactus will retract underground but may emerge following summer monsoon PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 1–25 percent slope. 1–5 percent slope. 1–15 percent slope. 1–7 percent slope. 4–15 percent slope. 3–10 percent slope. 20–45 percent slope. 2–15 percent slope. 1–6 percent slope. 4–15 percent slope. 2–15 percent slope. 5–30 percent slope. 0–8 percent slope. 0–8 percent slope. 0–8 percent slope. 15–30 percent and 30–70 percent slope. thunderstorms. Therefore, based on the information presented above, we identify limestone soils derived from the appropriate formations; gravelly, shallow, and well-drained soils; the appropriate elevation range; and adequate precipitation to be essential physical or biological features for this species. Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, Rearing, Germination, Seed Dispersal or Pollination The Fickeisen plains cactus does not require areas for breeding or reproduction other than the areas they occupy and any area necessary for pollinators and seed dispersal (refer to Pollination and Pollen Dispersal section ˜ in Acuna Cactus above). Reproduction sites accommodate all life-history phases of the Fickeisen plains cactus. Like other native plants within the Colorado Plateau region, adequate precipitation and low temperatures during the winter season, which reduce evaporation, favor seedling germination (Comstock and Ehleringer 1992, pp. 196–199). The Fickeisen plains cactus is found in areas of sparse vegetation and in tall, dense grass. Seeds of the Fickeisen plains cactus would likely require certain soil conditions to germinate, such as adequate amounts of soil moisture and nutrients, and temperatures conducive to germination, but we do not have any information regarding those specific requirements. Seed production in the Fickeisen plains cactus is considered to be low (Hughes 2011, pers. comm.), and most species of Pediocactus have poor seed dispersal mechanisms (Benson 1982, p. 750). Seedlings are often observed near the parent plant (Goodwin 2011a, p. 9) and do better when shade is provided by a E:\FR\FM\03OCP2.SGM 03OCP2 erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 60556 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules parent or nurse rock (Nobel 1984, p. 316; Milne 1987, p. 34). The Fickeisen plains cactus relies solely on the production of seed for reproduction (Pimienta-Barrios and del Castillo 2002, p. 79). Optimal seed set occurs through visitation and pollination by native bees. Pollinators observed visiting flowers of the Fickeisen plains cactus include hover flies (family Syrphidae), bee flies (family Bombyliidae), mining bees (family Andrenidae), and sweat bees (family Halictidae) (Milne 1987, p. 21; NNHP 1994, p. 3). However, the primary pollinators for the Fickeisen plains cactus are believed to be halictid bees from the genera Lasioglossum, Halictus, and Agapostemon, based on several studied species of Pediocactus (Tepedino 2012, pers. comm.). Additionally, although flies may pollinate flowers of the Fickeisen plains cactus when they eat pollen or nectar, bees are considered to be the essential pollinators for native plants and likely for the Fickeisen plains cactus. Foraging distances vary by species and body size (Greenleaf et al. 2007, p. 592), but the typical flight distances of halictid bees in the genera Lasioglossum are 10 to 410 m (33 to 1,345 ft). The foraging distance for the largest bodied bee in the genera Agapostemon is approximately 1,000 m (3,280 ft) (Tepedino 2012, pers. comm.). For the Fickeisen plains cactus, because of its endemism, small population size, and disjunct occurrence, maintaining genetic diversity is essential for its persistence (Tepedino et al. 1996, p. 245). In general, maintaining adequate populations of the Fickeisen plains cactus’ primary pollinators, which likely depends on the presence and diversity of other native plant species in sufficient numbers within, near, and between populations (‘‘stepping stones’’), is essential to facilitate gene flow (NatureServe 2011). Therefore, maintaining areas with a high diversity of native plant species is necessary to sustain populations of native pollinators (Peach et al. 1993, p. 314). Low numbers of abundant flowers offering little reward can lead to low rates of plants visited by pollinators (Wilcox and Neiland 2002, pp. 272–273). The Fickeisen plains cactus relies solely on the production of seeds for reproduction, with pollination highly linked to their survival. A lack of pollinators would gradually decrease the number of seeds in the seed bank and the conservation potential for the Fickeisen plains cactus (Wilcock and Neiland 2002, p. 276). Therefore, based on the information above, we identify a pollination area-with a radius of 1,000 VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:23 Oct 02, 2012 Jkt 229001 m (3,280 ft) around each reproducing Fickeisen plains cactus and containing native vegetation as a physical or biological feature of Fickeisen plains cactus habitat. Habitats That are Protected From Disturbance or Representative of the Historical, Geographical, and Ecological Distribution of the Species The Fickeisen plains cactus has a restricted geographical distribution. Endemic species whose populations exhibit a high degree of isolation are extremely susceptible to extinction from random and non-random, catastrophic, natural or human-caused events. Therefore, the conservation of the Fickeisen plains cactus is dependent on several factors, including but not limited to: (1) Maintenance of areas of sufficient size and configuration to sustain natural ecosystem components, functions, and processes (such as sun exposure, native shrubs or grasses that provide microhabitats for seedlings, natural fire and hydrologic regimes, preservation of biological soil crusts that support the surrounding vegetation community, and adequate biotic balance to prevent excessive herbivory); (2) protection of the existing substrate continuity and structure; (3) connectivity among clusters of plants within geographic proximity to facilitate gene flow among these sites through pollination activity and seed dispersal; and (4) sufficient adjacent suitable habitat for reproduction and population expansion. A natural, generally intact surface and subsurface that is free of inappropriate disturbance associated with land use activities (such as trampling and soil compaction from livestock grazing) and associated physical processes such as the hydrologic regime are necessary to provide water, minerals, and other physiological needs for the Fickeisen plains cactus. A natural intact surface and subsurface includes the preservation of soil qualities (texture, slope, rooting depth) to enable the seasonal ability of plants to retract below the subsurface to enter dormancy but emerge when conditions are favorable. A natural hydrologic regime includes the seasonal retention of soil moisture followed by the drying out of the substrate to promote growth of plants for the following season. These processes enable populations to develop and maintain seed banks, and to provide for success seedling survival, adult growth, and expansion of populations. The Fickeisen plains cactus must sustain and expand in number if ecological representation of this species is to be ensured. Therefore, based on the PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 information above, we identify natural, generally intact surface and subsurface that preserves the physical processes, such as soil quality and the natural hydrology of a natural vegetation community, to be physical or biological features for this species. Primary Constituent Elements for the Fickeisen Plains Cactus Based on our current knowledge of the physical or biological features and habitat characteristics required to sustain the species’ life-history processes, we determine that the primary constituent elements specific to the Fickeisen plains cactus are: (i) Soils in northern Arizona on the Colorado Plateau that are: a. Formed from alluvium, colluvium, or Aeolian deposits; b. Derived from limestone of the Harrisburg member of the Kaibab Formation and Toroweap Formation; c. Underlain with Coconino Sandstone, and sandstone and mudstone of the Moenkopi Formation; d. At an elevation of 1,310 to 1,813 m (4,200 to 5,950 ft); e. Are gravelly-loam, fine-textured, well drained, and shallow; f. On terraces, benches, tops of mesas and plateaus, toe-slope of hills with a 0 to 20 percent slope; g. Supportive of biological soil crusts; h. Within the Plains and Great Basin grassland and Great Basin desert scrub vegetation communities; (ii) Native vegetation in areas that have natural, generally intact surface and subsurface features that provide habitat and suitable nesting substrate for the cactus’ pollinators and space for seed dispersal and germination; and (iii) Provide for pollinator habitat with a radius of 1,000 m (3,280 ft) around each individual, reproducing Fickeisen plains cactus. 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: (1) Livestock grazing; (2) nonnative, invasive plant species; (3) rodent and rabbit predation; and (4) long-term drought. Special management considerations or protection are required within critical habitat areas to E:\FR\FM\03OCP2.SGM 03OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with address these threats. Management activities that could ameliorate these threats include (but are not limited to) improving habitats and potentially increasing plant population numbers on lands the BLM, Forest Service, or the State currently holds or may hold in the future. Special management to protect the features essential to the conservation of the species include conservation measures and actions to minimize effects of livestock grazing; control nonnative, invasive plants; reduce rodent and rabbit predation, and manage activities in response to drought conditions on these lands. These management activities will protect the features essential to the conservation of the species by maintaining native vegetation communities, preserving soil characteristics, and providing habitat for the Fickeisen plains cactus and its pollinators. Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best scientific data available to designate critical habitat. We review available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of the species. In accordance with the Act and its implementing regulation at 50 CFR 424.12(e), we consider whether designating additional areas—outside those currently occupied as well as those occupied at the time of listing— are necessary to ensure the conservation of the species. We have determined that all areas we are proposing to designate as critical habitat are within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing (see the ‘‘Abundance and Trends’’ section, above, for more information). Based on the best available information, we conclude that the nine proposed units are occupied by the Fickeisen plains cactus. We acknowledge that several of the populations have not been visited for many years, but our rationale for including them within occupied units is described below. The Salaratus Draw (which includes Salaratus Draw I and Salaratus Draw II) and Toquer Tank sites were within the BLM’s ‘‘seldom’’ monitored cluster plots and contain a few, widely spaced individuals. These cluster plots were for the purpose of tracking presence or absence and not intended to be intensively searched or to establish a population estimate. They were originally created to be visited every 5 to 10 years in which, the Toquer Tank plot was last visited in 1994 and the Salaratus Draw plots in 2001. We have very little information about the VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:23 Oct 02, 2012 Jkt 229001 Fickeisen plains cactus in the Toquer Tank plot. A fair number of plants were documented there for several consecutive years and the site was occupied in 1994. When the Salaratus Draw plots were last visited in 2001, the sites were reported to be dry. Climate data for 2001 recorded below-average precipitation, and the region was experiencing a prolonged drought. Given that the Fickeisen plains cactus can be difficult to locate, particularly when plants are not flowering, it is likely that they were retracted below ground and missed during the count. In addition, plants may remain underground for several years in a row, as has been documented in the plots that are regularly monitored by the BLM. Even plants that have their crown exposed just above the soil surface can be difficult to locate. When conditions are ideal (adequate precipitation), plants will emerge above ground and are easier to detect. Additionally, BLM documented one instance when the Sunshine Ridge population had declined to zero plants in 2000, but three of the tagged plants were detected the following year. This provides basis for our assumption that the Salaratus Draw and Toquer Tank may still be occupied as of 2012. Furthermore, the Fickeisen plains cactus was documented at six sites that have never been monitored and have not been visited in over 18 years. These unmonitored sites (Beanhole Well, Marble Canyon, South Canyon, Tiger Wash1, Tiger Wash 2, and Shinumo Wash) are within 6 km (4 mi) of the monitored sites in House Rock Valley where the Fickeisen plains cactus has been documented within the last 6 years. Livestock grazing has been reported in the area of the South Canyon site, but there is no evidence that the grazing resulted in the Fickeisen plains cactus being removed from the population. Similarly, there have been no large-scale, surface-disturbing activities occurring in proximity to the monitored or unmonitored areas that would lead us to believe that the Fickeisen plains cactus is no longer viable at the sites. Also, the life span of the Fickeisen plains cactus is estimated to be between 10 to 15 years (Phillips et al. 1982, p. 9). Because these six unmonitored sites are within close proximity to the monitored sites that contain the Fickeisen plains cactus, the environmental conditions have not been severe enough to extirpate the cactus from nearby monitored sites, impacts to the habitat from livestock grazing have not removed plants from the monitored populations, and the cactus has a PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 60557 lifespan of 10 to 15 years, we believe that the six unmonitored subunits are still occupied by the Fickeisen plains cactus. To further our assumption that unsurveyed areas may still be occupied, the Fickeisen plains cactus exhibits episodic recruitment when climatic conditions are ideal. Based on BLM’s monitoring information, a few small plants do emerge, perhaps not each year, but at least every 2 to 4 years. Information that describes the habitat of these sites is very limited. Livestock grazing is the primary surface-disturbing activity. Based on our evaluation of grazing for the regular monitored plots, we anticipate that the habitat has been degraded and impacted by other identified threats to the plant. We also acknowledge that these small populations are being affected by drought and climate change, and when coupled with surface disturbance, this likely results in increased mortality. But based on the best available information, there is no indication that leads us to believe that the Fickeisen plains cactus is no longer viable at the unsurveyed sites. We considered areas outside the geographical area occupied by the Fickeisen plains cactus at the time of listing, but we are not proposing to designate any areas outside the geographical area occupied by the Fickeisen plains cactus. In our review, the Fickeisen plains cactus occurs across a broad range with different topography, large elevational gradients, and vegetation communities (Grahame and Sisk 2002, entire; USGS 2002, entire). Due to the vastness and diversity of the range, there are areas within its geographical range that provides for in-situ conservation if needed in the future. Therefore, we determined that a subset of occupied lands within the species’ current range is adequate to ensure the conservation of the Fickeisen plains cactus. We reviewed available information and supporting data that pertains to the habitat requirements of the Fickeisen plains cactus. This information included research published in peerreviewed articles, soil surveys, agency reports, special land assessments, and data collected from long-term monitoring plots, interviews with experts, and regional climate data and GIS coverage. Sources of information include, but are not limited to: AGFD 2011b, AZGS 2011, Billingsley 2000, Billingsley and Dyer 2003, BLM 2007a, Calico 2012, Goodwin 2011a, Hazelton 2012a, Milne 1987, NNHP 2011a, NRCS 2012, Phillips et al. 1982, Travis 1987, and WRCC 2012. Based on this E:\FR\FM\03OCP2.SGM 03OCP2 60558 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules information, we developed a strategy for determining which areas meet the definition of critical habitat for the Fickeisen plains cactus. In identifying proposed critical habitat units for the Fickeisen plains cactus, we proceeded through a multistep process. We obtained all records for the distribution of the Fickeisen plains cactus from AGFD, as well as both published and unpublished documentation from our files. Recent survey results confirm that plant distribution is similar to known distributions with the exception that additional populations have been found following survey efforts. Our approach to delineating critical habitat units was applied in the following manner: (1) We overlaid locations of the Fickeisen plains cactus into a GIS database. This provided us with the ability to examine slope, elevation, geologic type, vegetation community, and topographic features. These data points verified and slightly expanded the previously recorded elevation ranges for the Fickeisen plains cactus. (2) In addition to the GIS layers listed above, we then included a 1,000 m (3,280 ft) pollination area around known populations to encompass native vegetation surrounding individual Fickeisen plains cacti, as described in Primary Constituent Elements for the Fickeisen Plains Cactus, above. (3) We then drew critical habitat boundaries that captured the locations elucidated under (1) and (2) above. Critical habitat designations were then mapped using Albers Equal Area (Albers) North American Datum 83 (NAD 83) coordinates. Occupied Area at the Time of Listing Areas where plants are or have been documented within the species’ described range were considered to be occupied at the time of listing. The known range of the Fickeisen plains cactus is from Mainstreet Valley and Hurricane Valley in Mohave County to House Rock Valley in Coconino County on the Arizona Strip; along the canyon rims of the Colorado River and Little Colorado River, to the area of Gray Mountain; and along the rims of Cataract Canyon on the Coconino Plateau. Occupied occurrences of the Fickeisen plains cactus located in close proximity were grouped into one unit (e.g., Hurricane Cliffs). Areas where plants are distributed over a large distance (e.g., Cataract Ranch) were also categorized into one unit. All of the units contained all of the identified elements of physical or biological features and supported multiple lifehistory processes. The critical habitat designation is defined by the map or maps, as modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the end of this document in the rule portion. We include more detailed information on the boundaries of the critical habitat designation in the preamble of this document. We will make the coordinates or plot points or both on which each map is based available to the public on https:// www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2012–0061, on our Internet sites https://www.fws.gov/ southwest/es/arizona/, and at the field office responsible for the designation (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT above). Proposed Critical Habitat Designation for the Fickeisen Plains Cactus We are proposing nine units as critical habitat for the Fickeisen plains cactus. The critical habitat areas we describe below constitute our current best assessment of areas that meet the definition of critical habitat for the Fickeisen plains cactus. The nine areas we propose as critical habitat are: (1) Hurricane Cliffs; (2) Sunshine Ridge; (3) Clayhole Valley; (4) Snake Gulch; (5) House Rock Valley; (6) Tiger Wash; (7) Little Colorado River Overlook; (8) Gray Mountain; and (9) Cataract Canyon. All of the nine critical habitat units are occupied by the Fickeisen plains cactus. The approximate area of each proposed critical habitat unit is shown in Table 8. TABLE 8—PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS FOR THE FICKEISEN PLAINS CACTUS Federal State Tribal Private Total Ha (Ac) Unit Ha (Ac) Ha (Ac) Ha (Ac) Ha (Ac) Subunit 1. Hurricane Cliffs Dutchman Draw Salaratus Draw Temple Trail Toquer Tank 1,525 (3,769) 445 (1,098) 443 (1,096) 350 (865) 0 266 (658) 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 (5) 13 (33) 0 0 1,527 (3,774) 724 (1,789) 443 (1,096) 350 (865) Unit Total ...... .............................. 2,763 (6,828) 266 (658) 0 15 (38) 3,044 (7,524) 2. Sunshine Ridge Sunshine Ridge 612 (1,512) 142 (351) 0 0 754 (1,863) 3. Clayhole Valley Clayhole Ridge 338 (836) 76 (188) 0 0 414 (1,024) Snake Gulch 945 (2,335) 0 0 0 945 (2,335) Beanhole Well North Canyon Wash Marble Canyon South Canyon 745 (1,841) 472 (1,166) 126 (312) 0 0 0 0 0 871 (2,153) 472 (1,166) 214 (528) 336 (831) 0 0 0 0 0 0 214 (528) 336 (831) Unit Total ...... .............................. 1,767 (4,366) 126 (312) 0 0 1,893 (4,678) 6. Tiger Wash ...... Tiger Wash 1 Tiger Wash 2 Shinumo Wash 0 0 0 0 0 0 380 (940) 1,497 (3,700) 380 (940) 0 0 0 380 (940) 1,497 (3,700) 380 (940) Unit Total ...... .............................. 0 0 2,257 (5,580) 0 2,257 (5,580) Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03OCP2.SGM 4. Snake Gulch .... erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 5. House Rock Valley ................ VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:23 Oct 02, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 03OCP2 60559 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules TABLE 8—PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS FOR THE FICKEISEN PLAINS CACTUS—Continued Federal State Tribal Private Total Ha (Ac) Unit Ha (Ac) Ha (Ac) Ha (Ac) Ha (Ac) Subunit 7. Little Colorado River (LCR) Overlook ........... LCR Overlook 0 0 1,170 (2,891) 0 1,170 (2,891) Mays Wash Gray Mountain 246 (609) 0 80 (198) 7 (17) 00 438 (1,083) 371 (917) 514 (1,271) 697 (1,724) 960 (2,371) Unit Total ...... .............................. 246 (609) 87 (215) 438 (1,083) 885 (2,188) 1,656 (4,095) 9. Cataract Canyon .................... Cataract Canyon 0 4,920 (12,159) 00 2,848 (7,037) 7,768 (19,196) Grand Total ... .............................. 6,671 (16,486) 5,617 (13,883) 3,865 (9,554) 3,748 (9,263) 19,901 (49,186) 8. Gray Mountain Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding. We present below brief descriptions of all units, and reasons why they meet the definition of critical habitat for the Fickeisen plains cactus. erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with Unit 1: Hurricane Cliffs The Hurricane Cliffs Unit is located within the Hurricane Cliffs geographic area that is bounded to the west by Mainstreet Valley and to the east by Hurricane Cliffs. The unit consists of four subunits totaling 3,044 ha (7,524 ac) on the Arizona Strip in Mohave County. The unit includes private land, lands owned by the State of Arizona, and federally owned land managed by the BLM. This subunit contains all of the primary constituent elements of the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the Fickeisen plains cactus. Occupancy of the Hurricane Cliffs Unit by the Fickeisen plains cactus has been documented since 1986 (BLM 1986, p. 1). The species was considered generally rare but in abundant numbers at Dutchman Draw with scattered individuals located in small clusters adjacent to the Dutchman Draw populations. These smaller clusters include the Navajo, Ward, Salaratus Draw I and Salaratus Draw II, Temple Trail, and Toquer Tank populations. Subunit 1a: Dutchman Draw— Subunit 1a consists of 1,527 ha (3,774 ac) in Mainstreet Valley next to Dutchman Draw. Lands within this subunit are occupied at the time of listing. This site has been monitored regularly since 1986, and contains 12 plants as of 2011. This subunit also includes the Navajo and Ward cluster plots. These small plots were last visited in 2001 and 10 plants were found at both of the sites. This subunit contains all of the primary constituent elements of the physical or biological features VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:23 Oct 02, 2012 Jkt 229001 essential to the conservation of the Fickeisen plains cactus. Subunit 1b: Salaratus Draw—Subunit 1b consists of 724 ha (1,789 ac) in Mainstreet Valley. Lands within this subunit are occupied at the time of listing. This site was visited only three times between 1986 and 2001. This subunit includes Salaratus Draw I and Salaratus Draw II populations. At most, 44 plants were located in these areas in 19994. This subunit contains all of the primary constituent elements of the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the Fickeisen plains cactus. Subunit 1c: Temple Trail—Subunit 1c consists of 443 ha (1,096 ac) in Lower Hurricane Valley. Lands within this subunit are occupied at the time of listing. This site was last visited in 2001 when seven individuals were found. This subunit contains all of the primary constituent elements of the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the Fickeisen plains cactus. Subunit 1d: Toquer Tank—Subunit 1d consists of 350 ha (865 ac) in Mainstreet Valley. Lands within this subunit are occupied at the time of listing. This site was regularly monitored from 1986 to 1991, when abundance counts ranged from 7 to 13 plants. This site was last visited in 1994 and seven individuals were found. This subunit contains all of the primary constituent elements of the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the Fickeisen plains cactus. In all subunits of Unit 1, the features essential to the conservation of the species may require special management considerations to address threats from livestock grazing; nonnative, invasive species; rodent or rabbit predation, and long-term drought. PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Unit 2: Sunshine Ridge Unit The unit includes lands owned by the State and federally owned land that is managed by the BLM. Plants are located east of the Uinkaret Plateau and east of the range of the Pediocactus sileri (Siler pincushion cactus). Occupancy of the Sunshine Ridge Unit by the Fickeisen plains cactus has been documented since 1977 (AGFD 2011b, entire). This population has been regularly monitored since 1986, and has 34 plants as of 2011. Land within this unit is occupied at the time of listing and contains all of the primary constituent elements of the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the Fickeisen plains cactus. The features essential to the conservation of the species may require special management considerations to address threats from livestock grazing; nonnative, invasive species; rodent or rabbit predation, and long-term drought. Unit 3: Clayhole Valley Unit 3 is located in Upper Clayhole Valley on the Uinkaret Plateau. The unit consists of the Clayhole Ridge subunit totaling 414 ha (1,024 ac) on the Arizona Strip in Mohave County. The unit includes land owned by the State and federally owned land that is managed by the BLM. Occupancy of the Clayhole Valley Unit by the Fickeisen plains cactus has been documented since 1980 (AGFD 2011b, entire). The population has been monitored annually since 1986. As of 2011, the population contains 42 plants. Land within this unit is occupied at the time of listing and contains all of the primary constituent elements of the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the Fickeisen plains cactus. The features essential to the conservation of the species may require E:\FR\FM\03OCP2.SGM 03OCP2 60560 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules special management considerations to address threats from livestock grazing; nonnative, invasive species; rodent or rabbit predation, and long-term drought. erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with Unit 4: Snake Gulch Unit Unit 4 is located on the western boundary of the Kaibab National Forest in Coconino County. The unit consists of 945 ha (2,335 ac) on the North Kaibab Ranger District. The entire unit consists of federally owned land that is managed by the U.S. Forest Service. Occupancy was confirmed in 2004, by the Kaibab National Forest. The number of plants occurring here has not been documented except in general terms of presence/absence. This unit is occupied at the time of listing and contains all of the primary constituent elements of the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the Fickeisen plains cactus. The features essential to the conservation of the species may require special management considerations to address threats from nonnative, invasive species and long-term drought. Livestock grazing is permitted in this subunit during the winter, but is not considered a threat to the features essential to the conservation of the Fickeisen plains cactus. Unit 5: House Rock Valley Unit 5 is located on the eastern edge of the Arizona Strip in Coconino County and near the North Rim of the Grand Canyon National Park. The unit consists of four subunits totaling 1,893 ha (4,678 ac). The unit consists of land owned by the State and federally owned land that is managed by the BLM. Lands within this unit are occupied at the time of listing and contain all of the primary constituent elements of the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the Fickeisen plains cactus. Occupancy of the Fickeisen plains cactus in the House Rock Valley Unit was first documented in 1979 (Phillips 1979, entire; AGFD 2011b, entire), at Beanhole Well, Marble Canyon, and South Canyon. These sites have not been visited for many years. However, we have no reason to believe these sites are not occupied at the time of listing for the before-mentioned reasons. Occupancy at the North Canyon Wash site was documented in 1986, and it has been regularly monitored. The House Rock Valley Unit is bounded by the Colorado River that runs northwest to southwest, U.S. Highway 89A to the north, and the Kaibab National Forest to the west. Subunit 5a: Beanhole Well—Subunit 5a consists of 745 ha (1,841 ac) of VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:23 Oct 02, 2012 Jkt 229001 federally owned land that is managed by the BLM, and 126 ha (312 ac) of Stateowned land. Lands within this subunit are occupied at the time of listing. Three plants were documented at Beanhole Well in 1979, and the site has been visited since then, but we do not have information available regarding numbers of plants. This subunit contains all of the primary constituent elements of the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the Fickeisen plains cactus. Subunit 5b: North Canyon Wash— Subunit 1b consists of 472 ha (1,166 ac) of federally owned land that is managed by the BLM. Lands within this subunit are occupied at the time of listing. This site has been regularly monitored since 1986. As of 2011, the site contains 39 Fickeisen plains cactus. This subunit contains all of the primary constituent elements of the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the Fickeisen plains cactus. Subunit 5c: Marble Canyon—Subunit 5c consists of 214 ha (528 ac) of federally owned land that is managed by the BLM. Lands within this subunit are occupied at the time of listing. Eight plants were documented at Marble Canyon in 1979. This site has not been visited for many years. This subunit contains all of the primary constituent elements of the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the Fickeisen plains cactus. Subunit 5d: South Canyon—Subunit 5d consists of 336 ha (831 ac) of Federal Land in House Rock Valley along the rim of Marble Canyon. Lands within this subunit are occupied at the time of listing. A total of 52 plants have been documented at this site historically. This subunit contains all of the primary constituent elements of the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the Fickeisen plains cactus. In all subunits of Unit 5, the features essential to the conservation of the species may require special management considerations to address threats from livestock grazing; nonnative, invasive species; rodent and rabbit predation, and long-term drought. Unit 6: Tiger Wash Unit 6 is located near the rim of Marble Canyon on the Navajo Nation. The unit consists of three subunits totaling 2,257 ha (5,580 ac) in Coconino County. The entire unit is managed by the Navajo Nation. Occupancy of the Tiger Wash Unit by the Fickeisen plains cactus was first documented in 1991 (NNHP 2011a, p. 3). At that time, it contained 41 plants that were observed to be in good-to-excellent condition and PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 reproductive (NNHP 1994, p. 6). We will coordinate with the Tribe and examine what conservation actions, management plans, and commitments and assurances for the Fickeisen plains cactus occur on these lands for potential exclusion from the final designation of critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Subunit 6a: Tiger Wash 1—Subunit 6a consists of 380 ha (940 ac) on the Navajo Nation near the Marble Canyon. Lands within this subunit are occupied at the time of listing. This site was visited in 2005, and two plants were found. This subunit contains all of the primary constituent elements of the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the Fickeisen plains cactus. Subunit 6b: Tiger Wash 2—Subunit 6b consists of 1,497 ha (3,700 ac) on the Navajo Nation near the Marble Canyon. Lands in this subunit are considered occupied at the time of listing. This site was visited in 1993, when 11 plants were found among 3 areas within this site. This subunit contains all of the primary constituent elements of the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the Fickeisen plains cactus. Subunit 6c: Shinumo Wash—Subunit 6c consists of 380 ha (940 ac) on the Navajo Nation near the Marble Canyon. This subunit is considered occupied at the time of listing. This site was visited in 1993, and seven plants were found. This subunit contains all of the primary constituent elements of the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the Fickeisen plains cactus. In all subunits of Unit 6, the features essential to the conservation of the species may require special management considerations to address threats from livestock grazing, nonnative, invasive species, and longterm drought. Unit 7: Little Colorado River Overlook Unit 7 is located on the rim of the Little Colorado River on the Navajo Nation in Coconino County. The unit consists of 1,170 ha (2,891 ac). The entire unit is managed by the Navajo Nation. Lands in this subunit are considered occupied at the time of listing. Occupancy of the Little Colorado River Overlook Unit by the Fickeisen plains cactus has been documented since 1956 (AGFD 2011b, entire; NNHP 2011a, p. 3). This unit was visited between 1997 and 2005, and a total of 36 plants have been documented among three areas. This unit contains all of the primary constituent elements of the physical or biological features essential E:\FR\FM\03OCP2.SGM 03OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with to the conservation of the Fickeisen plains cactus. We will coordinate with the Tribe and examine what conservation actions, management plans, and commitments and assurances for the Fickeisen plains cactus occur on these lands for potential exclusion from the final designation of critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. The features essential to the conservation of the species may require special management considerations to address threats from livestock grazing, nonnative, invasive species, and longterm drought. Unit 8: Gray Mountain Unit 8 is located in the vicinity of Gray Mountain in Coconino County. The unit consists of two subunits totaling 1,656 ha (4,095 ac). The unit includes private land, lands owned by the State, tribal lands, and federally owned land managed by the BLM. Lands within this unit are considered occupied at the time of listing. Occupancy at the Gray Mountain unit was first documented in 1962, and consists of two very small populations on both sides Highway 89 near the town of Gray Mountain. This unit contains all of the primary constituent elements of the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the Fickeisen plains cactus. Portions of the Gray Mountain subunit occur on the Navajo Nation. We will coordinate with the Tribe and examine what conservation actions, management plans, and commitments and assurances for the Fickeisen plains cactus occur on these lands for potential exclusion from the final designation of critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Subunit 8a: Mays Wash—Subunit 8a consists of 697 ha (1,724 ac) near the near the town of Gray Mountain. The unit includes private land, land owned by the State, and federally owned land managed by the BLM. Lands in this subunit are considered occupied at the time of listing. Occupancy at this site was documented in 1981 and 1984, when 31 plants were found (AGFD 2011b, entire). This subunit contains all of the primary constituent elements of the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the Fickeisen plains cactus. Subunit 8b: Gray Mountain—Subunit 8b consists of 960 ha (2,371 ac) on near the near the town of Gray Mountain. This unit includes private land, tribal land, and land owned by the State. Lands in this subunit are considered occupied at the time of listing. Occupancy was last documented in 2009 and three individuals were found (NNHP 2011a, p. 2). This subunit VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:23 Oct 02, 2012 Jkt 229001 contains all of the primary constituent elements of the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the Fickeisen plains cactus. In all subunits of Unit 8, the features essential to the conservation of the species may require special management considerations to address threats from livestock grazing, nonnative, invasive species, and longterm drought. Unit 9: Cataract Canyon Unit 9 is located along the Cataract Canyon drainage, a tributary of the Colorado River, on the Coconino Plateau. The unit consists of the Cataract Canyon population totaling 7,768 ha (19,196 ac) and includes private land and land owned by State. The private parcels are within a conservation easement and are referred to as the Cataract Natural Reserve Land (TNC 2000, p. 22). Lands in this unit are considered occupied at the time of listing. Occupancy of the Cataract Canyon Unit by the Fickeisen plains cactus was documented between 2006 and 2011 (Goodwin 2006, pp. 5–7; Goodwin 2008, pp. 8–10; Goodwin 2011a, pp. 18–20). There are 146 plants on private lands, and 161 plants on State land. The unit contains all of the primary constituent elements of the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the Fickeisen plains cactus. The features essential to the conservation of the species may require special management considerations to address threats from nonnative, invasive species. Effects of Critical Habitat Designation ˜ for Acuna Cactus and Fickeisen Plains Cactus Section 7 Consultation Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the Service, to ensure that any action they fund, authorize, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat of such species. In addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to confer with the Service on any agency action which is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed under the Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. Decisions by the 5th and 9th Circuit Courts of Appeals have invalidated our regulatory definition of ‘‘destruction or adverse modification’’ (50 CFR 402.02) PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 60561 (see Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 378 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2004) and Sierra Club v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al., 245 F.3d 434, 442 (5th Cir. 2001)), and we do not rely on this regulatory definition when analyzing whether an action is likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Under the statutory provisions of the Act, we determine destruction or adverse modification on the basis of whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the affected critical habitat would continue to serve its intended conservation role for the 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 or authorized, do not require section 7 consultation. As a result of section 7 consultation, we document compliance with the requirements of section 7(a)(2) through our issuance of: (1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat; or (2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect, or 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, E:\FR\FM\03OCP2.SGM 03OCP2 60562 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with (2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal agency’s legal authority and jurisdiction, (3) Are economically and technologically feasible, and (4) Would, in the Director’s opinion, avoid the likelihood of jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species and/or avoid the likelihood of destroying or adversely modifying critical habitat. Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are similarly variable. Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where we have listed a new species or subsequently designated critical habitat that may be affected and the Federal agency has retained discretionary involvement or control over the action (or the agency’s discretionary involvement or control is authorized by law). Consequently, Federal agencies sometimes may need to request reinitiation of consultation with us on actions for which formal consultation has been completed, if those actions with discretionary involvement or control may affect subsequently listed species or designated critical habitat. Application of the ‘‘Adverse Modification’’ Standard The key factor related to the adverse modification determination is whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the affected critical habitat would continue to serve its intended conservation role for the species. Activities that may destroy or adversely modify critical habitat are those that alter the physical or biological features to an extent that appreciably reduces the conservation ˜ value of critical habitat for the acuna cactus or for the Fickeisen plains cactus. As discussed above, the role of critical habitat is to support life-history needs of the species and provide for the conservation of the species. Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical habitat, activities involving a Federal action that may destroy or adversely modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such designation. Activities that may affect critical habitat, when carried out, funded, or authorized by a Federal agency, should ˜ result in consultation for the acuna VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:23 Oct 02, 2012 Jkt 229001 cactus or the Fickeisen plains cactus. These activities include, but are not limited to, actions that would adversely affect the composition and structure of soil within the designated critical ˜ habitat for acuna cactus or the Fickeisen plains cactus through land disturbances that result in soil compaction or erosion, removal or degradation of native vegetation, or fragmentation of the ˜ acuna cactus or the Fickeisen plains cactus populations or their pollinators. Such activities within the designated ˜ critical habitat for acuna cactus or the Fickeisen plains cactus could include, but are not limited to, road and trail building; construction of new border control facilities, towers or fences; mining; ORV activity; cattle or burro grazing; and permitting actions that would result in any of the above effects. These activities could result in the loss of individuals or populations through reduction in productivity, the depletion of seedbanks, or the destruction or degradation of habitat for these cacti or their pollinators. Exemptions Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act The Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a) required each military installation that includes land and water suitable for the conservation and management of natural resources to complete an integrated natural resources management plan (INRMP) by November 17, 2001. An INRMP integrates implementation of the military mission of the installation with stewardship of the natural resources found on the base. Each INRMP includes: (1) An assessment of the ecological needs on the installation, including the need to provide for the conservation of listed species; (2) A statement of goals and priorities; (3) A detailed description of management actions to be implemented to provide for these ecological needs; and (4) A monitoring and adaptive management plan. Among other things, each INRMP must, to the extent appropriate and applicable, provide for fish and wildlife management; fish and wildlife habitat enhancement or modification; wetland protection, enhancement, and restoration where necessary to support fish and wildlife; and enforcement of applicable natural resource laws. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. L. 108– 136) amended the Act to limit areas eligible for designation as critical PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) now provides: ‘‘The Secretary shall not designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographic areas owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for its use, that are subject to an integrated natural resources management plan prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit to the species for which critical habitat is proposed for designation.’’ Within the proposed critical habitat designation area, there are no Department of Defense lands with a completed INRMP that includes the ˜ acuna cactus. The BMGR has a completed INRMP that addresses other endangered and threatened species, but it does not include management actions ˜ specific to the acuna cactus or its habitat. Therefore the BMGR lands are not exempt from the potential ˜ designation of critical habitat for acuna cactus at this time. No Department of Defense lands are being proposed for designated critical habitat for the Fickeisen plains cactus. Exclusions Application of 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 that determination, the statute on its face, as well as the legislative history, are clear that the Secretary has broad discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and how much weight to give to any factor. Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we may exclude an area from designated critical habitat based on economic impacts, impacts on national security, or any other relevant impacts. In considering whether to exclude a particular area from the designation, we identify the benefits of including the area in the designation, identify the benefits of excluding the area from the designation, and evaluate whether the benefits of exclusion outweigh the E:\FR\FM\03OCP2.SGM 03OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules benefits of inclusion. If the analysis indicates that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion, the Secretary may exercise his discretion to exclude the area only if such exclusion would not result in the extinction of the species. erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider the economic impacts of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. In order to consider economic impacts, we are preparing an analysis of the economic impacts of the proposed critical habitat designation and related factors. We will announce the availability of the draft economic analysis as soon as it is completed. At that time, copies of the draft economic analysis will be available for downloading from the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov, or by contacting the Arizona Ecological Services Field Office directly (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). During the development of a final designation, we will consider economic impacts based on information in our economic analysis, public comments, and other new information, and areas may be excluded from the final critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19. Exclusions Based on National Security Impacts Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider whether there are lands where a national security impact might exist. Department of Defense lands that are included in this proposed rule include the BMGR, as discussed above in Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act. Additionally, there are specific areas included in this proposed rule that are not owned or managed by the Department of Defense, but on which the CBP operates along the U.S.-Mexico border. CBP is tasked with maintaining national security interests along the nation’s international borders. In order to achieve and maintain effective control of the United States border, CBP, through its component, the USBP, requires continuing and regular access to certain portions of the area proposed for designation as critical habitat. Because CBP’s border security mission has an important link to national security, CBP may identify impacts to national security that may result from designating critical habitat. We do not have information currently indicating that lands within the proposed designation of critical habitat for the ˜ acuna cactus will have an impact on national security. However, we may VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:23 Oct 02, 2012 Jkt 229001 60563 consider excluding certain lands in the final rule if we receive specific, reasonable justification for that basis of a national security concern that would result from the incremental regulatory burden of critical habitat during the comment period. We have also determined that lands within the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Fickeisen plains cactus are not owned or managed by the Department of Defense, and, therefore, we anticipate no impact on national security. Consequently, the Secretary does not propose to exert his discretion to exclude any areas from the final designation based on impacts on national security. However, should BMGR or another entity identify potential impacts to national security that may result from incremental regulatory burden of critical habitat on lands owned and managed by the BMGR, or on the lands within the ˜ critical habitat footprint for the acuna cactus we may consider excluding those lands in the final critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19. ˜ habitat for the acuna cactus and the Fickeisen plains cactus. Using the criteria found in the Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat section for both species, we have determined that tribal ˜ lands that are occupied by the acuna cactus and the Fickeisen plains cactus contain the features essential for the conservation of both species, as well as ˜ tribal lands unoccupied by the acuna cactus are essential for the conservation of the species. We will seek government-to-government consultation with these tribes throughout the public comment period and during development of the final designations of ˜ critical habitat for the acuna cactus and Fickeisen plains cactus. We will consider these areas for exclusion from the final critical habitat designation to the extent consistent with the requirements of 4(b)(2) of the Act. The Navajo Nation and the Tohono O’odham Nation are the main tribes affected by this proposed rule. (Please see the Information Requested section of this proposed revised rule for instructions on how to submit comments). Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Impacts Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts on national security. We consider a number of factors, including whether the landowners have developed any HCPs or other management plans for the area, or whether there are conservation partnerships that would be encouraged by designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat. In addition, we look at any Tribal issues, and consider the government-togovernment relationship of the United States with Tribal entities. We also consider any social impacts that might occur because of the designation. The Secretary is not considering exerting his discretion to exclude any particular areas from final critical habitat for either of these species at this time under section 4(b)(2) of the Act based on partnerships, management, or protection afforded by cooperative management efforts. In this proposed rule, we are seeking input from the public as to whether or not the Secretary should exclude specific areas covered under a conservation plan, agreements based on conservation partnerships, or other such areas under management that ˜ benefit the acuna cactus and the Fickeisen plains cactus from the final revised critical habitat designation. In addition, there are Tribal lands included in the proposed designation of critical In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek the expert opinions of at least three appropriate and independent specialists regarding this proposed rule. The purpose of peer review is to ensure that our listing determination and critical habitat designation are based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We have invited these peer reviewers to comment during the public comment period on our proposed listing designations of critical habitat for these two species. We will consider all comments and information we receive during the comment period on this proposed rule during our preparation of a final determination. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from this proposal. PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Peer Review Public Hearings Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for one or more public hearings on this proposal, if requested. Requests must be received within 45 days after the date of publication of this proposed rule in the Federal Register. Such requests must be sent to the address shown in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. We will schedule public hearings on this proposal, if any are requested, and announce the dates, times, and places of those hearings, as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in the Federal Register and local newspapers at least 15 days before the hearing. E:\FR\FM\03OCP2.SGM 03OCP2 60564 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules Required Determinations erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with Regulatory Planning and Review— Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant rules. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is not significant. Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation’s regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements. Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996 (5 U.S.C 801 et seq.), whenever an agency must 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 (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. At this time, we lack the available economic information necessary to provide an adequate factual basis for the required RFA finding. Therefore, we defer the RFA finding until completion of the draft economic analysis prepared under section 4(b)(2) of the Act and Executive Order 12866. This draft economic analysis will provide the required factual basis for the RFA VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:23 Oct 02, 2012 Jkt 229001 finding. Upon completion of the draft economic analysis, we will announce availability of the draft economic analysis of the proposed designation in the Federal Register and reopen the public comment period for the proposed designation. We will include with this announcement, as appropriate, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis or a certification that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities accompanied by the factual basis for that determination. The proposed critical habitat areas include Federal, State, military, Tribal, and private lands, some of which are used for mining and recreation (such as hiking, camping, horseback riding, and hunting). We have concluded that deferring the RFA finding until completion of the draft economic analysis is necessary to meet the purposes and requirements of the RFA. Deferring the RFA finding in this manner will ensure that we make a sufficiently informed determination based on adequate economic information and provide the necessary opportunity for public comment. 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. Because there are no energy facilities within the footprint of the proposed critical habitat boundaries, and we are unaware of energy projects currently proposed within the boundaries, we do not expect the designation of this proposed critical habitat to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action, and no Statement of Energy Effects is required. However, we will further evaluate this issue as we conduct our economic analysis, and review and revise this assessment as warranted. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), we make the following findings: (1) This rule would not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal governments, or the private sector, and includes both ‘‘Federal intergovernmental mandates’’ and ‘‘Federal private sector mandates.’’ These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 658(5)–(7). ‘‘Federal intergovernmental mandate’’ includes a regulation that ‘‘would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments’’ with two exceptions. It excludes ‘‘a condition of Federal assistance.’’ It also excludes ‘‘a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program,’’ unless the regulation ‘‘relates to a then-existing Federal program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, local, and Tribal governments under entitlement authority,’’ if the provision would ‘‘increase the stringency of conditions of assistance’’ or ‘‘place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government’s responsibility to provide funding,’’ and the State, local, or Tribal governments ‘‘lack authority’’ to adjust accordingly. At the time of enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. ‘‘Federal private sector mandate’’ includes a regulation that ‘‘would impose an enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program.’’ The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties. Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat under section 7. While nonFederal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs listed above onto State governments. (2) We do not believe that this rule would significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The lands being proposed for critical habitat designation are predominantly owned by the Bureau E:\FR\FM\03OCP2.SGM 03OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules of Land Management, the Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Military, the U.S. Forest Service, the National Park Service, the State of Arizona, and the Tohono O’odham and Navajo Nations. None of these government entities fit the definition of ‘‘small governmental jurisdiction.’’ Therefore, a Small Government Agency Plan is not required. However, we will further evaluate this issue as we conduct our economic analysis, and review and revise this assessment if appropriate. erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with Takings—Executive Order 12630 In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (Government Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of designating critical ˜ habitat for the acuna cactus and the Fickeisen plains cactus in a takings implications assessment. Critical habitat designation does not affect landowner actions that do not require Federal funding or permits, nor does it preclude development of habitat conservation programs or issuance of incidental take permits to permit actions that do require Federal funding or permits to go forward. The takings implications assessment concludes that this designation of critical habitat for the ˜ acuna cactus and the Fickeisen plains cactus does not pose significant takings implications for lands within or affected by the designation. However, we have not yet completed the economic analysis for this proposed rule. Once the economic analysis is available, we will review and revise this preliminary assessment as warranted, and prepare a takings implication assessment. Federalism—Executive Order 13132 In accordance with Executive Order 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 in Arizona. The designation of critical habitat in areas currently occupied by ˜ the acuna cactus or the Fickeisen plains cactus may impose nominal additional regulatory restrictions to those currently in place and, therefore, may have little incremental impact on State and local governments and their activities. The designation may have some benefit to these governments because the areas that contain the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:23 Oct 02, 2012 Jkt 229001 the species are more clearly defined, and the elements of the features of the habitat necessary to the conservation of the species are specifically identified. This information does not alter where and what federally sponsored activities may occur. However, it may assist local governments in long-range planning (rather than having them wait for caseby-case section 7 consultations to occur). Where State and local governments require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for actions that may affect critical habitat, consultation under section 7(a)(2) would be required. While non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Civil Justice Reform—Executive Order 12988 In accordance with Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We have proposed designating critical habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Act. This proposed rule uses standard property descriptions and identifies the elements of physical or biological features essential to the conservation of ˜ the acuna cactus and the Fickeisen plains cactus within the designated areas to assist the public in understanding the habitat needs of the species. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) This rule does not contain any new collections of information that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This rule will not impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals, businesses, or organizations. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental impact statements, as PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 60565 defined under the authority of NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not be prepared in connection with listing a species as an endangered or a threatened species under the Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). 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 NEPA in connection with designating critical habitat under the Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This position was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)). 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 the ADDRESSES section. 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. 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 E:\FR\FM\03OCP2.SGM 03OCP2 60566 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules 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. There are Tribal lands included in the proposed designation of critical habitat ˜ for the acuna cactus and the Fickeisen plains cactus. Using the criteria found in the Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat section for both species, we have determined that tribal lands that ˜ are occupied by the acuna cactus and the Fickeisen plains cactus contain the features essential for the conservation of both species, as well as tribal lands ˜ unoccupied by the acuna cactus are essential for the conservation of the species. We will seek government-togovernment consultation with these tribes throughout the public comment period and during development of the final designations of critical habitat for ˜ the acuna cactus and Fickeisen plains cactus. We will consider these areas for exclusion from the final critical habitat designation to the extent consistent with the requirements of 4(b)(2) of the Act. The Navajo Nation and the Tohono O’odham Nation are the main tribes affected by this proposed rule. We recently sent a notification letter to the Navajo Nation and the Tohono O’odham Nation describing the exclusion process under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, and we have engaged in conversations with the Tribes about the proposal to the extent possible without disclosing predecisional information. In addition, we have engaged in informal conservations with representatives of the Navajo Nation and the Tohono O’odham Nation during the listing process and so the tribes has been made aware that the Service is working on critical habitat proposals for the two species. We will schedule a meeting with the Navajo Nation and Tohono O’odham Nation and any other interested tribes shortly after publication of this proposed rule so that we can give them as much time as possible to comment. We will also send letters to all other tribes with interest in the general geographical ˜ areas of the acuna cactus and Fickeisen plains cactus range, including the following: Ak Chin Indian Community; Chemehuevi Indian Tribe; Cocopah Tribe; Colorado River Indian Tribes; Havasupai Tribe; Hopi Tribe; Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians; Pascua Yaqui Tribe; Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community; San Carlos Apache Tribe; White Mountain Apache Tribe; YavapaiApache Nation; Yavapai-Prescott Tribe; and Pueblo of Zuni Tribe. References Cited A complete list of references cited in this proposed rulemaking is available on the Internet at https:// www.regulations.gov and upon request from the Arizona Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Authors The primary authors of this package are the staff members of the Arizona Ecological Services Field Office. List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation. 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—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99– 625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted. 2. Amend § 17.12(h) by adding entries for ‘‘Echinomastus erectocentrus var. acunensis’’ and ‘‘Pediocactus peeblesianus var. fickeiseniae’’ in alphabetical order under FLOWERING PLANTS, to the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants, as follows:. § 17.12 * Endangered and threatened plants. * * (h) * * * * Species Historic range Scientific name Family Status When listed Common name * Critical habitat Special rules FLOWERING PLANTS * Echinomastus erectocentrus var. acunensis. * ˜ Acuna cactus .......... * U.S.A. (AZ), Mexico * Cactaceae .............. * E * * Pediocactus peeblesianus var. fickeiseniae. * Fickeisen plains cactus. * U.S.A. (AZ) ............. * Cactaceae .............. * E * * * erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with * * * 3. Amend § 17.96 by adding entries for ‘‘Echinomastus erectocentrus var. ˜ acunensis (acuna cactus) and ‘‘Pediocactus peeblesianus var. fickeiseniae (Fickeisen plains cactus),’’ in alphabetical order under the family Cactaceae, to read as follows. § 17.96 * Critical habitat—plants. (a) Flowering plants. * * * * VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:23 Oct 02, 2012 Jkt 229001 * Family Cactaceae: Echinomastus ˜ erectocentrus var. acunensis (acuna cactus) (1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal Counties, Arizona, on the maps below. (2) Within these areas, the primary constituent elements of the physical or biological features essential to the ˜ conservation of the acuna cactus consist of: PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 * 17.96(a) NA * 17.96(a) NA * (i) Native vegetation within the Paloverde-Cacti-Mixed Scrub Series of the Arizona Upland Subdivision of the Sonoran Desert-scrub at elevations between 365 to 1,150 m (1,198 to 3,773 ft). This vegetation must contain predominantly native plant species that: ˜ a. Provide protection to the acuna cactus. Examples of such plants are creosote bush, ironwood, and palo verde; E:\FR\FM\03OCP2.SGM 03OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules b. Provide for pollinator habitat with a radius of 900 m (2,953 ft) around each ˜ individual, reproducing acuna cactus; c. Allow for seed dispersal through the presence of bare soils immediately adjacent to and within 10 m (32.8 ft) of ˜ individual, reproducing acuna cactus. (ii) Soils overlying rhyolite, andesite, tuff, granite, granodiorite, diorite, or Cornelia quartz monzonite bedrock that are in valley bottoms, on small knolls, or on ridgetops, and are generally on slopes of less than 30 percent. (3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on the effective date of this rule. (4) Critical habitat map units. Digital data layers defining map units were created using geology, topography, elevation, vegetation community, mean annual precipitation from the 1971 to ˜ 2000 period of record, and acuna cactus herbarium and site visit records from 1952 to the present; these were mapped using Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates. The maps in this entry, as modified by any accompanying regulatory text, establish the boundaries 60567 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, (https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/ arizona/), (https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS–RX–ES–2012–0061 and at the field office responsible for this designation. You may obtain field office location information by contacting one of the Service regional offices, the addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR 2.2. (5) Index map follows: BILLING CODE 4310–55–P VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:23 Oct 02, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03OCP2.SGM 03OCP2 EP03OC12.004</GPH> erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with (6) Unit 1: Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Pima County, AZ. Map of Unit 1 follows: 60568 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:23 Oct 02, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03OCP2.SGM 03OCP2 EP03OC12.005</GPH> erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with (7) Unit 2: Ajo Unit, Pima County, AZ. Map of Unit 2 follows: Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:23 Oct 02, 2012 Jkt 229001 of Unit 3 is provided at paragraph (7) of this entry. PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 (9) Unit 4: Sand Tank Mountains Unit, Maricopa County, AZ. Map of Unit 4 follows: E:\FR\FM\03OCP2.SGM 03OCP2 EP03OC12.006</GPH> erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with (8) Unit 3: Sauceda Mountains Unit, Maricopa and Pima Counties, AZ. Map 60569 60570 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:23 Oct 02, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03OCP2.SGM 03OCP2 EP03OC12.007</GPH> erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with (10) Unit 5: Mineral Mountain Unit and Unit, Pinal County, AZ. Map of Units 5 and 6 follows: erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with BILLING CODE 4310–55–P (11) Unit 6: Box O Wash Unit, Pinal County, AZ. Map of Unit 6 is provided at paragraph (10) of this entry. Family Cactaceae: Pediocactus peeblesianus var. fickeiseniae (Fickeisen plains cactus) (1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Mohave and Coconino Counties, Arizona, on the maps below. VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:23 Oct 02, 2012 Jkt 229001 (2) Within these areas, the primary constituent elements of the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the Fickeisen plains cactus consist of: (i) Soils in northern Arizona on the Colorado Plateau that are: a. Formed from alluvium, colluvium, or Aeolian deposits; PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 60571 b. Derived from limestone of the Harrisburg member of the Kaibab Formation and Toroweap Formation; c. Underlain with Coconino Sandstone, and sandstone and mudstone of the Moenkopi Formation; d. At an elevation of 1,310 to 1,813 m (4,200 to 5,950 ft); e. Are gravelly-loam, fine-textured, well drained, and shallow; E:\FR\FM\03OCP2.SGM 03OCP2 EP03OC12.008</GPH> Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules 60572 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with f. On terraces, benches, tops of mesas and plateaus, toe-slope of hills with a 0 to 20 percent slope; g. Supportive of biological soil crusts; h. Within the Plains and Great Basin grassland and Great Basin desert scrub vegetation communities; (ii) Native vegetation in areas that have natural, generally intact surface and subsurface features that provide habitat and suitable nesting substrate for VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:23 Oct 02, 2012 Jkt 229001 the cactus’ pollinators and space for seed dispersal and germination; and (iii) Provide for pollinator habitat with a radius of 1,000 m (3,280 ft) around each individual, reproducing Fickeisen plains cactus. (3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the land on which they are located existing within the legal PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 boundaries on the effective date of this rule. (4) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining map units were created using a base of U.S. Geological Survey 7.5’ quadrangle maps. Critical habitat units were then mapped using Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) zone 11, North American Datum (NAD) 1983 coordinates. (5) Note: Index map follows: BILLING CODE 4310–55–P E:\FR\FM\03OCP2.SGM 03OCP2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules 60573 VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:23 Oct 02, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03OCP2.SGM 03OCP2 EP03OC12.009</GPH> erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with (6) Unit 1: Hurricane Cliffs Unit, Mohave County, AZ. Map of Unit 1 follows: 60574 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:23 Oct 02, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03OCP2.SGM 03OCP2 EP03OC12.010</GPH> erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with (7) Unit 2: Sunshine Ridge Unit, Mohave County, AZ. Map of Units 2 and 3 follow: Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:23 Oct 02, 2012 Jkt 229001 (9) Unit 4: Snake Gulch Unit, Coconino County, AZ. Map of Unit 4 follows: PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03OCP2.SGM 03OCP2 EP03OC12.011</GPH> erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with (8) Unit 3: Clayhole Valley Unit, Mohave County, AZ. Map of Unit 3 is provided at paragraph (7) of this entry. 60575 60576 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:23 Oct 02, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03OCP2.SGM 03OCP2 EP03OC12.012</GPH> erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with (10) Unit 5: House Rock Valley Unit, Coconino County, AZ. Maps of Unit 5 and 6 follows: Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:23 Oct 02, 2012 Jkt 229001 (12) Unit 7: Little Colorado River Overlook Unit, Coconino County, AZ. Map of Units 7 and 8 follows: PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03OCP2.SGM 03OCP2 EP03OC12.013</GPH> erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with (11) Unit 6: Tiger Wash Unit, Coconino County, AZ. Map of Unit 6 is provided at paragraph (10) of this entry. 60577 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with (13) Unit 8: Gray Mountain Unit, Coconino County, AZ. Map of Unit 8 is provided at paragraph (12) of this entry. VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:23 Oct 02, 2012 Jkt 229001 (14) Unit 9: Cataract Canyon Unit, Coconino County, AZ. Map of Unit 9 follows: PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03OCP2.SGM 03OCP2 EP03OC12.014</GPH> 60578 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules * * * * 60579 Dated: September 17, 2012. Michael J. Bean, Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. * [FR Doc. 2012–23853 Filed 10–2–12; 8:45 am] VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:23 Oct 02, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\03OCP2.SGM 03OCP2 EP03OC12.015</GPH> erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with BILLING CODE 4310–55–C

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 192 (Wednesday, October 3, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 60509-60579]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-23853]

[[Page 60509]]

Vol. 77

Wednesday,

No. 192

October 3, 2012

Part II

Department of the Interior

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

Fish and Wildlife Service

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

50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding for the
Lemmon Fleabane; Endangered Status for the Acu[ntilde]a Cactus and the
Fickeisen Plains Cactus and Designation of Critical Habitat; Proposed
Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 77 , No. 192 / Wednesday, October 3, 2012 /
Proposed Rules

[[Page 60510]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2012-0061; 4500030113]
RIN 1018-AY51

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding
for the Lemmon Fleabane; Endangered Status for the Acu[ntilde]a Cactus
and the Fickeisen Plains Cactus and Designation of Critical Habitat

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; 12-month finding.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
12-month finding on a petition to list as an endangered or threatened
species Erigeron lemmonii (Lemmon fleabane). After a review of the best
available scientific information we find that listing the Lemmon
fleabane as an endangered or threatened species is no longer warranted,
and therefore we are removing this species from the candidate list. We
propose to list Echinomastus erectocentrus var. acunensis (acu[ntilde]a
cactus) and Pediocactus peeblesianus var. fickeiseniae (Fickeisen
plains cactus) as an endangered species, and we propose to designate
critical habitat for both cactus species under the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (Act). If finalized, the effect of these
regulations would be to add acu[ntilde]a cactus and Fickeisen plains
cactus to the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants and to designate
critical habitat for these species.

DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before
December 3, 2012. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES section, below) must be received by
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date. We must receive requests
for public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by November 19, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Keyword box, enter Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-
2012-0061, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, in the
Search panel on the left side of the screen, under the Document Type
heading, click on the Proposed Rules link to locate this document. You
may submit a comment by clicking on ``Comment Now!''
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R2-ES-2012-0061; Division of Policy and
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax
Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described
above. We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see the Information Requested section below for more information).
The coordinates or plot points or both from which the critical
habitat maps are generated are included in the administrative record
for this rulemaking and are available at https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/, https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2012-
0061, and at the Arizona Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Any additional tools or supporting
information that we may develop for this rulemaking will also be
available at the Fish and Wildlife Service Web site and Field Office
set out above, and may also be included in the preamble and/or at
www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Spangle, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological Services Field Office,
2321 W. Royal Palm Road, Suite 103, Phoenix, AZ 85021; telephone (602)
242-0210; facsimile (602) 242-2513. Persons who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended a species may warrant protection through listing if it
is an endangered or threatened species throughout all or a significant
portion of its range. The Act sets forth procedures for adding species
to, removing species from, or reclassifying species on the Federal
Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. This document
consists of a 12-month not-warranted finding and withdrawal of Erigeron
lemmonii (Lemmon fleabane) from the candidate list, and a proposed rule
to list Echinomastus erectocentrus var. acunensis (acu[ntilde]a cactus)
and Pediocactus peeblesianus var. fickeiseniae (Fickeisen plains
cactus) as endangered species and to designate critical habitat. For
the remainder of this document, these species will be referred to by
their common names.
The Endangered Species Act provides the basis for our action. Under
the Act, we can determine that a species is an endangered or threatened
species based on 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 Lemmon fleabane does no longer warrant
listing. Through our five factor analysis, we have determined that the
previously recognized threats to the Lemmon fleabane do not rise to a
level of significance such that the species is in danger of extinction
now or likely to become so in the foreseeable future.
We have determined that the following are threats to the
acu[ntilde]a cactus:
United States--Mexico border activities including
inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms, and
Predation by native insect and small mammal predators, in
combination with other natural or manmade factors, including natural
environmental variability and climate conditions such as drought.
We have determined that the following are threats to the Fickeisen
plains cactus:
Livestock grazing;
Nonnative, invasive species; and
Predation by native small mammal predators, in combination
with other natural or manmade factors, including natural environmental
variability and climate conditions such as drought.
This rule also proposes designation of critical habitat for both
species. Under the Act, we must, to the maximum extent prudent and
determinable, designate critical habitat for any species that is
determined to be an endangered or threatened species. We are required
to base the designation on the best available scientific data after
taking into consideration economic and other impacts. We can exclude an
area from critical habitat if the benefits of exclusion outweigh the
benefits of designation, unless the exclusion will result in the
extinction of the species. In total, we are proposing approximately
21,740 hectares (ha) (53,720 acres (ac)) for designation as critical
habitat for

[[Page 60511]]

acu[ntilde]a cactus (Table 1) and approximately 19,901 ha (49,186 ac)
for the Fickeisen plains cactus (Table 2). The proposed critical
habitat for acu[ntilde]a cactus is located in Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal
Counties, Arizona. The proposed critical habitat for the Fickeisen
plains cactus is in Coconino and Mohave Counties, Arizona.

Table 1--Proposed Critical Habitat for the Acu[ntilde]a Cactus
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal State Tribal Private Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ha (Ac) Ha (Ac) Ha (Ac) Ha (Ac) Ha (Ac)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11,953 5,773 2,256 1,757 21,740
(29,536) (14,266) (5,575) (4,342) (53,720)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 2--Proposed Critical Habitat for the Fickeisen Plains Cactus
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal State Tribal Private Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ha (Ac) Ha (Ac) Ha (Ac) Ha (Ac) Ha (Ac)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6,671 5,617 3,865 3,748 19,901
(16,486) (13,883) (9,554) (9,263) (49,186)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We are preparing an economic analysis. To ensure that we consider
the economic impacts of designating critical habitat, we are preparing
an economic analysis of the proposed designation.
We will seek peer review of the methods we used in our proposal. We
are seeking comments from independent specialists to ensure that our
proposal is based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and
analyses.
We are seeking public comment on this proposed rule. Anyone is
welcome to comment on our proposal or provide additional information on
the proposal that we can use in making a final determination on the
status of these 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) These species' biology, range, and population trends,
including:
(a) Habitat requirements for pollination, reproduction, and
dispersal;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range including distribution patterns;
(d) Historical and current population levels, and current and
projected trends; and (e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for
these species, their habitat or both.
(2) The factors that are the basis for making a listing
determination for a species under section 4(a) of the Act (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.), which are:
(a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of their 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 their continued
existence.
(3) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning
any threats (or lack thereof) to these 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 these species,
including the locations of any additional populations of these species.
(5) Any information on the biological or ecological requirements of
the species, and ongoing conservation measures for the species and its
habitat;
(6) 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 whether there are threats to these species from human
activity, the degree of which can be expected to increase due to the
designation, and whether that increase in threats outweighs the benefit
of designation such that the designation of critical habitat is not
prudent.
(7) Specific information on:
(a) The amount and distribution of these species and their habitat;
(b) What may constitute ``physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of these species,'' within the geographical range
currently occupied by these species;
(c) Where these features are currently found;
(d) Whether any of these features may require special management
considerations or protection;
(e) What areas, that were occupied at the time of listing (or are
currently occupied) and that contain features essential to the
conservation of these species, should be included in the designation
and why;
(f) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential
for the conservation of these species and why.
(8) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the
areas occupied by these species or proposed to be designated as
critical habitat, and possible impacts of these activities on these
species and proposed critical habitat.
(9) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of
climate change on these species and proposed critical habitat.
(10) Any foreseeable economic, national security, or other relevant
impacts that may result from designating any area that may be included
in the final designation. We are particularly interested in any impacts
on small entities, and the benefits of including or excluding areas
from the proposed designation that are subject to these impacts.
(11) Whether our approach to designating critical habitat could be
improved or modified in any way to provide for greater public
participation and understanding, or to assist us in

[[Page 60512]]

accommodating public concerns and comments.
(12) The likelihood of adverse social reactions to the designation
of critical habitat and how the consequences of such reactions, if
likely to occur, would relate to the conservation and regulatory
benefits of the proposed critical habitat designations.
(13) Information on certain populations of Fickeisen plains cactus.
Specifically, there are eight populations where the Fickeisen plains
cactus has been documented, but these areas have not been visited in
over 18 years. Five populations are located on the Arizona Strip and
are referred to as: Beanhole Well, Marble Canyon, Salaratus Draw, South
Canyon, and Toquer Tank. The sixth population is located in proximity
to Mays Wash that is south of the Town of Gray Mountain among Federal,
State, and private lands. The last two populations are on the Navajo
Nation. These eight areas are proposed as critical habitat for the
Fickeisen plains cactus. We are seeking any information on specific
population status of the Fickeisen plains cactus at these locations,
whether these locations are currently occupied and contain the features
essential to the conservation of the species, and the condition of the
habitat.
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 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 the ADDRESSES section. We request
that you send comments only by the methods described in the ADDRESSES
section.
If you submit information via https://www.regulations.gov, your
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will
be posted on the Web site. 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 https://www.regulations.gov.
Please include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Organization of Document

The layout of this rule is as follows: The 12-month not-warranted
petition finding and candidate withdrawal for the Lemmon fleabane; the
proposed listing of the acu[ntilde]a cactus and the Fickeisen plains
cactus; the proposed critical habitat for the acu[ntilde]a cactus and
the Fickeisen plains cactus.

12-Month Petition Finding and Candidate Withdrawal for the Lemmon
Fleabane

This section summarizes the status and potential threats that we
evaluated in order to determine that listing Lemmon fleabane is not-
warranted and to remove it from candidate status. Additional material
that we relied on is available in the Species Assessment and Listing
Priority Assignment Form for Lemmon fleabane. This form is available on
our national endangered species Web site: https://www.fws.gov/endangered/ (search for ``Lemmon fleabane'' in the Species Search box).
On July 1, 1975 (40 FR 27824), the Lemmon fleabane was included
among 3,000 plant species under status review. We first identified the
Lemmon fleabane as a category 1 candidate species on September 30, 1993
(58 FR 51144). Candidates are those fish, wildlife, and plants for
which we have on file sufficient information on biological
vulnerability and threats to support preparation of a listing proposal,
but for which development of a listing regulation is precluded by other
higher priority listing activities. Candidate species were assigned a
relative listing priority number in accordance with listing priority
guidelines published on September 21, 1983 (48 FR 43098). On the basis
of immediacy and magnitude of threats, as well as taxonomic status, we
assigned the Lemmon fleabane a listing priority number (LPN) of 11,
which is assigned when threats are of moderate to low magnitude and
non-imminent. On October 25, 1999, we changed the LPN to a 5 to reflect
threats that are of high magnitude but non-imminent, based on the
threat of high severity fire and drought (64 FR 57534). Later, we
decided a wildfire or drought would not adversely affect the entire
population; therefore, on September 12, 2006, we changed the LPN to an
8, reflecting threats that are of moderate to low magnitude and
imminence (71 FR 53756), and this LPN remained in effect until the last
Candidate Notice of Review in 2011 (76 FR 66370, October 26, 2011). We
now find that listing this species is not-warranted, and we are
withdrawing this species from candidate status because the previously
recognized threats to the Lemmon fleabane do not rise to the level of
significance such that the species is in danger of extinction now or
likely to become so in the foreseeable future. Our rationale is
explained below.
The Lemmon fleabane is a tap-rooted perennial plant of the aster
family (Nesom 2006, p. 342). The Lemmon fleabane occurs in crevices and
ledges, on all aspects of tall, vertical-faced, and very cuspid
(pointed) Escabrosa limestone cliffs of a single canyon, Scheelite
Canyon, on Fort Huachuca on Department of Defense lands, in Cochise
County, Arizona (Warren et al. 1991, p. 5; Malusa 2006, pp. 9-11). The
habitat occurs over an area of approximately 50 ha (124 ac), and, as of
2006, the population is estimated to support 954 individuals (Malusa
2006, p. 9).
The primary threat previously identified for the Lemmon fleabane
was high severity wildfire, a phenomenon outside of the established
fire history for the forests of the Huachuca Mountains. Scheelite
Canyon is a narrow, shady, bedrock-laden cold-air-drainage, with higher
humidity and cooler temperatures than surrounding areas; these factors
aid in limiting the spread of severe fire within the canyon (Turner and
Romme 1994, p. 59; Gebow and Hessil 2006, p. 21; Werth et al. 2011, p.
27). In addition, Scheelite Canyon is a southeast to northwest
configured canyon that blocks prevailing southwesterly wind. Strong
southwesterly wind was a necessary component in the unusual fire
behavior documented in recent high severity fires of the Huachuca
Mountains, where southwest to northeast configured canyons burned
downslope and burned very hot (Leiendecker 2012, pers. comm.).
Although Scheelite Canyon currently contains a woody fuel load,
fire experts believe the Lemmon fleabane itself is relatively safe from
fire (Gebow and Hessil 2006, p. 51; Leiendecker 2012, pers. comm.).
Recent documentation of two other rare, cliff-dwelling Erigeron species
of the Chiricahua Mountains of

[[Page 60513]]

southern Arizona indicates that plants growing in cracks within the
rockwall may be both resistant and resilient to high severity fire
(Malusa 2012, pers. comm.). In the unlikely event of a catastrophic
fire within Scheelite Canyon, it would be extremely unlikely that every
Lemmon fleabane plant would be extirpated. This is because Lemmon
fleabane plants occur on all aspects of rock face, on both sides of the
canyon including the entrances of small tributaries, and at all
elevations on the canyon wall from the canyon bottom upwards nearly 305
meters (m) (1,000 feet (ft)) to the top of the canyon walls.
In summary, there is a very small probability that Scheelite Canyon
will sustain a catastrophic fire in the future due to the southeast to
northwest aspect of the canyon in the landscape; its humid, shady, and
cool nature; and the presence of exposed rock outcroppings throughout
the canyon lending to a discontinuous fuel load. Should such a fire
occur, it would threaten individual plants exposed to flame and heat
(Gebow and Hessil 2006, p. 85); however, due to the plants occurring in
a variety of locations within the canyon, it is unlikely that all
plants would be affected.
Recreational rappelling was noted as a minor threat to the Lemmon
fleabane; however, we conclude that there is a very low probability of
this type of activity taking place in Scheelite Canyon because
recreational rappelling is not allowed by Fort Huachuca. Further, if
unauthorized rappelling were to occur, the damage to Lemmon fleabane
plants would be insignificant at the population level.
In addition to fire and rappelling posing less of a threat to the
Lemmon fleabane than previously believed, several conservation measures
have recently occurred or are being planned. Although we did not rely
on these conservation measures to make our not-warranted finding, they
are underway and will benefit the Lemmon fleabane now and into the
future. In 2011, the Desert Botanical Garden collected hundreds of
viable Lemmon fleabane seeds for long-term storage. This collection and
future-planned seed collection by the Desert Botanical Garden may help
offset impacts to the species in the event of a devastating wildfire
and habitat loss. In addition, the U.S. Forest Service is currently
working with Fort Huachuca to reduce fire potential at a landscape
level throughout the district and on Fort Huachuca itself (Leiendecker
2012, pers. comm.). Finally, Fort Huachuca and the Service are drafting
a conservation agreement which, once signed, will: (a) Ensure the
continued monitoring of the Lemmon fleabane population and promote
adaptive management based on monitoring results; (b) continue the
restrictions on recreational activities in Lemmon fleabane habitat; and
(c) encourage further research into the species' life history,
population biology and demographics, and distribution.
Through our five-factor analysis, we have discounted any threats to
the species and conclude there are no significant threats to the Lemmon
fleabane. We, therefore, conclude that the previously recognized
threats to the Lemmon fleabane do not rise to a level of significance
such that the species is in danger of extinction now or in the
foreseeable future. Additionally, we are not aware of any other
potential stressors or threats that may impact the species or its
habitat by itself or in combination, including the potential
environmental effects that may result from climate change. Current and
planned conservation measures will also benefit the Lemmon fleabane,
although we are not relying on these conservation actions as the basis
for our not-warranted finding. As a result, we have removed this
species from the candidate list.

Acu[ntilde]a Cactus and Fickeisen Plains Cactus

Previous Federal Actions

On July 1, 1975 (40 FR 27824), we published a Review of Status of
Vascular Plants identifying the acu[ntilde]a cactus and the Fickeisen
plains cactus as among 3,000 native plant taxa being reviewed for
possible inclusion in the list of endangered and threatened species. On
December 15, 1980, we published a Review of Plant Taxa for Listing as
Endangered or Threatened Species and identified the Fickeisen plains
cactus as category 1 species (45 FR 82480). Category 1 species were
those taxa for which we had on file substantial information on
biological vulnerability and threats to support proposing them as
endangered or threatened species. The acu[ntilde]a cactus was not
included in the 1980 notice. Both the acu[ntilde]a cactus and the
Fickeisen plains cactus were included in the February 21, 1990, notice
(55 FR 6184) as category 1 species.
In the September 30, 1993, notice (58 FR 51144) candidate species
were assigned a status category indicating their status at that time.
Each species was identified as increasing (I), stable (S), declining
(D), or unknown (U). The 1993 notice identified the acu[ntilde]a cactus
and the Fickeisen plains cactus as category 1-U: unknown, denoting
species for which additional survey work is required to determine
current trends.
We discontinued the use of a category system in the February 28,
1996, notice (61 FR 7596) and simply referred to category 1 species as
candidate species. The acu[ntilde]a cactus and Fickeisen plains cactus
were both assigned an LPN of 6, due to the high magnitude of threats
which were non-imminent. We published four Candidate Notice of Reviews
between 1997 and 2003, in which the acu[ntilde]a cactus and the
Fickeisen plains cactus remained candidate species with an LPN of 6 (62
FR 49398, September 19, 1997; 64 FR 57534, October 25, 1999; 66 FR
54808, October 30, 2001; 67 FR 40657, June 13, 2002).
On October 30, 2002, we received a petition from the Center for
Biological Diversity to list the acu[ntilde]a cactus as an endangered
species under the provisions of the Act. On May 4, 2004, the Center for
Biological Diversity petitioned the Service to list the acu[ntilde]a
cactus and the Fickeisen plains cactus as an endangered species under
the Act. Because these species were already candidates for listing, we
did not issue findings on the petition. In the Candidate Notice of
Review dated September 12, 2006 (71 FR 53756), we revised the LPN of
the Fickeisen plains cactus from 6 to 3 based on direct mortality and
reduced reproductive capacity resulting from off-road vehicle (ORV)
use, trampling associated with livestock grazing, a continuing drought,
and herbivory by rabbits and rodents. We also acknowledged that
unauthorized collection of the Fickeisen plains cactus was a potential
threat but we did not know at that time whether it was a continuing
threat. In the notice of December 6, 2007 (72 FR 69034), we revised the
LPN of the acu[ntilde]a cactus from 6 to 3 based on continued decline
of the species caused by ongoing drought. An LPN of 3 reflects threats
that are both imminent and high in magnitude, as well as the taxonomic
classification as a subspecies. In plant classification generally, the
use of the term variety, such as is used in the plants in this rule, is
synonymous with the term subspecies. In the notice of October 26, 2011
(76 FR 66370), we retained an LPN of 3 for both species.

Background

For each of the two cactus species, we provide a description of the
species, its life history, its habitat, an evaluation of listing
factors for that species, and our finding for the species.

[[Page 60514]]

Acu[ntilde]a Cactus

It is our intent to discuss below only those topics directly
relevant to the listing of the acu[ntilde]a cactus as an endangered
species in this section of the proposed rule.
Species Description
The acu[ntilde]a cactus is a small, spherical cactus, usually
single-stemmed, that can be up to 40 centimeters (cm) (16 inches (in))
tall and 9 cm (3.5 in) wide (Arizona Rare Plant Guide Committee 2001,
unpaginated; Zimmerman and Parfitt 2003, pp. 194-195). The acu[ntilde]a
cactus has 11 to 15 radial spines up to 2.5 cm (1.0 in) long and 3 to 4
mauve-colored, up-turned central spines up to 3.5 cm (1.4 in) long
(Arizona Rare Plant Guide Committee 2001, unpaginated; Zimmerman and
Parfitt 2003, pp. 194-195). Rose, pink, or lavender flowers 3.6 to 6 by
4 to 9 cm (1.4 to 2.3 by 1.6 to 3.5 in) are produced in March (Arizona
Rare Plant Guide Committee 2001, unpaginated; Zimmerman and Parfitt
2003, pp. 194-195). The fruits are pale green, are 1.25 cm (0.5 in)
long, and contain small, nearly black seeds (Felger 2000, p. 208). The
fruits ripen in April (Arizona Rare Plant Guide Committee 2001,
unpaginated).
Biology
The acu[ntilde]a cactus relies solely on the production of seeds
for reproduction, with pollination highly linked to survival, as the
species cannot fertilize itself. Acu[ntilde]a cacti are pollinated by a
suite of bees from the Andrenidae, Anthophoridae, Anthophorinae,
Halictidae, and Megachilidae families; however, the leafcutter bee
(Megachile palmensis) and cactus bee (Diadasia rinconis) are thought to
be the primary pollinators (Johnson 1992, p. 406). The maximum distance
that either of these bees travel is thought to be roughly 900 m (2,953
ft) (see Critical Habitat section, below).
Although we do not know the lifespan of acu[ntilde]a cacti, there
are individual plants that have been tracked at Organ Pipe Cactus
National Monument (OPCNM) since 1977, and are still alive in 2012 (Holm
2012a, pers. comm.). The lifespan of seeds in the seedbank is unknown;
however, in independent greenhouse tests of 6 and 4 year-old seed
collected from two discrete populations, less than 19 percent and zero
percent germination resulted, respectfully (Rutman 2007, p. 7). In
tests of 1 and 2 year-old seed, germination ranged from 64 to 100
percent, and tests of seed collected 19 days previously resulted in 82
percent germination (Rutman 2007, p. 7). It is unknown if seed in its
natural environment has the same short lifespan as has been
demonstrated in these germination trials.
Taxonomy
This species was originally described in 1953 by W.T. Marshall as
Echinomastus acunensis (Marshall 1953, pp. 33-34). It is known by many
synonyms, including Sclerocactus erectocentrus var. acunensis (Coulter)
Taylor and Neolloydia erectocentra (W.T. Marshall) var. acunensis L.
Benson (Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) 2004, p. 1). The
Cactaceae treatment in the Flora of North America (Zimmerman and
Parfitt 2003, pp. 194-195) recognizes the entity as E. erectocentrus
var. acunensis. The other variety, E. erectocentrus var. erectocentrus
(needle-spine cactus), is also recognized as a valid taxon in the Flora
of North America. The two varieties are generally considered to be
morphologically distinct and geographically isolated, but there have
been questions regarding the morphology of some individuals (AGFD 2004,
p. 6). To address those concerns, the Service funded a project to
analyze the morphological distinctness of the two varieties, which was
completed in January 2007. The results of this study suggest that there
are four distinct taxonomic groups, including the separation of variety
acunensis and variety erectocentrus (Baker 2007, pp. 19-21), and we
concur with the study results. Therefore, the acu[ntilde]a cactus and
the needle-spine cactus are valid and distinct taxa separated
morphologically and geographically. Baker (2007, p. 20) recommended
nomenclatural changes, based on the International Rules of Botanical
nomenclature, but formal name changes were not proposed in his study.
Again, we refer to the taxonomy determined by the Flora of North
America.
Habitat
The acu[ntilde]a cactus occurs in valleys and on small knolls and
gravel ridges of up to 30 percent slope in the Palo-Verde-Saguaro
Association of the Arizona Upland subdivision of the Sonoran Desert
scrub at 365 to 1,150 m (1,198 to 3,773 ft) in elevation (Phillips et
al. 1982, p. 4; Arizona Rare Plant Guide Committee 2001, unpaginated;
AGFD 2011, entire). This species grows on soil overlying various
bedrock types including extrusive felsic volcanic rocks of rhyolite,
andesite, and tuff, and intrusive igneous rocks composed of granite,
granodiorite, diorite, and Cornelia quartz monzonite; Locomotive
fanglomerate (sedimentary rock consisting of heterogeneous fragments of
all sizes deposited in an alluvial fan and later consolidated) is also
locally present (Rutman 2007, pp. 1-2; Anderson 2012a, pers. comm.).
Mineralogy of these rocks is varied, with felsic or mafic phenocrysts
present, depending on bedrock type (Rutman 2007, pp. 1-2; Anderson
2012a, pers. comm.). Soil texture in these locations varies between
bedrock and both coarse- and fine-textured substrates (Rutman 2007, pp.
1-2). Associated plant species include Larrea tridentata var.
tridentata (creosote bush), Olneya tesota (ironwood), Cercidium
microphyllum (palo verde), Ambrosia deltoidea (triangle-leaf bursage),
and Acacia greggii (catclaw). The acu[ntilde]a cactus is often noted
growing under the protective canopy of these or other associated
species (Phillips et al. 1982, p. 6; Butterwick 1982-1992, entire;
Felger 2000, p. 208; Service 2011a, p. 1; Service 2011b, p. 3), which
may act as nurse plants, thereby sheltering seedlings from extreme
temperatures and providing some protection from mechanical disturbance
(Nobel 1984, p. 316; Suz[aacute]n et al. 1996, p. 635).
Distribution and Range
The acu[ntilde]a cactus populations are known from Maricopa, Pima,
and Pinal Counties in Arizona and from Sonora, Mexico (AGFD 2004, p.
2). In western Pima County, plants are known from the Puerto Blanco
Mountains and adjacent Aguajita Wash and in the foothills of the
Growler Mountains south of Dripping Spring on National Park Service
(NPS) lands within OPCNM; from the Sauceda Mountains on Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) lands; from Department of Defense military lands on
the Barry M. Goldwater Gunnery Range (BMGR); and from private lands
near Ajo. There is an unconfirmed report of acu[ntilde]a cactus
individuals occurring on Tohono O'odham lands in the vicinity of known
populations on BLM and BMGR lands; however this has not been verified
(Howe 2012, pers. comm.). In Maricopa County, the acu[ntilde]a cactus
is known from the Sand Tank Mountains on BLM lands within the Sonoran
Desert National Monument. In Pinal County, plants are known from
Mineral Mountain on BLM, State, and private lands. In Sonora, Mexico,
the acu[ntilde]a cactus occurs on Reserva de la Biosfera El Pinacate y
Gran Desierto de Altar (Pinacate Biosphere Reserve) and private ejido
(ranch) lands. Available information indicates that the current range
of this species does not differ from the historical range, with the
exception that the current Ajo populations likely had been part of a
larger population that

[[Page 60515]]

occurred before mining activity began there (Rutman 1996b, pers. comm.;
Rutman 2007, p. 7). However, there are no survey records for this
species in the area prior to mining activity.
Abundance and Trends
As the number of dead individuals documented within acu[ntilde]a
cactus populations has increased greatly since study began in the 1970s
(when tracking first began), it is important to track the number of
healthy, unhealthy, and dead individuals. This not only allows us to
document trends in total plant numbers, but can help in our
understanding of the cause and extent of mortality.
Federal Land--Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument (OPCNM)
There is one large area of approximately 1,326 ha (3,277 ac) within
OPCNM that contains as many as 2,000 acu[ntilde]a cactus individuals
(Rutman 2011, pers. comm.; AGFD 2011, entire). In 1981, this population
was estimated to contain 10,000 individuals (Buskirk 1981, p. 3).
Within this area, two 20-by 50-m (66-by 164-ft) permanent monitoring
plots were established in 1977, with the aim of investigating growth,
mortality, and recruitment of this species. Between 1977 and 1981,
there was 31 percent mortality in the plots (Phillips and Buskirk 1982,
p. 2). Two more plots were added in 1983, and two more in 1988. From
1988 through 1991, the population was thought to be stable or
increasing (Johnson et al. 1993, p. 172). From 1993 through 2011,
annual mortality was variable, but exceeded recruitment in most years
(NPS 2011a, p. 2). In 2011, the total number of individuals recorded in
all six plots was 39 adults and 10 juveniles, showing little change
since 2010. This however represents a marked decrease since their peak
in 1991, when 446 individuals were recorded in the plots, 221 of which
were juveniles (Holm 2006, p. 9; NPS 2011a, entire).
In order to verify the identification and location of plants,
specimens are collected, pressed, and placed on sheets that are stored
in herbaria. A 1952 herbarium collection from a second location within
OPCNM is evidence that a second disjunct population of the acu[ntilde]a
cactus occurred historically within OPCNM. Current NPS staff were
unaware of this herbarium collection, and the site, reported to be
within 3 m (10 ft) of the U.S.-Mexico border, has not been revisited
since 1952. Site visits in this area are currently considered
dangerous, and therefore no efforts have been made to confirm the
location of the population; we do not know if the population exists at
this location.
Federal Land--Bureau of Land Management
Sauceda Mountains--Within the Coffeepot Area of Critical
Environmental Concern (ACEC), there are several small acu[ntilde]a
cactus populations, each on less than 2 ha (5 ac) of land.
In 1982, the BLM (Phoenix District) established three 20-by 50-m
(66-by 164-ft) monitoring plots on Coffeepot Mountain. These plots were
visited, and data were collected periodically between 1982 and 1992. In
1982, 157 living and 3 dead plants were found within plots. Over the
years of study, many new recruits were found; however, there was also
ongoing mortality with newly dead individuals documented each year. A
census of individuals from both within and nearby the plots in 1987
found 310 living and 332 dead plants (Rutman et al. 1987, p. 2). BLM
staff reported a precipitous decline of this population in 1989
(Johnson 1989, p. 1). By the last monitoring visit to the plots in
1992, 150 plants were recorded dead, 22 plants were recorded missing
and presumed dead, and 150 plants remained that were either healthy or
in some stage of decline (Butterwick 1982-1992, entire). A note to the
files in 1991 stated that many individual plants were missing, dead, or
dying, and that there appeared to be little regeneration in this
population (BLM 1991, p. 1). The plots have not been formally measured
since 1992, but the BLM has visited this site 21 times since then to
assess general health and threats to the population. Field notes by the
BLM botanist in 2007 mentioned that the number of living individuals in
and near these plots had been reduced by half since the 2006 site visit
(Anderson 2011, p. 2). Because no population estimates were made during
either year, it is difficult to know how many plants survive in and
around these plots. Field notes do indicate that few juveniles were
seen in 2008, and no juveniles were seen in 2009; no mention of
juveniles was made in 2010 or 2011 (Anderson 2011, p. 2).
In 2006, a second population, estimated to be between 50 and 100
individuals, was located 1.2 kilometers (km) (0.75 miles (mi))
northwest of the Coffeepot Mountain monitoring plots in Ryans Canyon
(Rutman 2006, p. 2). Rutman (2006, entire) did not mention size class
or health of this population. This site has not been revisited.
A third population was discovered in 2006, 1.4 km (0.87 mi) to the
northeast of the Coffeepot Mountain monitoring plots. Approximately 30
acu[ntilde]a cacti were noted there at the time; 25 percent mortality
was reported one year later (Anderson 2011, p. 1). An October 2011 site
visit by Service and BLM botanists revealed 23 adult and 2 juvenile
living and 15 dead plants at this location (Service 2011a, p. 3). A
fourth population was discovered by the BLM in March 2011, in a
location near the third population; 10 plants were noted. No
indications were given as to the age class structure or health of this
population (Anderson 2011, entire).
At a site BLM calls Little Ajo Mountains, southeast of the New
Cornelia Mine on less than 0.4 ha (1 ac), the population has fluctuated
from 5 plants in 1997, to 7 plants in 2001, to 7 plants in 2006, to 11
plants in 2007, to 7 plants in 2008, and finally to 12 plants
(including 5 very small plants) in 2011 (Rutman 2006, p. 2; Anderson
2011, entire; Service 2011a, p. 1).
Sonoran Desert National Monument--In 2006, approximately 200
individuals were reported from the Sand Tank Mountains in an area less
than 25 ha (61.8 ac) in size. In 2007, the site was revisited, and four
groups of individuals accounting for 125 of the approximately 200
individuals were mapped (Anderson 2012b, pers. comm.; Anderson 2011, p.
2). No indications were given as to the age class, structure, or health
of this population (Anderson 2011, entire).
Mineral Mountain--There are 3 individual acu[ntilde]a cacti growing
on BLM land adjacent to 30 living plants and 22 dead plants on State
lands. This population is discussed collectively below under State
lands.
Federal Land--Barry M. Goldwater Gunnery Range
In 1997, a single adult individual was reported from just north and
outside of the populations in the Coffeepot ACEC (Geraghty et al. 1997,
p. 5) within Department of Defense (DOD) managed lands on the Barry M.
Goldwater Gunnery Range (BMGR); this site has not been revisited.
State Land
Mineral Mountain--Plants were collected by Hart in 1992, from the
population straddling BLM and State land east of Florence (University
of Arizona Herbarium 2011, entire). There were no details of the number
of individuals seen, just a map with three locations. In the 1990s, the
BLM revisited this site and estimated 100 individuals scattered across
3 ridgelines (Service 2008a, p. 1). In 2008, the Service and BLM
searched this area. The Service and BLM found fewer than 20 living and
many dead plants; no young plants were seen. In 2011, the

[[Page 60516]]

Service and BLM botanists revisited the location and found 30 living
and 22 dead plants scattered across 4 adjacent ridgelines on less than
5 ha (12.4 ac) of land; no juveniles were found (Service 2011b, p. 1).
Ninety-Six Hills--This population is in the vicinity of Florence on
less than 1 ha (2.47 ac) of land. Parfit (1977, p. 1) noted that plants
here were common, but very localized. Many plants of various ages and
sizes were noted, as well as many dead plants. Engard (1977, p. 1)
noted many seedlings and mature plants and also that the plants were
abundant locally. Rutman and Krausman (1988, p. 1) found 29 live plants
and 6 dead plants in a 2-hour survey in the same general area. Breslin
(2008, pp. 3-5) reported that in over 60 hours of survey effort in the
area he had located 45 plants, 1 seedling, and 17 dead plants. On March
20, 2008, the Service plant ecologist found 11 live plants and 10 dead
plants in a 3-hour survey. In the same general area, C. Butterworth
(2008, pers. comm.) found 32 live plants, of various sizes, except
seedlings. He noted that seedlings were very noticeably absent. A 2011
2-hour survey by three Service and BLM botanists revealed no living and
two dead adults in this same general area (Service 2011b, p. 3).
Because this population was not mapped with Geographic Information
Systems, it is impossible to know if survey efforts in 1977, 1988,
2008, and 2011 were all conducted in the exact same location within
this general area. Therefore, it is not possible to conclude that this
population has been extirpated.
Private Land
Ajo Area--The combined area of these multiple sites is less than
0.4 ha (1 ac) (Rutman 2007, p. 1).
An isolated population near Darby Wells was first reported by Heil
and Melton (1994, p. 14). Fewer than 10 plants were found at this site
in 2007 (Rutman 2007, p. 4). There is no record if juveniles were among
the plants found. The site has not been revisited.
On Indian Village Hill, there were 102 plants in 1996, when the
population was first recorded (Rutman 1996b, pers. comm.). In 2006, 30
living and 33 dead plants were found; in 2007, a quick census noted
fewer than 40 plants found (Rutman 2006, p. 1; Rutman 2007, p. 4).
There is no record if juveniles were among the plants found in either
year. In 2011, eight living and seven dead plants were recorded; no
juveniles were found (Service 2011a, p. 1).
There were 16 live and 19 dead plants on Weather Tower Hill in 2006
(Rutman 2006, p. 1). There is no record if juveniles were among the
plants found. The site has not been revisited.
Florence Area--Roadside populations occur on less than 0.4 ha (1
ac) collectively; any additional populations that may be present on
private land occur on an unknown quantity of land.
Roadside Population One--The 2011 site visit revealed 9 living and
2 dead individuals; no juveniles were found, though all 9 were young
healthy individuals (Service 2011b, p. 2)
Roadside Population Two--The 2011 site visit revealed 2 living and
2 dead individuals; no juveniles were found (Service 2011b, p. 2)
There may be other locations on private lands unknown to Service or
BLM botanists.
Sonora, Mexico
Felger (2000, p. 208) noted the occurrence of the acu[ntilde]a
cactus between 3 and 18 km (2 and 11 mi) southwest of Sonoyta; no
population estimates were made. Surveys of 7 groups of plants in this
area from 2009 through 2010 revealed 659 living and 942 dead plants
growing on approximately 1,700 ha (4,200 ac) (Pate 2011, pers. comm.;
Pate 2011, map 1 and map 2). Pate (2012a, pers. comm.) noted seeing a
few small seedlings among these plants.
Summary
Presented below is the total estimate of living, dead, and juvenile
acu[ntilde]a cactus plants in populations visited over multiple years,
including census results from 2011 and from previous years if sites
have not been revisited or population estimates not updated. Notable
trends are the large amount of mortality within the populations that
have been visited more than once and the low numbers of juvenile plants
in the populations.
NPS--2,000 plants, or 58.9 percent of known individuals;
estimated in 2011 by NPS staff. This population estimate is down from
10,000 individuals estimated at this location in 1981. Within the OPCNM
plots, the number of recorded individuals peaked in 1991, with 446
plants found. In 2011, 49 total individuals including 10 juveniles were
noted within these plots.
Sonora, Mexico--659 plants or 19.4 percent of known
individuals; estimated from 2009 to 2010 surveys. Nine hundred and
forty-two dead individuals were also recorded during this survey
period. There are no previous estimates from this population. A few
juvenile plants were noted during the 2009 to 2010 survey period.
BLM--655 plants, or 19.3 percent of known individuals;
estimated from 2011 and other recent surveys. At Coffeepot mountain
within the largest BLM population, 310 living and 332 dead individuals
were recorded in 1987. This population was reduced to 150 individuals
by 1992, and was reduced to approximately 75 individuals by 2006. No
juveniles were noted since 2008, when a few were seen.
Private Land--48 plants (37 near Ajo and 11 near
Florence), or 1.4 percent of known individuals; estimated from 2011 and
other recent surveys. A single population that was revisited on several
occasions showed a total population of 102 individuals in 1996; in
2006, 30 living and 33 dead plants were found. In 2011, just 8 adult
plants and no juveniles were recorded from this population.
State Land--32 plants, or 0.9 percent of known
individuals; estimated from 2011 surveys. At one location in the 1990s,
the population was estimated to be 100 individuals; in 2008, only 20
living and many dead plants were found with no juveniles seen. In 2011,
30 living plants were recorded, including a new subpopulation
previously not recorded. No juvenile plants were located in 2011. At a
second location, in 1977, plants were considered common but localized,
and the site supported many plants of various ages and sizes. Surveys
of this area in 2008 resulted in the location of 45 adult plants with
no juveniles found. In 2011, no living plants and two carcasses were
located in this same area.
Military BMGR--1 plant, or less than 0.1 percent of known
individuals in 1997; the site has not been revisited.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Acu[ntilde]a Cactus

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing
regulations at 50 CFR part 424, set forth the procedures for adding
species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we may list a species based
on any of the following 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; and (E) other natural or manmade
factors affecting its continued existence. Listing actions may be
warranted based on any of the above threat factors, singly or in
combination. Each of these factors is discussed below.

[[Page 60517]]

Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range

Based on the habitat characteristics described above, potential
factors that may affect the habitat or range of the acu[ntilde]a cactus
are: (1) Urban development and site degradation; (2) livestock grazing;
(3) border activities; (4) nonnative, invasive plant species; (5)
mining; and (6) drought and climate change.
Urban Development and Site Degradation
The immediate threats from urban development include the direct
loss of individuals and habitat. Indirect impacts of urban development
include fragmentation of acu[ntilde]a cactus and associated pollinator
populations, which can reduce genetic vigor of the cactus and result in
degradation and fragmentation of habitat adjacent to development. When
development occurs, there is also an increased use of habitat for
recreational activity, which may also deplete habitat and result in
mortality of individuals. The acu[ntilde]a cactus populations in OPCNM
and the Sonoran Desert National Monument are protected from the
immediate threats associated with urban development due to their
National Monument status. National Monuments are lands set aside and
managed to protect the natural and cultural resources within;
development is minimal, though some site degradation may still occur.
To meet the country's energy demands, there has been a recent
emphasis by the Federal Government to use BLM lands for development of
renewable energy. Currently, there are no planned solar or wind energy
projects on or near populations of the acu[ntilde]a cactus in the
Sauceda, Sand Tank, or Mineral Mountains (Werner 2011, pers. comm.). In
addition, most populations on BLM lands are remotely located and
relatively inaccessible; therefore, we do not anticipate development in
these areas.
As Arizona's population is expected to continue to grow in the
future, both Pinal County and the State Land Department are promoting
urban development in the vicinity of Florence (Pinal County 2009, pp.
4, 60, 94; Guthrie et al. 2011, p. 1). When the housing market
rebounds, it is likely that additional State lands in this area will be
sold for urban development (Pinal County 2009, p. 42; Guthrie et al.
2011, p. 2). In the vicinity of Florence, there are no current plans
for development of State lands known to support acu[ntilde]a cacti.
Private lands near Florence containing acu[ntilde]a cacti populations
have been for sale as subdivided 16.2-ha (40-ac) parcels for many
years. With the recent economic downturn, it is unlikely this land will
be sold in the near future. The only known private land populations
where access is readily available are at 3 sites near Ajo, totaling
less than 0.4 ha (1 ac) and supporting fewer than 40 individuals in
total (Rutman 2006, p. 1; Rutman 2007, pp. 1, 4; Service 2011a, p. 1).
In most of the privately owned locations, the sites are littered with
broken glass, bottles, and trash; however, plants appear little
impacted by this habitat degradation (Service 2011a, p. 1; Service
2011b, p. 2).
Indirect urbanization effects to the areas that support the
acu[ntilde]a cactus include ORV activity, which has been reported on
BLM lands near both Ajo and Florence. These reports, however, showed no
impact on the acu[ntilde]a cactus populations in 1994 (Heil and Melton
1994, pp. 15-16), although habitat degradation and direct loss of
individuals is possible from this activity. In 1988, the BLM closed the
Coffeepot ACEC to recreational ORV use (BLM 2011, p. 194) and, in 1990,
prohibited ORV use outside of designated trails within the Sonoran
Desert National Monument (BLM 2011, p. 181). In 2011, the BLM Lower
Sonoran Field Office released a Draft Resource Management Plan and
Environmental Impact Statement (Draft RMP/EIS) for review (BLM 2011,
entire). This document supports the continued prohibition of ORVs
outside of designated trails within the Sonoran Desert National
Monument (BLM 2011, p. 181). Within the Coffeepot ACEC, alternatives
for motorized travel range from no use to limited use on existing
routes, but all alternatives restrict travel off of existing routes,
thereby reducing the potential for impacts to the acu[ntilde]a cactus
(BLM 2011, pp. 181, 185-188). Once finalized, the new RMP/EIS for the
Lower Sonoran and the Sonoran Desert National Monument will remain in
effect for the next 15 to 20 years (Foreman 2011, pers. comm.). The
impacts of ORV activity on State or private lands are unknown; for ORV
activity within the border region, see the discussion below of border
activities.
In Sonora, Mexico, scattered populations of the acu[ntilde]a cactus
occur within 10 km (6.2 mi) of the town of Sonoyta. Although the area
is reported to be little-used and unoccupied except by drug and human
smugglers (Pate 2011, pers. comm.), in recent decades and as a result
of human demand, the Sonoyta region has been heavily impacted by Olneya
tesota (ironwood) and Prosopis velutina (mesquite) woodcutting for coal
production, brick foundries, and tourist crafts, and the lands'
subsequent conversion to exotic grasslands for cattle grazing
(Suz[aacute]n et al. 1997, pp. 950, 955). This activity has affected
more than 193,000 ha (478,000 ac) of lands in the Sonoyta region
(Nabhan and Suz[aacute]n 1994, p. 64). In a study of ironwood
extraction in northern Mexico, the Sonoyta study sites exhibited the
highest number of damaged and dead trees, and had the lowest associated
plant diversity (Suz[aacute]n et al. 1996, p. 642). It is likely that
habitat parameters for the acu[ntilde]a cactus populations in Sonora
are impacted by this activity, particularly because ironwood is
considered a dominant associate of the acu[ntilde]a cactus (Phillips et
al. 1982, p. 5) and may serve as a nurse plant for a variety of cacti
(Suz[aacute]n et al. 1996, p. 635).
In addition, the actions of harvesting, burning, loading, and
transporting wood and charcoal can result in running over individual
acu[ntilde]a cactus and causing injury or mortality of plants, if such
actions occur in areas supporting the acu[ntilde]a cactus. Also, human
population growth and development in the border region between the
United States and Mexico has risen in recent decades (Brown and
Caldwell 2008, pp. 1-6); it is reasonable to conclude that the direct
and indirect effects of urbanization are likely to increase threats to
the acu[ntilde]a cactus populations in this region. The populations are
currently split by a major highway, Interstate 8, and a power
transmission line; many plants occur within 200 m (660 ft) of these
corridors (Pate 2011, map 1 and map 2).
In summary, the direct and indirect effects of urbanization are
threats to a portion of the known populations of the acu[ntilde]a
cactus. However, these effects are currently limited to the
acu[ntilde]a cactus populations in the vicinity of Ajo and Florence in
the United States and in the immediate border region of Sonora, Mexico.
These areas collectively make up less than 21 percent of known living
acu[ntilde]a cactus individuals across the range of the acu[ntilde]a
cactus. The majority of the range in the United States is protected
from urban development because populations are on Federal lands, where
little or no development will take place. In addition, most populations
of the acu[ntilde]a cactus are relatively remote or otherwise protected
from the effects of urbanization. We conclude that urban development
and site degradation is not currently a threat to any entire population
of the acu[ntilde]a cactus. As a result, based on our review of the
available information, we conclude that the direct and indirect

[[Page 60518]]

effects associated with urbanization are not threats to the
acu[ntilde]a cactus and its habitat.
Livestock Grazing
In general, grazing practices can change vegetation composition and
abundance and cause soil erosion and compaction, reduced water
infiltration rates, and increased runoff (Klemmedson 1956, p. 137;
Ellison 1960, p. 24; Arndt 1966, p. 170; Gifford and Hawkins 1978, p.
305; Waser and Price 1981, p. 407; Robinson and Bolen 1989, p. 186;
Holechek et al. 1998, pp. 191-195, 216; and Loftin et al. 2000, pp. 57-
58). These anticipated effects leave less water available for plant
production (Dadkhah and Gifford 1980, p. 979). In addition, livestock
can step on or knock over individual acu[ntilde]a cactus. Although
other species of cacti may be good survival forage for livestock (Vega-
Villasante et al. 2002, p. 499), herbivory of the acu[ntilde]a cactus
has not been reported. Livestock grazing levels and habitat condition
vary greatly between populations due to varied land ownership and
management. A discussion of populations arranged by land management
agency follows.
National Park Service--Beginning in the early 1900s and continuing
through the 1970s, lands within OPCNM were grazed heavily, with as many
as 3,000 head of cattle and hundreds of burros present at a time when
carrying capacity was estimated to be 314 cattle per year (Rutman 1997,
p. 364; NPS 2011b, entire). Grazing by domestic animals was halted per
NPS policy and has not occurred within OPCNM since 1976 (NPS 1997, p.
33). Lands here continue to recover slowly after loss of soils and
vegetation and may take many decades or centuries to recover fully (NPS
2001, pp. 27, 124). Currently, OPCNM supports the largest population of
the acu[ntilde]a cactus (59 percent of known living acu[ntilde]a cactus
individuals), and we are not aware of historical effects to the
population as a result of past livestock grazing.
Bureau of Land Management--All four populations of the acu[ntilde]a
cactus on BLM lands in the Sauceda Mountains have been managed since
1988 in the Coffeepot ACEC, which attempts to apply grazing management
practices to ensure perpetuation of botanical diversity within the area
and prohibits the development of livestock facilities that would serve
to increase livestock use within the area (BLM 2011, p. 141).
Collectively these four populations make up 13.1 percent of known
living acu[ntilde]a cactus individuals. In 1987, when speaking of the
then proposed Coffeepot ACEC, Olwell (1987, p. 1) noted relatively
pristine conditions with no immediate threat to the acu[ntilde]a cactus
plants. At that time, however, the population of acu[ntilde]a cactus
within the Coffeepot ACEC in the vicinity of permanent monitoring plots
was reported to have substantial animal activity from cattle, javelina,
and jackrabbits, with browsing, grazing, and soil disturbance noted
(Rutman et al. 1987, p. 2). Anderson (2011, entire) noted no habitat
impacts from grazing in this population during yearly visits from 1994-
2011. This population is the farthest population from a single cattle
tank (see below) within the ACEC, and therefore is less subjected to
livestock pressure.
In 1970, a cattle tank named Conley Reservoir was established
within the Coffeepot ACEC boundary prior to the ACEC designation and
remains today (Foreman 2012, pers. comm.). A population of acu[ntilde]a
cactus very near this tank was visited by the BLM botanist in 2010, who
found abundant prickly pear (Opuntia spp.), which are known to increase
with disturbance and are often cited as an indicator of poor range
condition (Anderson 2011, p. 2; Johnson 2000, entire). A site visit in
2011 by Service and BLM botanists found habitat impacts such as soil
disturbance from both cattle and feral burros; however, no acu[ntilde]a
cactus plants appeared to be directly impacted by these animals
(Service 2011a, p. 3). Feral burros also impact vegetation on
neighboring military lands (see Department of Defense section below).
The new BLM Draft RMP/EIS has implications for future livestock
management within the Coffeepot ACEC and the Sonoran Desert National
Monument (BLM 2011, entire). According to this document, under
Alternative A (the no action alternative), livestock grazing within the
ACEC would not change from the current regimes with no livestock
facility development permitted (BLM 2011, pp. 32, 141). Under
Alternative B, livestock grazing only in times of suitable forage
production (ephemeral) would continue to be considered, but perennial
stocking rates would be reduced by approximately 40 percent, and no
livestock facilities would be developed that would increase livestock
use within the area (BLM 2011, pp. 33, 196). Under Alternative C,
grazing allotments designated as perennial/ephemeral would be
reclassified as perennial only, with no supplemental ephemeral grazing
applications considered (BLM 2011, p. 34). Under Alternative D, all
allotments currently open to grazing would become unavailable as
permits expire (BLM 2011, p. 35). Under Alternative E, the BLM's
preferred alternative, current grazing levels and timing would remain
the same, but livestock facilities could be developed with the aim of
improving natural resource conditions through greater distribution of
livestock (BLM 2011, p. 171). It is unclear if additional tanks would,
as is implied, relieve pressure on the acu[ntilde]a cactus populations;
it is also unclear if this would increase the overall number of cattle
(or burros) in the area or the amount of land impacted, thus
potentially impacting more acu[ntilde]a cactus populations. Whichever
alternative is ultimately chosen, the finalized version of this
management plan will remain in effect for 15 to 20 years after signing
later in 2012 (Foreman 2011, pers. comm.).
In 2001, Presidential Proclamation 7397 (Clinton 2001, entire)
created the Sonoran Desert National Monument; one population of
acu[ntilde]a cactus containing 5.9 percent of known living acu[ntilde]a
cacti occur in the Sand Tank Mountains. This area was designated for
military purposes in 1941, and has had no livestock grazing for over 60
years (Clinton 2001, p. 2). During a site visit in 2006, no habitat
impacts from livestock were reported from this location (Anderson 2011,
p. 2). The current livestock management regime of no livestock being
permitted within the Sonoran Desert National Monument Sand Tank
Mountains acu[ntilde]a cactus population will be maintained for at
least the next 15 to 20 years (BLM 2011, pp. 36-40; Foreman 2011, pers.
comm.).
Department of Defense--A single acu[ntilde]a cactus plant was found
on BMGR approximately 1 km (0.62 m) to the north of a known population
within the BLM Coffeepot ACEC (Geraghty et al. 1997, p. 5). Livestock
grazing is not authorized on the BMGR, though some trespass cattle do
occur (Whittle 2012, pers. comm.). Feral burros on BMGR are a concern,
however, and BMGR managers plan to implement a burro trapping program
in the spring of 2012, in an attempt to reduce damage to vegetation
(Whittle 2012, pers. comm.).
Arizona State Trust Lands (State land)--Populations of acu[ntilde]a
cactus on State land in the Mineral Mountains are subject to grazing;
two land sections containing this species are collectively part of a
larger 6,118-ha (15,118-ac) grazing lease with a total carrying
capacity of 118 animal units (Sommers 2012, pers. comm.). Three
individual acu[ntilde]a cacti from this group of populations overlap
onto adjacent BLM land. This BLM land, which is not fenced from
adjacent State land, has a total permitted number of cattle of 357 year
long, though the lessee did not run

[[Page 60519]]

the full amount of animals in 2011 (Tersey 2012, pers. comm.). During a
2011 site visit, the habitat appeared unaltered by livestock, and no
cattle were seen (Service 2011b, p. 1).
Three additional land sections near Box O Wash containing this
species are collectively part of a lease of 12,369 ha (30,565 ac) with
a total carrying capacity of 236 animal units (Sommers 2012, pers.
comm.). Both leases incorporate State and BLM lands, although in this
area the species has been found on State lands and not the associated
BLM lands. No livestock were seen during the November 2011 site visit
to this population (Service 2011b, p. 3). Only two dead individual
acu[ntilde]a cacti were found, and neither appeared to have been
knocked over by cattle (Service 2011b, p. 3). In the past, Rutman and
Krausman (1988, p. 1) recommended that this State land habitat could
benefit from improved livestock management, as cattle trails there were
numerous during a 1988 site visit. In a 2008 site visit, it was noted
that quite a few of the dead acu[ntilde]a cactus plants may have been
knocked over by livestock (Service 2008b, p. 1). It is unknown what the
grazing lease or animal units were for this period of time. In 2011,
several individuals were noted to have grown additional arms following
the loss of the growing tip (Service 2011b, pp. 3-4). This was possibly
due to mechanical damage caused by cattle, a beneficial adaptation to
disturbance noted previously by Phillips et al. (1982, p. 6). The
populations on State land represent just 0.9 percent of known living
acu[ntilde]a cactus individuals. Although livestock grazing on State
lands may benefit from improved management, the impacts to the
acu[ntilde]a cacti are small.
Private--Populations of the acu[ntilde]a cactus on private lands
near the town of Ajo were noted to occur in degraded habitat with low
species richness; these sites were suspected to have had a grazing
history of severe use (Rutman 1995, p. 1). Those acu[ntilde]a cacti on
private lands near Florence are in an unknown condition, as they are
not typically visited by Service staff. Two roadside populations
visited in 2011 had four dead plants and 13 healthy plants
collectively; all dead plants seemed to have died from drought or
insect attack, although one population did contain evidence (feces) of
cattle use (Service 2011b, p. 2). Private lands account for just 1.4
percent of known living acu[ntilde]a cactus individuals.
Mexico--In Mexico, researchers report livestock grazing in parts of
the Sonora range (Stoleson et al. 2005, p. 60), but mostly the habitat
remains little-used and unoccupied land (Pate 2011, pers. comm.).
Sonora maintains 19.4 percent of the known acu[ntilde]a cactus
individuals across the range; their recent decline, as evidenced by
nearly 1,000 dead plants counted in 2010, has not been attributed to
livestock.
In summary, 64.9 percent of acu[ntilde]a cactus individuals occur
within lands protected from cattle grazing either by NPS or BLM
National Monument status. In areas occupied by the acu[ntilde]a cactus
where livestock grazing does occur, impacts from livestock do not
appear to be a consistent or significant threat to populations. Based
on our review of the available information, we conclude that, although
there is evidence that grazing impacts to the acu[ntilde]a cactus do
occur, we do not believe that these effects occur to such an extent
that livestock grazing is a threat to the acu[ntilde]a cactus and its
habitat.
Border Activities
Over the past decade or more, tens of thousands of people illegally
attempt crossings of the U.S.-Mexico border into Arizona annually
(cross-border violators) (Service 2011c, p. 14). As a result of
increased U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in the Douglas,
Arizona, area, and in San Diego and southeastern California, cross-
border violator traffic has shifted into remote desert areas such as
OPCNM (Service 2011c, p. 14). For example, in 2001, an estimated
150,000 people entered OPCNM illegally from Mexico (Service 2011c, p.
14). With the increase in technology, border fencing, and manpower
between 2001 and 2012, these numbers are down considerably, with 6,218
arrests of cross-border violators from OPCNM in the year 2011 (Oliver
2012, pers. comm.). Although the number of arrests does not represent
all those who attempted to enter OPCNM illegally, this number is
suspected to be considerably less than reported in 2001. Despite the
fact that these numbers are down due to enforcement and deterrence
efforts by the CBP, the thousands of people crossing through the border
area illegally still represent a substantial impact to the resource.
More than 78 percent of the known living acu[ntilde]a cactus
individuals occur within 16.5 km (10.25 mi) of the border in either
OPCNM or Sonora, Mexico. Cross-border violators, CBP, and NPS Law
Enforcement (LE) activity in this area may degrade acu[ntilde]a cactus
habitat by creating new roads and trails, disturbing vegetation and
soils, and moving exotic plant seeds or plant parts, leading to their
spread into unoccupied areas (Duncan et al. 2010, p. 124). At OPCNM,
the acu[ntilde]a cactus occurs in an area that is closed to visitors
due to dangers of drug and human smuggling; in addition, for many
years, OPCNM natural resource staff have not been allowed to access the
area without LE personnel accompanying them. Significant impacts may
occur when travel moves off existing roads causing vegetation
destruction, soil compaction (Duncan et al. 2010 p. 125), and,
potentially, direct mortality of the acu[ntilde]a cactus by running
over individuals, although no direct impacts to acu[ntilde]a cactus
have been observed. Staff at OPCNM note that roughly 2 years ago, two
vehicle tracks and associated articles of clothing from cross-border
violators were found within one of the six 20 by 50 m (66 by 164 ft)
acu[ntilde]a cactus long-term monitoring plots (Holm 2012a, pers.
comm.). Although no individual plants were reported to have been run
over in this instance, the occurrence of the activity within this
proximity to acu[ntilde]a cactus individuals supports our conclusion
that impacts from cross-border violators and border enforcement may
negatively impact the species and could be a threat.
In 2006, a vehicle border fence was completed in OPCNM. This fence
has significantly reduced vehicular traffic from illegal entrants. The
Biological Opinion for the Ajo Forward Operating Base Expansion
reported personal observations by NPS and Service employees that the
number of off-road tracks and new roads continues to increase (Service
2011c, p. 19). These new off-road tracks and roads are believed to be
the result of CBP response by vehicle, horseback, and foot to cross-
border violators, who are travelling primarily on foot (Service 2011c,
p. 19). By 2011, OPCNM personnel had mapped thousands of miles of
unauthorized off-road impacts from cross-border violators, CBP, and LE
activities (Service 2011c, p. 18). Staff at OPCNM has been compiling
data on off-road traffic and mapping unauthorized roads on OPCNM for a
report. Prior to finalizing the determination on listing the
acu[ntilde]a cactus, this report will have been completed and will be
considered in the final determination. Although most of the
unauthorized roads were created prior to construction of vehicle and
pedestrian fences along the U.S.--Mexico international border, it is
not known if the additional roads were created after the construction
of the border fences. In 2011, NPS staff noted no new heavily utilized
routes due to off-road travel by vehicles, but staff did state that
single vehicles drive across habitat, and individual acu[ntilde]a
cactus plants may be driven over. There is no

[[Page 60520]]

evidence that acu[ntilde]a cacti have been harmed, but damage to larger
plants has been documented due to similar activity (Rutman 2011, pers.
comm.). In cooperation with Service staff, CBP has begun efforts to
educate Border Patrol agents on the locations and appearance of
acu[ntilde]a cactus so that the areas that support the plant can be
avoided to the maximum extent possible. Designated critical habitat in
OPCNM will be marked on road atlases being prepared by OPCNM staff and
provided to the agents patrolling in the OPCNM area.
A system of sensors and communication towers is currently in place
and is being expanded within the border region; this technology
improves deterrence, detection, and apprehension of cross-border
violators entering or attempting to enter the United States illegally
(Service 2009, p. 5). It is expected that with increased communication
and sensor tower technology, there will be a reduction in the need for
CBP agents to patrol the area, thus reducing circumstances requiring
vehicles to drive off of authorized roads (Service 2009, p. 16). CBP
agents on foot or on horseback may conduct off-road pursuit of
suspected cross-border violators at any time, including in areas
designated or recommended as wilderness (Service 2009, p. 17). However,
where there are exigent or emergency circumstances, CBP agents may
conduct motorized off-road pursuit of cross-border violators, including
in areas designated or recommended as wilderness. Where such motorized
pursuits are necessary, CBP has committed to using the least intrusive
or least damaging vehicle readily available, without compromising
officer or agency safety.
There are no existing or proposed communication towers near any
acu[ntilde]a cactus populations within OPCNM; however, human traffic
patterns have changed since the installation of towers in and near
OPCNM. This change of pattern has created a larger impact footprint due
to traffic moving farther from towers. In addition, communication and
sensor towers and associated tactical infrastructure require
maintenance and repair. Species proposed for listing, such as the
acu[ntilde]a cactus, could be directly affected by repair and
maintenance of this infrastructure if maintenance vehicles traveled off
of approved access routes. However, CBP has committed to use only
approved access routes for these maintenance activities. Therefore,
these effects would be negligible for acu[ntilde]a cactus. In addition,
if these maintenance and repair activities occur in undisturbed areas
in the habitat of listed plant species, a survey must be conducted and
a sufficient buffer created to protect any plants found (HDR 2012, pp.
4-3).
Illegal drug and human smuggling also adversely affects the area of
the Coffeepot ACEC, but the area is less impacted than other border
areas (BLM 2011, p. 344). This is likely the case with the other
populations on private and BLM lands near Ajo and Florence. Within
BMGR, cross-border violators and associated activities represent a
significant threat to natural and cultural resources within the BMGR,
including having widespread and adverse effects on soil and hydrology
(U.S. Departments of the Air Force and Navy 2007, pp. 3-11). We are
aware of no instances of illegal activity or law enforcement activity
impacting the populations near Florence. The Service (2008b, p. 1)
noted that little to no human activity, including ORV use, was observed
during a 2008 site visit to these populations.
The acu[ntilde]a cactus populations across the border from OPCNM,
in Mexico, occur on land that is little-used, unoccupied, and subject
to heavy traffic by drug and human smugglers (Pate 2011, pers. comm.).
This area was reported to be not very safe, and warnings were given to
Service personnel not to travel to this location alone (Larios 2011,
pers. comm.). In 1993, the Mexican government established Pinacate
Biosphere Reserve, a 7.7-million ha (1.9-million-ac) reserve for the
region's flora, fauna, geology, and archeology preservation. A portion
of the acu[ntilde]a cactus individuals in Sonora occur within the
Pinacate Biosphere Reserve. It is unknown what, if any, protection this
designation provides the acu[ntilde]a cactus.
In summary, the two areas containing the largest number of living
acu[ntilde]a cactus (78 percent of the known living acu[ntilde]a cactus
individuals) occur along the U.S.-Mexico border (in OPCNM and Sonora,
Mexico). Within populations, acu[ntilde]a cacti are typically spaced
within 3 m (9.8 ft) of each other, and thus vehicle traffic through any
population could potentially impact many individuals. This area is
heavily impacted by cross-border violators, CBP, and LE activity, as
evidenced by the tremendous increase in illegal roads and trails
documented by agencies along the border. To date, no individual
acu[ntilde]a cactus plants are reported to have been lost to these
activities; however reporting from this area is inconsistent. With
anticipated continued border activity in the area, it remains possible
that acu[ntilde]a cactus individuals and their habitat will be
impacted. These impacts include: creation of new roads and trails;
disturbance of associated vegetation including nurse plants and
microclimates; compaction or erosion of soils; movement of nonnative,
invasive plant seeds and plant parts; and the potential to cause direct
mortality to individuals by running over plants with vehicles.
Therefore, based on our review of the available information, we
conclude that cross-border violators, CBP, and LE off-road activities
are a threat to the acu[ntilde]a cactus and its habitat.
Nonnative, Invasive Plant Species
Throughout the Sonoran Desert ecosystem, invasions of the
introduced Pennisetum ciliare (buffelgrass), Bromus rubens (red brome),
Eragrostis lehmanniana (Lehmann lovegrass), Schismus barbatus
(Mediterranean grass), and Pennisetum setaceum (crimson fountaingrass)
have altered nutrient regimes; species composition and structure; and
fire frequency, duration, intensity, and magnitude (Brooks and Pyke
2001, p. 5). Although most of these species were intentionally
introduced as forage for livestock, as erosion control, or as
ornamentals, each is now considered invasive and a threat to this
ecosystem (B[uacute]rquez-Montijo et al. 2002, entire). Species such as
buffelgrass are expected to increase their range even with continued
and predicted drought events (Ward et al. 2006, p. 724). It is
generally thought that invasion by exotic annual grasses will continue
unchecked in the Sonoran Desert ecosystem in the future, reducing
native biodiversity through direct competition and alteration of
nutrient and disturbance regimes (Franklin and Molina-Freaner 2010, p.
1671).
Herbarium sheets contain labels that give information regarding
where a specimen was collected, by whom, when the collection was made,
and additional information such as what plant species were found in
association with the collected specimen. There are no exotic species
noted as associates on 39 of the 40 acu[ntilde]a cactus specimen
herbarium sheets located at the Arizona State University, University of
Arizona, or San Juan College Herbarium collections (ARIZ 2011, entire).
These collections cover the range of the acu[ntilde]a cactus and date
from 1952 through 2009. There was one specimen collected in 1982 that
lists the exotic annual red brome grass as an associate. Although
crimson fountaingrass found on nearby property was reported to be a
possible threat to the acu[ntilde]a cactus near Ajo (Falk 2005, pers.
comm.), no exotic grasses were noted within the Ajo, Little Ajo
Mountains, or Coffeepot ACEC habitats

[[Page 60521]]

during field surveys in October 2011 (Service 2011, p. 4). One
researcher familiar with all known populations of the acu[ntilde]a
cactus noted no associated threats from exotic plant species in any
population (Baker 2011, pers. comm.). In addition, researchers at OPCNM
noted no present threats from any exotic plant species either within
OPCNM or in populations of the Sonoran Desert National Monument (Rutman
2011, pers. comm.).
In summary, we have reviewed the available information on the
effects of and occurrence of nonnative, invasive plants in or near
populations of the acu[ntilde]a cactus in southern Arizona and in
Mexico. Known populations of the acu[ntilde]a cactus are well
distributed across southern Arizona and northern Sonora and occur in
areas subject to effects from nonnative, invasive plant species.
However, there are no populations of the acu[ntilde]a cactus that
currently show evidence of effects from nonnative, invasive species,
and just one 1982 report indicates the presence of an exotic plant as
an associate of the acu[ntilde]a cactus. While nonnative, invasive
species could negatively impact this species, our review of the best
available information indicates nonnative species do not co-occur with
the acu[ntilde]a cactus presently; therefore we conclude nonnative,
invasive species do not pose a threat to the acu[ntilde]a cactus and
its habitat.
Mining
The immediate threats from mining activity include the direct loss
of individuals and habitat. Indirect impacts of mining activity include
fragmentation of acu[ntilde]a cactus and associated pollinator
populations, which can reduce genetic vigor of the cactus and result in
degradation and fragmentation of habitat and dusting of individual
cacti adjacent to mines and associated roads. The acu[ntilde]a cactus
populations in OPCNM and the Sonoran Desert National Monument are
protected from the immediate threats associated with mining due to
their National Monument status (NPS 1997, pp. s-iii; BLM 2011, p. 12).
Currently on the Coffeepot ACEC, mineral exploration and mining are
encouraged (BLM 1988, pp. 55 and 71). The 2011 Draft RMP/EIS for the
Sonoran Desert National Monument proposes to continue the mining
closure within the Sonoran Desert National Monument (BLM 2011, p. 181).
However, within this same document, alternatives outlined for the
Coffeepot ACEC allow for mining activities, but with various
restrictions depending on the alternative selected. Because mining of
metallic and nonmetallic minerals will continue to be allowed within
the Coffeepot ACEC under the revised Draft RMP/EIS (BLM 2011, pp. 154,
155, 196, 197), there is the continued potential for some loss of
individual acu[ntilde]a cactus and fragmentation of acu[ntilde]a cactus
and associated pollinator populations and habitat. There are no known
mining activities planned on BLM properties, though a BLM parcel
adjacent to populations on State lands near Florence may host a gravel
mining operation in the future (Service 2011b, p. 1).
Mining activity on private land near Ajo has a long history; the
New Cornelia copper mine was one of the first open pit mines in Arizona
dating to 1854 (Arizona Mining Association 2011, entire). This mine was
closed in 1985, and a 2008 investigation by company owners determined
the mine would not be reopened due to current economic conditions (Ajo
Copper News Oct 29, 2008). As of 2012, the mine remains closed.
The small populations of the acu[ntilde]a cactus that remain in Ajo
may have been part of a much larger population that occurred before
mining activity began, but there are no survey records for this species
in the area prior to mining activity. As a result, it is unclear to
what extent the acu[ntilde]a cactus and associated habitat were removed
due to historical mining in this area, but there was certainly some
loss of individual acu[ntilde]a cactus and habitat. Rutman (1995, p. 1)
noted that on the east side of the Ajo rock dump, roads, wells,
prospecting holes, rock piles marking mining claims, and past use of
explosives occurred immediately adjacent to the acu[ntilde]a cactus
plants. Rutman (2006, p. 1) noted that habitat was lost when Indian
Hill Village Road was built and that occupied habitat may also have
been lost where the following buildings and infrastructure now occur:
Assembly of God Indian Mission, New Cornelia mine, parking lot for the
mine lookout, baseball diamond, and the large informal parking lot to
the north of the hill. It is possible that these populations were at
one time connected with the few plants to the southeast of the open pit
mine on BLM land. There is little doubt that the historical size and
range of the Ajo area populations of acu[ntilde]a cactus have been
reduced.
Mining threats on private lands near Florence are unknown. Threats
from mining to the acu[ntilde]a cactus plants in Mexico are unknown.
We are aware of no acu[ntilde]a cactus populations that are
currently impacted by active mining. It is reasonable to project that
some mining will occur in the future that could affect acu[ntilde]a
cactus populations near Florence, Ajo, and in the Coffeepot ACEC.
However, these effects will occur in limited areas that do not support
a majority of known individual acu[ntilde]a cactus. The acu[ntilde]a
cactus populations will remain well distributed across their range even
if future mining activities affect a few populations. Therefore, based
on our review of the available information, we conclude that current
and future mining activity is not a threat to the acu[ntilde]a cactus
and its habitat.
Drought and Climate Change
Our analyses under the Act include consideration of ongoing and
projected changes in climate. The terms ``climate'' and ``climate
change'' are defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC). ``Climate'' refers to the mean and variability of different
types of weather conditions over time, with 30 years being a typical
period for such measurements, although shorter or longer periods also
may be used (IPCC 2007, p. 78). Thus, the term ``climate change''
refers to a change in the mean or variability of one or more measures
of climate (e.g., temperature or precipitation) that persists for an
extended period, typically decades or longer, whether the change is due
to natural variability, human activity, or both (IPCC 2007, p. 78).
Various types of changes in climate can have direct or indirect effects
on species. These effects may be positive, neutral, or negative, and
they may change over time, depending on the species and other relevant
considerations, such as the effects of interactions of climate with
other variables (e.g., habitat fragmentation) (IPCC 2007, pp. 8-14, 18-
19). In our analyses, we use our expert judgment to weigh relevant
information, including uncertainty, in our consideration of various
aspects of climate change.
Climate change will be a particular challenge for biodiversity
because the interaction of additional stressors associated with climate
change and current stressors may push species beyond their ability to
survive (Lovejoy 2005, pp. 325-326). The synergistic implications of
climate change and habitat fragmentation are the most threatening facet
of climate change for biodiversity (Hannah et al. 2005, p. 4). Current
climate change predictions for terrestrial areas in the Northern
Hemisphere indicate warmer air temperatures, more intense precipitation
events, and increased summer continental drying (Field et al. 1999, pp.
1-3; Hayhoe et al. 2004, p. 12422; Cayan et al. 2005, p. 6; Seager et

[[Page 60522]]

al. 2007, p. 1181). Climate change may lead to increased frequency and
duration of severe storms and droughts (Golladay et al. 2004, p. 504;
McLaughlin et al. 2002, pp. 6072-6074; Cook et al. 2004, p. 1015).
The current prognosis for climate change impacts in the American
Southwest includes fewer frost days; warmer temperatures; greater water
demand by plants, animals, and people; and an increased frequency of
extreme weather events (heat waves, droughts, and floods) (Weiss and
Overpeck 2005, p. 2074; Archer and Predick 2008, p. 24). How climate
change will affect summer precipitation is less certain, because
precipitation predictions are based on continental-scale general
circulation models that do not yet account for land use and land cover
effects or regional phenomena, such as those that control monsoonal
rainfall in the Southwest (Weiss and Overpeck 2005, p. 2075; Archer and
Predick 2008, pp. 23-24). Some models predict dramatic changes in
southwestern vegetation communities as a result of climate change
(Weiss and Overpeck 2005, p. 2074; Archer and Predick 2008, p. 24),
especially as wildfires carried by nonnative plants (e.g., buffelgrass)
potentially become more frequent, promoting the presence of invasive,
exotic species over native ones (Weiss and Overpeck 2005, p. 2075). The
Sonoran Desert has experienced drought conditions since 1998 (Bowers
2005, p. 421; WRCC 2012, entire). Recent trends for the region predict
that climate of the region will become much drier in the next 2 to 3
decades (Schwinning et al. 2008, p. 14-15). The impact of current and
future drought, which may be long-term and severe (Seager et al. 2007,
pp. 1183-1184; Archer and Predick 2008, entire), will continue to
affect the acu[ntilde]a cactus and its habitat throughout its range.
Climate change is likely to affect the long-term survival and
distribution of native plant species, such as the acu[ntilde]a cactus,
through changes in temperature and precipitation. Over the past 40 to
50 years, the United States has experienced more extreme weather
events, heat waves, and regional droughts than in previous decades
(Karl et al. 2009, p. 27). The southwestern United States has
experienced the greatest temperature increase in the continental United
States; average temperatures increased approximately 0.8 degrees
Celsius ([deg]C) (1.5 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F)) compared to a 1960
to 1979 baseline (Karl et al. 2009, p. 129). By the end of this
century, temperatures averaged across the Southwest region are expected
to warm a total of 2 to 5 [deg]C (4 to 10[emsp14][deg]F) above the
historic baseline period of 1960-1979 (Karl et al. 2009, p. 129). The
frequency and intensity of high temperature extremes will increase, and
heat waves currently considered rare will become more common (Karl et
al. 2009, pp. 33-34). This region has experienced drought conditions
since 1998 (Bowers 2005, p. 421; Western Region Climate Center (WRCC)
2012, entire). Annual mean precipitation levels are expected to
decrease in western North America and especially the southwestern
States by midcentury (IPCC 2007, p. 8; Seager et al. 2007, p. 1181;
Girvetz et al. 2009, entire). The current trend in the Southwest of
less frequent, but more intense, precipitation events leading to
overall drier conditions is predicted to continue (Karl et al. 2009, p.
24). The levels of aridity of recent drought conditions and perhaps
those of the 1950s drought years will become the new climatology for
the southwestern United States (Seager et al. 2007, p. 1181). In
summary, the drought the southwestern United States has been
experiencing since the late 1990s is the worst in over 100 years and is
being exacerbated by record warming (Karl et al. 2009, p. 130).
Heat stress in adult cacti is minimal compared to other plant
species as they are able to survive heat stress due to both morphology
and metabolism (Smith et al. 1984, pp. 647, 650; Wahid et al. 2007, p.
199). In a study of Sonoran Desert cacti, Smith et al. (1984, pp. 647,
650) found that short cacti (such as the acu[ntilde]a cactus) and
massive cacti had higher heat tolerance than most other cacti species
studied, and more than vascular plants overall. They also found heat
tolerance varied with stem orientation, stem diameter, and location on
the landscape including a portion of the species' range (Smith et al.
1984, p. 649). Extreme temperatures can, however, negatively impact
seedling survival in many Sonoran Desert plants, and drought coupled
with high temperatures lessens temperature tolerance in seedlings
(Nobel 1984, pp. 310, 316). We found no additional information on
projections for cacti in general, or the acu[ntilde]a cactus in
particular, indicating the impacts of increased heat stress combined
with increasing drought stress as climate models project. We do know,
however, that drought or high temperatures alone can damage non-cacti
species, and the combination causes more detrimental interactive
effects on these plants than either stressor independently (Huang and
Jiang 2002, p. 288).
We are aware of several reports of drought stress apparent on
individual acu[ntilde]a cactus. In cacti and other succulents, stem
swelling and shrinking is typical with rain-drought cycles (Mauseth
2000, p. 1107). At OPCNM, monitored acu[ntilde]a cactus individuals
were reported to have shrunk in size from one year to the next, and
researchers noted shrinking individuals may be dying (Ruffner 1989, p.
1). In addition, 1986 datasheets from monitoring plots at OPCNM
categorized cacti based on health of the individual; one category from
the time was ``desiccated'' (dried out) (Buskirk 1986, pers. comm.).
Although such descriptive categories have not been in use in monitoring
for some time, OPCNM staff note their importance and would like to
reinstate them in future monitoring (Holm 2012b, pers. comm.). In
addition, plants already stressed from prolonged drought are more
susceptible to insect attack and disease (Mattson and Haack 1987, p.
110), and such attack is prevalent in all acu[ntilde]a cactus
populations across their range (see discussion in Factor C. Disease or
Predation). Mortality in measured plots at OPCNM was most severe in
1993, when 40 adults were lost, and again in 1997, when 53 adults were
lost; both of these were years with dry summers (WRCC 2012, entire). In
the last decade, 78 adults were lost in these plots, and 25 of these
losses occurred in the very dry year of 2007 (WRCC 2012, entire).
During this same 10-year period, 31 new adults were recorded as
additions to the population through recruitment (NPS 2011a, p. 2).
In addition to the health of adult individuals, drought is directly
related to acu[ntilde]a cactus population health with regard to
reproduction and establishment. In his 3-year study of the reproductive
ecology of the acu[ntilde]a cactus, Johnson (1992, pp. 403, 405)
concluded that the positive association of rainfall and annual
variation in the number of flowers produced indicates that water
availability limits flower production in this species. Although Johnson
cites yearly precipitation in relation to flower production, it seems
more likely that winter precipitation is the driving factor, as flowers
are produced early in the spring following winter precipitation events.
Within monitoring plots established by Buskirk in 1977 (Buskirk 1981,
p. 1), total flowers counted peaked at 902 in 1992 (Holm 2006, p. 10);
corresponding precipitation during the winter of 1992-1993 was 29.7 cm
(11.66 in) (WRCC 2012, entire). By comparison, in the last 10 years of
measurement, the average number of flowers counted in these plots was
198 (Holm 2006, p. 10); the corresponding average winter

[[Page 60523]]

precipitation during these years was 9.7 cm (3.8 in) (WRCC 2012,
entire).
Resource limitation may affect the acu[ntilde]a cactus seed set
through ovule abortion (Johnson 1989, p. 11). Because flowering
commences in early March and fruiting commences in late April (Johnson
1989, pp. 5, 8), it is likely also that winter precipitation is
correlated with fruit set. Fruit production was monitored at the OPCNM
plots beginning in 2004, and has shown considerable variation since
that time, with a low of 29 fruits produced in 2007, when total winter
precipitation was 6.8 cm (2.69 in) and, a high of 361 fruits produced
in 2005, when winter precipitation was 16.4 cm (6.47 in) (NPS 2011a, p.
1; WRCC 2012, entire).
Johnson (1989, pp. 5, 12) determined that acu[ntilde]a cactus
seedling survival was dependent on summer precipitation and that soil
moisture availability limits the distribution of the species. Rice
(2001, pers. comm.) noted that in greenhouse trials of the acu[ntilde]a
cactus, seedlings and new recruits were primarily lost due to
desiccation; emphasizing that establishment is the most critical and
limiting phase of the acu[ntilde]a cactus life cycle. Throughout the
species' range, rainfall has been declining, and drought conditions
have been dominant since 1998 (Bowers 2005, p. 421; WRCC 2012, entire);
this has likely influenced seedling survivorship (Holm 2006, p. 2-1--2-
13; NPS 2011a, p. 1). For example, in the measured plots at OPCNM, the
recruitment rate peaked in 1992, coinciding with consecutive seasons
with near to above average rainfall (NPS 2011a, p. 1; WRCC 2012,
entire). In the Coffeepot Mountain BLM monitoring plots, seedling or
juvenile plants were observed in all years when plots were measured;
however, the number of dead plants far exceeded recruitment in any year
(Butterwick 1982-1992, entire). In many site visits throughout the
region over the past 10 years, there have been reports of low or no
recruitment (Service 2008a, p. 1; Service 2008c, p. 1; Anderson, 2011,
p. 2; Service 2011a, entire; Service 2011b, p. 3).
In summary, since the late 1990s, the southwestern United States
has been experiencing drought conditions and increasing high
temperatures. Climatic predictions suggest continued less frequent, but
perhaps more intense, summer precipitation, reduced winter
precipitation; and increasing temperatures in this region (Seager et
al. 2007, p. 1181; Archer and Predick 2008, pp. 23-24; Karl et al.
2009, p. 24). Data from the acu[ntilde]a cactus monitoring plots at
OPCNM and at Coffeepot Mountain, along with occasional surveys of these
and most other populations, indicate major population declines have
occurred across the acu[ntilde]a cactus range over the past 30 years.
It appears that a combination of drought stress, warmer winters, and
insect attack (see Factor C. Disease or Predation, below) have reduced
adult plant numbers, while heat stress, lack of precipitation, and seed
predation (see Factor C. Disease or Predation, below) have combined to
reduce or halt reproduction. Because the current drought is occurring
on a regional scale, and because climatic models predict future
regional droughts, it is likely that all populations of the
acu[ntilde]a cactus will continue to decline due to drought and the
effects of climate change. In addition, it appears that drought and
climate change in combination with insect damage and predation, as a
combined effect, is the more likely scenario for rangewide level
impacts to acu[ntilde]a cacti (see Factor C. Disease or Predation,
below). Most, if not all, of the acu[ntilde]a cactus populations are
impacted by drought and the effects of climate change, including
effects to both individual cacti and to productivity and establishment.
Therefore, based on our review of the available information, we
conclude that drought and the effects of climate change, combined with
insect predation (see Factor C. Disease or Predation, below), rise to a
rangewide level threat.
Summary of Factor A
In conclusion, based on our review of the best available
information, we have determined that individual plant loss, as well as
fragmentation of acu[ntilde]a cactus and associated pollinator
populations due to the effects of urbanization; livestock grazing;
nonnative, invasive plant species; and mining do not impact the species
at a population level and therefore are not threats to the acu[ntilde]a
cactus. Currently, 78 percent of the known living acu[ntilde]a cactus
individuals occur along the border near OPCNM. Cross-border violators
and associated CBP and LE off-road activities may be affecting
individual acu[ntilde]a cactus plants and their habitat. If there is an
increase in off-road activities in or near acu[ntilde]a cactus
populations or habitat, the likelihood of loss of individuals or loss
or modification of habitat also increases. In addition, a large amount
of mortality has been documented within all populations that have been
visited more than once, relating to a combination of the intricately
correlated increases in drought and heat stress, warmer winter
temperatures, and insect attack (see Factor C. Disease or Predation,
below). Thus, based on our review of the best available scientific
information, we conclude that loss and degradation of habitat due to
off-road border activities, drought, and climate change, are threats to
the acu[ntilde]a cactus and its habitat.

Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes

Unauthorized collection has, in the past, been identified as a
threat to the acu[ntilde]a cactus (Phillips et al. 1982, p. 9; Phillips
and Buskirk 1982, p. 2; Rutman 1996a, pers. comm.; Rutman 2007, p. 6).
At OPCNM, a large number of individuals are located adjacent to Puerto
Blanco Drive, which was formerly a scenic loop drive. Although
historically collection is suspected to have occurred in this
population (Buskirk and Phillips 1983, pers. comm.; Rutman 1996a, pers.
comm.), the significance of this past collection varies. Buskirk (1981,
p. 5) noted that he did not believe collection was a significant source
of mortality between 1977 and 1981, yet Phillips and Buskirk (1982, p.
2) noted three mapped roadside cacti lost to collectors, stating that
collecting could be a significant cause of loss in OPCNM. Additionally,
Rutman (1996a, p. 2) noted that along the scenic drive road at OPCNM,
considerable collection of the largest size class of plants occurred.
This road was closed to visitors in 2003, and there are no plans to
reopen it, making it highly unlikely that collection is an ongoing
issue (Rutman 2011, pers. comm.; Pate 2012a, pers. comm.).
On BLM-administered lands, the acu[ntilde]a cactus plants occur in
very remote locations, and no reports of collection are known. Rutman
(1995, p. 2) noted collection did not appear to be a threat to the
population surrounding the Coffeepot Mountain plots during annual
visits between 1988 and 1990. Similarly, no evidence of collection was
seen during 2011 Service and BLM site visits to nearby populations
within the Coffeepot ACEC (Service 2011a, p. 4).
On State and private lands in the Florence area, Rutman (1995, p.
3) noted that population locations were published and, easy to access,
and that, for many years, collectors have been taking plants. She also
noted individual plants seen the previous year were missing, and no
carcasses found upon revisiting (Rutman 1995, p. 3). No evidence of
collection from visited sites was found during 2011 Service visits
(Service 2011b, p. 1). Private lands in the Ajo area are also
accessible, though we have no reports of collection there.
Buskirk and Phillips (1983, pers. comm.) refer to some acu[ntilde]a
cactus collection, but refer to it as relatively uncommon and
unsystematic at present. No documented cases of unauthorized

[[Page 60524]]

collection (in violation of the Arizona Native Plant Law) of this
cactus have been found in any of the known populations. Heil and Melton
(1994, p. 15) note that the acu[ntilde]a cactus is easy to grow and
raise from seed and that species is rare in the gardens of cactus
collectors. An investigator within the Office of Special Investigations
of the Arizona Department of Agriculture stated that he does not
believe collection of the acu[ntilde]a cactus is a threat to the
species (Reimer 2011, pers. comm.). Therefore, based on our review of
the available information, we conclude that, while there is evidence
that unauthorized collection of the acu[ntilde]a cactus did occur in
the past, it occurs to such an insignificant extent currently that it
is not a threat to the acu[ntilde]a cactus, nor do we expect it to
become a threat in the future.

Factor C. Disease or Predation

In general, cacti are susceptible to attacks from numerous types of
insects, and the acu[ntilde]a cactus is no exception. The interior
flesh of cacti provides both a nesting area and food source for
beetles, weevils, and other insects. Once an infestation has occurred,
cacti can die from the eating and tunneling activities or from the
introduction of fungus or disease. In addition, drought may cause
physiological stress responses in plants, such as limiting their
photosynthesis and cell growth. Plants already stressed from prolonged
drought are more susceptible to insect attack and disease (Mattson and
Haack 1987, p. 110).
There are four native insects that have been documented to impact
the acu[ntilde]a cactus. Of these, cactus weevils (Gerstaeckeria spp.)
and cactus longhorn beetle (Moneilema gigas) are documented to be most
responsible for the acu[ntilde]a cactus declines (Rutman 2007, p. 6;
Johnson 1989, p. 10). Cactus weevils are stem-boring insects; the
adults feed externally while the larvae feed internally (Burger and
Louda 1995, p. 1560). Cactus longhorn beetle adults feed on pads or
terminal buds of cacti; their larvae burrow into stems or roots causing
the severing of root and stem, collapse, and death of plants (Kelly and
Olsen 2011, p. 7; Johnson 1989, p. 10). Raske 1966 (p. 106) cites Dodd
(1927) stating that the cactus longhorn beetle has one reproductive
cycle per year; however, a noted cactus expert, Alan Zimmerman,
believes that increased warming in recent decades facilitates longer
breeding cycles and more reproduction in both the cactus longhorn
beetle and cactus weevil (Rutman 2007, p. 6).
Other insects with lesser impact on the acu[ntilde]a cactus are
snout moth (Yosemitia graciella) larvae and unknown ant species. Snout
moth larvae are noted to feed internally on cacti (Simonsen and Brown
2009, entire) and on fruits, thus reducing seed set (Johnson 1992, p.
405). Johnson (1992, p. 405) noted snout moth predation accounted for a
reduction in seed set of 35 percent in 50 monitored plants at OPCNM.
Ants have been noted in greenhouse conditions and in the wild to
consume and transport the acu[ntilde]a cactus seeds (Butterwick 1982-
1992, entire; Rutman 1996b, pers. comm.; Rutman 2001, pers. comm., p.
1; Anderson 2011, p. 1). In a similar species, Coryphantha robustispina
ssp. robustispina (Pima pineapple cactus), ants have been documented
eating fruits and transporting seeds (Baker 2011, pp. ii, 23). While
ants do consume seed, they also scatter seed away from the mother plant
thereby reducing predation by small mammals (O'Dowd and Hay 1980, p.
536; Vander Wall et al. 2005, p. 802). Ants may also aid in reducing
the seedbank of competing plant species (O'Dowd and Hay 1980, p. 539).
All of the above-mentioned insects have been documented at OPCNM near
or on acu[ntilde]a cactus individuals (Johnson 1989, p. 10; Johnson
1992, p. 405; Rutman 1996b, pers. comm.; Rutman 2001, pers. comm., p.
1), with ants documented at Coffeepot Mountain (Butterwick 1982-1992,
entire). It is likely that insect depredation occurs in other
populations as well, though studies have not been conducted, and
insects have not been collected in these populations. No diseases have
been documented in the acu[ntilde]a cactus, though plants are
exceptionally susceptible to bacterial rot after minor stem damage
(Rutman 2007, p. 3). In 2011 site visits across the species' range, a
majority of living adult acu[ntilde]a cacti were in various stages of
decline, with stems blackening from the base upward and resulting in
eventual cactus death. The cause of this blackening is unknown; it
could be natural aging of the plants or the result of stress, insect
damage, or disease.
A variety of small mammals, such as native ground squirrels, pack
rats, rabbits, and mice, can severely damage or kill both mature and
young cacti during times of drought (Kelly and Olsen 2011, pp. 8-9).
There have been reports of loss of the acu[ntilde]a cactus due to small
mammal depredation evidenced by scattered spines and rooted bases at
OPCNM (Buskirk 1981, p. 5; Buskirk and Phillips, 1983 pers. comm.; Heil
and Melton 1994, p. 15; Holm 2006, pp. 2-3). It is likely that small
mammal depredation occurs in other populations outside of OPCNM as
well, though studies have not been conducted and small mammal
occurrence in these populations has not been documented.
In 2011, nearly all populations of the acu[ntilde]a cactus on BLM,
State, and some private lands were visited by Service staff (Service
2011a, entire; Service 2011b, entire). In every population, some
partially living and dead plants were found uprooted and toppled over.
In 1996, there was a high mortality event associated with many live,
reproductive plants found uprooted and lying on the ground in the
Coffeepot Mountain population and the populations around Ajo (Rutman
2007, p. 3). There has been no explanation for this episode; however,
there have been various hypotheses including vandalism, thrashers
(birds) digging them up, and javelinas uprooting the plants. Given the
severing of stem from root commenced when plants had been infested with
cactus longhorn beetle, it is entirely possible that episodes of plants
falling over occur following peak years for these insects, possibly in
association with birds or other animals hearing and attempting to
remove the insects within. There were above average temperatures in Ajo
the 2 years preceding the 1996 uprooting event; this uprooting may have
been correlated to increased insect activity and uprooting. There have
been above average annual temperatures recorded at the Ajo Weather
Station 15 times during 25 years of record keeping between 1975 and
2010 (WRCC 2012, entire). This trend is consistent both at OPCNM and in
Florence, where 21 of 25 recent years and 19 of 25 recent years,
respectively, had above average temperatures (WRCC 2012, entire). The
increased warming in recent decades is likely benefiting insects and
stressing acu[ntilde]a cactus plants, resulting in significantly
increased mortality rangewide.
Between 1982 and 1992, both recruitment and mortality were recorded
within and outside of the established BLM plots at the Coffeepot
Mountain acu[ntilde]a cactus population. Field notes from throughout
the 10-year period of study indicate insect damage to individual plants
has been ongoing within this population. Field notes included the
following comments: tubercles with holes, damage on apex, exposed root,
numerous ants, plant dying, insect damage to fruit, hollow inside,
uprooted, chlorotic (yellowing), beetle wounds on side, unhealthy,
damaged meristem, appears dying at the base, base rotting, sickly, and
not rooted (Butterwick 1982-1992). In 1987, the

[[Page 60525]]

BLM reported high mortality in this population with more dead plants
observed (332) than living (310) (Rutman et al. 1987, p. 1). In 1989,
the BLM reported a precipitous decline of this population (Johnson
1989, p. 18) with low or no recruitment since that time (Anderson 2011,
entire). Within the monitoring plots at OPCNM, datasheets from 1986
categorized cacti as being: uprooted from the base, shell of spines,
dead with upright carcass, stepped on, and missing, among others
(Buskirk 1986, pers. comm., entire). Within these plots, adult
recruitment has been observed in every year of monitoring since 1989;
mortality has been observed in all but 2 years during this same period
(NPS 2011a, p. 1). On average, the annual adult mortality within these
plots is 12 percent, exceeding the annual recruitment of 7.7 percent
(NPS 2011a, p. 1). The decrease in reproduction, increase in mortality,
or a combination of both have resulted in the decline in plants within
(NPS 2011a, p. 1) and outside of the plots at OPCNM. Across this
population, the previous estimate of acu[ntilde]a cactus numbers were
greater than 10,000 individuals (Buskirk 1981, p. 3); current estimates
are between 1,000 and 2,000 plants total (Rutman 2011, pers. comm.).
Within monitoring plots at Coffeepot Mountain, population decline
has been dramatic with at least two episodes of 50 percent reductions
reported from individuals in and around monitoring plots (Butterwick
1982-1992, entire; Rutman et al. 1987, p. 2; Anderson 2011, p. 2;
Anderson 2012b, pers. comm.); at OPCNM, there has been a documented
decline in the number of individuals on all six monitoring plots in all
but 2 years since 1989 (NPS 2011a, p. 1), and in total population
estimates between 1981 and 2011 (Buskirk 1981, p. 3; Rutman 2011, pers.
comm.). In 2011, site visits to most of the remaining populations on
BLM, State, and private lands indicated large proportions of the
populations were dead with many plants uprooted, hollow plants, and
many individuals in all size classes reported to be unhealthy or
blackening from the base (Service 2011a, entire; Service 2011b,
entire). Also in 2011, researchers in Mexico reported that 58.8 percent
of the 1,601 total plants found were dead (Pate 2012b, pers. comm.).
In conclusion, uprooting and depredation have been ongoing for at
least several decades at OPCNM, at Coffeepot Mountain, and in all other
populations. The pronounced decline in the acu[ntilde]a cactus numbers
over the last three decades documented throughout the species' range on
BLM, State, private, and lands in Sonora, Mexico, is of serious
concern. It appears that the combination of drought stress and insect
attack have reduced adult plant numbers and that warmer winters may be
increasing insect numbers attacking acu[ntilde]a cacti. Most, if not
all, of the populations are significantly impacted by predation;
predation, in the form of insect attacks, occurs throughout the range
of the acu[ntilde]a cactus. We also believe that the extent to which
this threat affects the acu[ntilde]a cactus populations is interactive
with the occurrence of drought and other climatic variables such as
warmer winters. The ability of the acu[ntilde]a cactus populations to
recover from insect attacks depends on the successful germination and
survival of seedlings. However, these populations are also experiencing
decreased reproduction, which may render the populations unable to
recover as they continue to lose mature individuals, with low levels of
seedling recruitment and survival. Therefore, based on our review of
the available information, we conclude that predation is a threat that
is resulting in significant population impacts to the acu[ntilde]a
cactus, and this threat is expected to continue into the future.

Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

Under this factor, we examine whether existing regulatory
mechanisms are inadequate to address the threats to the species
discussed under the other factors. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act
requires the Service to take into account ``those efforts, if any,
being made by any State or foreign nation, or any political subdivision
of a State or foreign nation, to protect such species * * *.'' We
interpret this language to require the Service to consider relevant
Federal, State, and Tribal laws, plans, regulations, cooperative
agreements, and other such mechanisms that may minimize any of the
threats we describe in threat analyses under the other four factors, or
otherwise enhance conservation of the species. We give strongest weight
to statutes and their implementing regulations and management direction
that stems from those laws and regulations. An example would be State
governmental actions enforced under a State statute or constitution, or
Federal action under statute.
Having evaluated the significance of the threat as mitigated by any
such conservation efforts, we analyze under Factor D the extent to
which existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to address the
specific threats to the species. Regulatory mechanisms, if they exist,
may reduce or eliminate the impacts from one or more identified
threats. In this section, we review existing State and Federal
regulatory mechanisms to determine whether they effectively reduce or
remove threats to the acu[ntilde]a cactus.
Regarding the threat of unauthorized collection, the acu[ntilde]a
cactus is protected by the Arizona Native Plants Law, which prohibits
collection without obtaining a permit on all public lands, and directs
that plants may not be moved off of private property without contacting
the Arizona Department of Agriculture. Due to the difficulty in
implementing this law, it has not been effective in reducing impacts
from collection, nor does it protect habitat. However, no documented
cases of unauthorized collection of this cactus have been found in any
of the known populations in recent decades. There is little threat of
collection on private lands due to restricted public access (see Factor
B); the majority of the acu[ntilde]a cactus populations are on State
and Federal lands. In addition, NPS regulations prohibit the collection
or removal of the acu[ntilde]a cactus on NPS lands, where the largest
known acu[ntilde]a cactus population occurs. The main road accessing
the acu[ntilde]a cactus population in Acu[ntilde]a Valley in OPCNM is
closed to the public, thus reducing impacts from collection to this
population. Although the remoteness of many populations limits both
visitation and enforcement of the existing regulatory mechanisms,
unauthorized collection is reported to result in a relatively minor
impact to this species. We conclude that the regulations that exist to
protect against the impacts from over collection of the species,
primarily the NPS regulation prohibiting removal and the closure of the
primary access route in OPCNM, are serving to reduce the impacts from
collection.
There are no regulations in place that address threats to
acu[ntilde]a cactus and its habitat from site degradation or that
address the primary threats to acu[ntilde]a cactus of insect predation,
drought, and the effects of climate change. Urban development;
livestock grazing; nonnative, invasive plant species; unauthorized
collection, and mining are not identified to occur at a level that is a
threat to acu[ntilde]a cactus populations. However, without management
of impacts from these activities, impacts could rise significantly.
There are special management prescriptions in place to address some of
these concerns on Federal lands. For example, the Sonoran Desert
National Monument and OPCNM exclude livestock grazing and mining;
promote the reduction of

[[Page 60526]]

nonnative, invasive plant species; and are unlikely to support urban
development. In Mexico, a portion of the known population is within the
boundary of Pinacate Biosphere Reserve, which may afford some
protections. While management prescriptions with regard to these
stressors may be applied opportunistically across different land
management agencies within the region, they do afford some protection
and minimize impacts to the species and its habitat.
With respect to threats to the species caused by activities along
the U.S.-Mexico border, there are a number of Memorandum of
Understanding and Biological Opinion documents that dictate certain
actions be taken by CBP to reduce effects to resources in the United
States and Mexico border region. These documents are primarily
associated with habitat of the federally listed Sonoran pronghorn
antelope (Antilocapra americana ssp. sonoriensis) and off-road
activity, specifically identifying sensitive areas to avoid. These
Memorandum of Understanding and Biological Opinions do provide some
relief from the threats caused to the species resulting from cross-
border violators and CBP enforcement activities because the
acu[ntilde]a cactus shares a portion of the pronghorn habitat and these
documents limit some direct impact to habitat. Likewise, CBP-sponsored
projects, including the mapping of off-road tracks and revegetating
unauthorized roads, may also benefit the species (Holm 2012a, pers.
comm.). In cooperation with Service staff, CBP has begun efforts to
educate Border Patrol agents on the locations and appearance of
acu[ntilde]a cactus so that areas that support the species can be
avoided to the maximum extent possible. Designated critical habitat in
OPCNM will be marked on road atlases being prepared by OPCNM staff and
provided to the agents patrolling in the OPCNM area. In addition, the
efforts of CBP to stop cross-border violators in recent years by means
of traffic barriers and other infrastructure has greatly reduced cross-
border violator activities and afforded some protection to the habitat.
However, due to the difficulty and ever-changing status of border
issues, compliance with these agreements has been difficult. Reports
indicate a two-track road and associated cross-border violator clothing
were found in 2010 within one of the six long-term monitoring plots at
OPCNM. The cross-border violator activities are, by their very nature,
in violation of the law and regulations. Therefore, we believe that
regulations designed to protect the species and its habitat will be
generally of little impact to alleviate the threats caused by
activities of cross-border violators. As noted above, the interdiction
efforts of the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP), including patrols, electronic
surveillance and fence construction have contributed to a significant
reduction in cross-border violator off-road traffic that has benefited
the acu[ntilde]a cactus and other species. However, we do not find
regulatory mechanisms to be adequate to directly address these threats
discussed in Factor A.

Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence

We have evaluated the best available scientific information, and we
did not find any indication of potential threats related to this
factor. We considered such threats as small population size and overall
rarity of the acu[ntilde]a cactus, but we did not find any indication
that these are threats to the species. Therefore, we conclude that
other natural or manmade factors are not threats to the acu[ntilde]a
cactus.

Proposed Determination for the Acu[ntilde]a Cactus

We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the acu[ntilde]a cactus. We find that the species is in danger of
extinction due to the current and ongoing modification and destruction
of its habitat and range (Factor A) from long-term drought, effects of
climate change, and ongoing and future border activities. The
acu[ntilde]a cactus habitat is impacted across its range by long-term
drought, warmer winters occurring in the past several decades and
projected to continue with climate change, and insect predation. In
addition, the majority of the acu[ntilde]a cactus individuals (78
percent) occur within 16.5 km (10.25 mi) of the border in either OPCNM
or Sonora, Mexico. As described above, the complexities of addressing
off-road excursions by cross-border violators result in unpredictable
actions on the part of CBP and LE and threatens acu[ntilde]a cactus and
its habitat. The primary threats to the species are due to drought,
climate change, and insect predation. These threats are exacerbated at
local scales by off-road excursions by cross-border violators and CBP
and LE response. We do not find any threats to the species from
unauthorized collection (Factor B). We find that predation, in
combination with drought and heat stress, exacerbates the threats to
this species (Factor C). Although mechanisms are in place that afford
some protection to the species and its habitat with regard to potential
stressors to the species, there are no regulations in place to address
insect predation, drought, and the effects of climate change. With
regard to off-road border activity, although the interdiction efforts
of CBP, including patrols, electronic surveillance and fence
construction have contributed to a significant reduction in cross-
border violator off-road traffic that has benefited the acu[ntilde]a
cactus and other species, regulations have little impact to alleviate
these threats. Therefore, we do not find regulatory mechanisms to be
adequate to directly address these threats discussed in Factor A.
Finally, we find other natural or manmade factors are not threats to
the acu[ntilde]a cactus (Factor E).
The elevated risk of extinction of the acu[ntilde]a cactus is a
result of the cumulative stressors on the species and its habitat.
Mortality of more than 80 percent of individuals has been documented
within populations that have been surveyed more than once. This loss
has also occurred on protected lands with ongoing management efforts
for the acu[ntilde]a cactus, showing both a rapid and a severe decline
to the species. In the acu[ntilde]a cactus, water and heat stress
reduce flower and seed production, and seedling survival is dependent
on summer precipitation and soil moisture. Warmer and drier winters
combined with increased insect attack, negatively impacts the
survivorship of reproductive adults. Of the remaining living
individuals across the species' range, a large portion were in various
stages of deteriorating health, primarily blackening from the base
upward, when visited by a botanist in 2011. Across populations, minimal
or no recruitment has been seen in recent years. Throughout the
species' range, rainfall has been declining, and drought conditions
have been dominant for several decades; climate change is anticipated
to increase drought periods and warming winters. This combination is
expected to continue the documented trend of mortality exceeding
recruitment across all populations. When mortality exceeds recruitment
in a population, the result is often a declining population. Given
this, we consider none of the populations to be stable or secure. The
factors significantly threatening the species are not expected to be
abated in the foreseeable future, and some populations may have
decreased to levels where they are no longer viable. All of the
threats, combined with high

[[Page 60527]]

levels of mortality and low recruitment in the populations, contribute
to a substantial risk of extinction and lead to our finding that the
acu[ntilde]a cactus is in danger of extinction throughout its range;
therefore, the species meets the definition of endangered.
The Act defines an endangered species as any species that is ``in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range'' and a threatened species as any species ``that is likely to
become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range
within the foreseeable future.'' We find that the acu[ntilde]a cactus
is presently in danger of extinction throughout its entire range based
on rangewide documented rapid loss of individuals, decline in the
health of many remaining individuals, little to no recruitment, and
continuation of the threats, as described above. Therefore, on the
basis of the best available scientific and commercial information, we
propose listing the acu[ntilde]a cactus as an endangered species in
accordance with sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
Listing the acu[ntilde]a cactus as a threatened species is not the
appropriate determination because the ongoing threats described above
are severe enough to create the immediate risk of extinction. The
continued loss of reproductive adults and juveniles poses a significant
and immediate risk of extinction to the species throughout the species'
range, and are not restricted to any particular significant portion of
that range. All of these factors combined lead us to conclude that the
threat of extinction is high and immediate; thus, we conclude that the
acu[ntilde]a cactus meets the definition of an endangered species.
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is an endangered or threatened species throughout
all or a significant portion of its range. The threats to the survival
of the species occur throughout the acu[ntilde]a cactus' range and are
not restricted to any particular significant portion of that range.
Accordingly, our assessment and proposed determination applies to the
species throughout its entire range.

Fickeisen Plains Cactus

It is our intent to discuss below only those topics directly
relevant to the listing of the Fickeisen plains cactus as endangered in
this section of the proposed rule.
Species Description
The Fickeisen plains cactus is a small, unbranched to occasionally
branched, globose (globular) cactus that retracts into the soil after
flowering and fruiting. Stems of mature Fickeisen plains cactus are 2.5
to 6.0 cm (1.0 to 2.4 in) tall and up to 5.5 cm (2.2 in) in diameter
(Benson 1982, p. 749; Arizona Rare Plant Guide Committee 2001,
unpaginated). The stems are covered with tubercles; each tubercle has 3
to 7 radial spines, 4 to 7 millimeters (mm) (0.15 to 0.27 in) in
length, and 1 central spine (15 to 18 mm (0.59 to 0.70 in) long) that
distinguishes the variety fickeiseniae from the variety peeblesianus
(Benson 1982, p. 765). The central spine is whitish and curved upward.
All spines are corky (spongy). The flowers are 2.5 cm (0.98 in) in
diameter, cream-yellow or yellowish-green in color, and produced on the
apex of the stem. Flowers bloom from mid-April to mid-May, opening in
the mid-morning for 1 to 2 days. An entire population generally
completes anthesis (the period when the flower is open and functional)
in 7 to 14 days (Travis 1987, p. 6), depending on the weather
conditions (Navajo Natural Heritage Program (NNHP) 1994, p. 4). Fruits
are produced in mid-May, are turbinate (top-shaped), and turn reddish-
brown at maturity (AGFD 2011a, p. 1). The seeds are dark brown to
black, 3 mm (0.11 in) long, and 2 mm (0.08 in) wide (AGFD 2011a, p. 1).
The life span of the Fickeisen plains cactus is estimated to be between
10 to 15 years (Phillips et al. 1982, p. 9).
Taxonomy
The Fickeisen plains cactus was discovered near Cameron, Arizona,
in the late 1950s, and was described in the scientific literature by
Heil et al. (1981, pp. 28-31).
The name Pediocactus peeblesianus var. fickeiseniae had not been
validly published. Heil et al. (1981, p. 31) recognized the name and
taxon in a review of the genus Pediocactus, and this name is accepted
in the Flora of North America (Heil and Porter 2003, p. 213). Based on
these references, we consider Pediocactus peeblesianus var.
fickeiseniae to be a valid taxon. Other synonyms of Pediocactus
peeblesianus var. fickeiseniae that have been used are Navajoa
fickeisenii and Toumeya fickeisenii (Benson 1982, p. 955).
The genus Pediocactus contains seven species; six of these are rare
endemics of the Colorado Plateau region in Arizona, Colorado, New
Mexico, and Utah (Benson 1982, p. 749). There are two recognized
varieties of Pediocactus peeblesianus, variety peeblesianus (Peebles
Navajo cactus) and variety fickeiseniae (Porter 2002, pp. 15-16).
According to Benson, the structural differences exhibited by Pediocacti
among various sites, coupled with a poor seed dispersal mechanism and
specializations to specific geology or soil type, indicate that the
existing plants are probably relicts of a once widespread genus with a
distribution fractured by climatic conditions (Benson 1982, p. 750).
Biology
The general biology of the Fickeisen plains cactus is similar to
other species in the genus Pediocactus. The Fickeisen plains cactus is
a cold-adapted plant that retracts into the soil during the winter
(cold) and summer (dry) seasons, as well as during drought conditions.
Plants may be completely buried underground or shrink down into the
soil until the crown sits flushed with the soil surface (Phillips et
al. 1982, p. 4). When temperatures rise in the spring and with adequate
rainfall, plants emerge from beneath the surface to flower in mid-
April. Spring flowering is believed to be influenced by cold
temperatures and precipitation from the preceding winter months (Brack
2012, pers. comm.). After flowering and prior to the summer heat,
plants set seed in June and shrink into the soil, losing one-half their
height above ground. Some plants may re-emerge in the autumn following
monsoonal rains. The length of time a plant remains retracted can vary
between individual plants. Hughes (2000a, p. 2) has documented some
plants remaining retracted underground for at least 3 years. The
Fickeisen plains cactus is also subject to root rot during very wet
years and frost heaving. Locating individuals of the Fickeisen plains
cactus can be difficult, even when their exact location is known, and
therefore, searches are best done during their flowering period.
Reproduction has not been specifically studied on the Fickeisen
plains cactus. However, reproduction for plant species in the genus
Pediocactus occurs by cross-pollination (Pimienta-Barrios and del
Castillo 2002, p. 79). Species of small native bees are the primary
pollinators. Species of hover flies and bee flies have also been
observed visiting flowers of the Fickeisen plains cactus (Milne 1987,
p. 21; NNHP 1994, p. 3; Peach et al. 1993, pp. 312-314; Tepedino 2000,
p. 7; Tepedino 2012, pers. comm.). Hughes (1996a, p. 50) found that
flowering and fruiting in the Fickeisen plains cactus occurs once an
individual plant grows to 10 mm (0.39 in) in diameter and as an
individual increases in size more fruit are produced. Specifically, he
documented individuals less than 20.9 mm (0.82 in) in diameter produced
1.37 fruit on average (range of fruit produced

[[Page 60528]]

1 to 3) compared to individuals at 50 mm (1.97 in) and larger, which
produced 3.60 fruits on average (range of fruit produced 2 to 5). This
correlation between larger sized individuals and increased fruit
production has also been found in other Pediocactus species (Phillips
et al. 1989, p. 4; Hreha and Meyer 2001, p. 86). This information
suggests that larger, older individuals contribute more to the
population growth rate by potentially having a greater influence on
seed output than smaller, younger plants. Based on long-term monitoring
information for the Fickeisen plains cactus, the majority of
individuals observed tend to range between 20 mm (0.79 in) and 30 mm
(1.18 in) in diameter.
Population monitoring of the Fickeisen plains cactus suggests that
this variety has a low reproductive capacity. In examining long-term
monitoring information by the BLM, fruit production occurred
irregularly over a 22-year period with 35 percent, on average, of the
population reproducing. Hughes (2011, pers. comm.) found that 30 to 40
seeds are generally produced from a single fruit, and believed that low
seed production hinders substantial increases in plant abundance from
occurring, even during favorable weather conditions that would support
germination (Hughes 1996a, p. 50). Thus, significant episodes of
recruitment within populations on BLM lands reportedly occurred two to
three times over a 9-year period from 1986 to 1995 (Hughes 1996a, p.
50). Phillips and Phillips (1995, p. 12) reported similar results for
the Peebles Navajo cactus in which they documented moderate increases
in population numbers roughly two to three times every 10 years.
Episodic recruitment may play a role in increasing the threats to the
species because adult mortality may continue at a high rate between
periods of recruitment, lowering the reproductive potential of the
population when conditions are favorable for seed germination.
The mechanisms of seed dispersal in the Fickeisen plains cactus
have not been investigated and are poorly understood. Most site visits
to populations of the Fickeisen plains cactus have observed seedlings
established very close to the adult plant (Goodwin 2011a, p. 9; NNHP
1994, p. 4). The general shared belief is that most species of
Pediocactus, including the Fickeisen plains cactus, lack a good
mechanism for seed dispersal, which is a contributing factor to its
endemism and widely scattered, isolated populations (Benson 1982, p.
750; Milne 1987, p. 4).
Habitat
The Fickeisen plains cactus is a narrow endemic restricted to
exposed layers of Kaibab limestone on the Colorado Plateau. Plants are
found in shallow, gravelly loam soils formed from alluvium, colluvium,
or Aeolian deposits derived from limestone of the Harrisburg member of
the Kaibab Formation and Toroweap Formation; Coconino Sandstone; and
the Moenkopi Formation (Travis 1987, pp. 2-3; Arizona Geological Survey
(AZGS) 2011; Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 2012). Most
populations occur on the margins of canyon rims, on flat terraces or
benches, or on the toe of well-drained hills with less than 20 percent
slope; at elevations between 1,280 to 1,814 m (4,200 to 5,950 ft)
(Arizona Rare Plant Guide Committee 2001, unpaginated; AGFD 2011b,
entire; Hazelton 2012a, pers. comm.). Habitat of the Fickeisen plains
cactus is within the Plains and Great Basin grasslands and Great Basin
desert scrub vegetation communities (Benson 1982, p. 764; NatureServe
2011). Dominant native plant species that are commonly associated with
these biotic communities include: Artemisia tridentata (sagebrush),
Atriplex canescens (four-wing saltbush), Atriplex confertifolia
(shadscale), Bouteloua eriopoda (black grama), Bouteloua gracilis (blue
grama), Bromus spp. (brome), Chrysothamnus spp. (rabbit-bush), Ephedra
torreyana (Mormon tea), Eurotia lanata (winterfat), Gutierrezia
sarothrae (broom snakeweed), Pleuraphis jamesii (James's galleta),
Oryzopsis hymenoides (Indian ricegrass), Sphaeralcea spp. (globe-
mallow), and Stipa spp. (needlegrass). Other native cactus species that
are commonly found include Agave utahensis (century plants) and
Echinocactus polycephalus spp. (Brown 1994, pp. 115-121; Turner 1994,
pp. 145-155; Hughes 1996b, p. 2; Goodwin 2011a, p. 4; NatureServe
2011). The Escobaria vivipara var. rosea (foxtail cactus) is typically
found in close association with the Fickeisen plains cactus (Hughes
1996a, p. 47).
The climate of the Great Basin Desert and on the Colorado Plateau
is highly variable. The climate of the region is influenced by events
in the tropical Pacific and northern Pacific Ocean (United States
Geological Survey (USGS) 2002, p. 2). The amount of precipitation
received locally varies by elevation and topography, and is patchy in
its distribution. Precipitation is bimodal, occurring in the winter
(January to March) and summer (July to September) months. The average
annual precipitation ranges from 15.2 to 35.5 cm (6 to 14 in) per year;
snowfall accumulation averages 22.9 cm (9 in), primarily from January
to February (WRCC 2012, entire). Winter precipitation is thought to be
critical for the region to ensure soil moisture recharge and a reliable
spring growing season (Travis 1987, p. 3; Comstock and Ehleringer 1992,
pp. 196-199).
Biological soil crusts are found on the Colorado Plateau in or near
the Fickeisen plains cactus' habitat (United States Forest Service
(USFS) 1999, entire; BLM 2007a, p. 3-15). Biological soil crusts are
formed by a community of living organisms that can include
cyanobacteria, green algae, microfungi, mosses, liverworts, and lichens
(Belnap 2006, pp. 361-362). These crusts provide many positive benefits
to the larger vegetation community by providing fixed carbon and
nitrogen on sparsely vegetated soils, soil stabilization and erosion
control, water infiltration, improved plant growth, and seedling
germination (Rychert et al. 1978, entire; NRCS 1997, pp. 8-10; Floyd et
al. 2003, p. 1704; Belnap 2006, entire).
Distribution and Range
The Fickeisen plains cactus is found only on the Colorado Plateau
in Coconino and Mohave Counties. The range of the Fickeisen plains
cactus encompasses the Arizona Strip (i.e., the area north of the
Colorado River to the Arizona-Utah border) from Mainstreet Valley in
Mohave County to House Rock Valley in Coconino County, along the canyon
rims of the Colorado River and Little Colorado River, to the area of
Gray Mountain, and along the canyon rims of Cataract Canyon on the
Coconino Plateau. The majority of the populations are small; some
consisting of a few individuals (Table 3). Populations are widely
scattered over a broad range and separated by topography. There seems
to be abundant suitable habitat that is unoccupied by the plant for
reasons unknown. One estimate of the range of the Fickeisen plains
cactus is 12,750 square kilometers (sq km) (4,922 square miles (sq mi))
(NatureServe 2011, p. 2). We do not know what information was used to
derive this estimate, and, therefore, it may not accurately reflect the
current known range. The range of the Fickeisen plains cactus converges
with the range of the endangered Pediocactus bradyi (Brady pincushion
cactus) in House Rock Valley, and overlaps with the range of the
threatened Pediocactus sileri (Siler pincushion cactus), and the
Pediocactus

[[Page 60529]]

paradinei (Kaibab plains cactus), which is protected by a conservation
agreement on the Arizona Strip (BLM 2011a, Figure 3.8-1).
Very little is known about the historical range of the Fickeisen
plains cactus. Benson (1982, p. 765) described the range as northern
Arizona from the hills in northeast Mohave County to the vicinity of
the Colorado and Little Colorado rivers near the Grand Canyon National
Park and southeast Coconino County. He estimated the known range to be
about 200 km (125 mi) of land. Based on the current spatial
distribution of the Fickeisen plains cactus, the plant's range has
expanded roughly 72 km (45 mi) west of the Kaibab Plateau in Mohave
County to include occupied areas in Mainstreet Valley, Hurricane
Cliffs, and Clayhole Ridge on the Arizona Strip.
The Fickeisen plains cactus population near Cataract Canyon was
recently documented in 2006. The population is located below the
Colorado River and south of the Grand Canyon National Park on the
Cataract Ranch but does not appear to represent a range expansion for
the species. Benson had identified two areas as occupied by Pediocactus
peeblesianus varieties that correspond to the location of this
population (Benson 1982, p. 765). One area, located below the Colorado
River, was identified as a Fickeisen plains cactus occurrence. The
second occupied area was located farther south of there but identified
as a Peebles Navajo cactus occurrence. Both of these areas were later
inventoried as part of a floristic survey in 2006, and the variety of
Pediocactus peeblesianus observed was documented as the Fickeisen
plains cactus (Goodwin 2006, p. 4; Goodwin 2011a, pp. 5-6).
The Fickeisen plains cactus has also been documented on State land
within the Boquillas Ranch, which is located to the west of the
Cataract Ranch and is privately owned by the Navajo Nation (Goodwin
2006, p. 5; Chapman 2012, pers. comm.). Besides location coordinates,
we do not have information describing the status of the Fickeisen
plains cactus there. According to Goodwin (2006, pp. 4-5), two German
botanists had discovered plants of Pediocactus peeblesianus on the
Coconino Plateau in 1979, but the plants were thought to be of the
variety maianus. Based on their field notes, visits to the area between
1980 and 2006 confirmed the locations of three occupied sites by the
Pediocactus peeblesianus, later documented as the Fickeisen plains
cactus. Two of these sites were on the Cataract Ranch while the third
site is on State land leased to the Boquillas Ranch (Chapman 2012,
pers. comm.). This area was revisited in 2012, but no documentation
describing the site visit is available (Goodman 2012, pers. comm.;
Hazelton 2012b, pers. comm.). Anecdotal information suggests that
additional Fickeisen plains cacti and an abundant suitable habitat
occur on the Boquillas Ranch (Chapman 2012, pers. comm. Goodwin 2012,
pers. comm.). If additional Fickeisen plains cacti do exist here, it
would increase the known range and distribution of the plant.
Abundance and Trends
About 1,150 Fickeisen plains cacti among 33 populations have ever been
documented rangewide from 1962 to 2011 (Table 3) (AGFD 2011b, entire;
Goodwin 2011a, p. 19; NNHP 2011a, entire). However, 504 individuals
among 6 populations have been recently documented and are a subset of
the 1,150 individuals. This difference in the number of individuals
does not necessarily represent a decline; survey information for the
remaining 27 populations is absent, and therefore their status is
unknown. Additionally, the increase in plant numbers in the Cataract
Canyon population from 2007 to 2011 is due to better detection between
years and not to greater abundance. Based on these six documented
populations, the breakout of the land ownership follows: BLM (26
percent), Kaibab National Forest (status unknown), State of Arizona (32
percent), the Navajo Nation (14 percent), and privately-owned lands (29
percent).

Table 3--Total Documented Fickeisen Plains Cactus Numbers
[1962 to 2011]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last
Population Land owner First visited First count visited Last count
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beanhole Well......................... BLM..................... 1979......................... 3............................ 1979 3
Marble Canyon......................... BLM..................... 1979......................... 8............................ 1979 8
Gray Mountain (Mays Wash)............. BLM..................... 1981......................... 29........................... 1981 29
South Canyon.......................... BLM..................... 1979......................... 41........................... 1987 52
Toquer Tank........................... BLM..................... 1986......................... 8............................ 1994 7
Navajo................................ BLM..................... 1986......................... 4............................ 2001 10
Salaratus Draw I and II............... BLM..................... 1986......................... 17........................... 2001 0
Temple Trail.......................... BLM..................... 1986......................... 7............................ 2001 7
Ward.................................. BLM..................... 1986......................... 12........................... 2001 10
Sunshine Ridge II..................... BLM..................... 1986......................... 9............................ 2004 35
Clayhole Ridge........................ BLM..................... 1987......................... 23........................... 2011 42
Dutchman Draw......................... BLM..................... 1986......................... 167.......................... 2011 12
North Canyon.......................... BLM..................... 1987......................... 16........................... 2011 39
Sunshine Ridge........................ BLM..................... 1987......................... 12........................... 2011 34
Kaibab National Forest................ Forest Service.......... Unknown...................... ............................. 2004 Unknown
Shinumo Wash.......................... NN...................... 1993......................... 9............................ 1993 9
Tiger Wash 2.......................... NN...................... 1993......................... 11........................... 1993 11
Little Colorado River Overlook........ NN...................... 1956......................... Unknown...................... 1997 15
Little Colorado River Gauging Station. NN...................... 1999......................... 1 (survey out of season)..... 1999 1
29 mile Canyon........................ NN...................... 2000......................... 2............................ 2000 2
Big Canyon............................ NN...................... 2002......................... 15........................... 2002 15
West of Hellhole Bend................. NN...................... 2002......................... 5............................ 2002 5
Small Ridge........................... NN...................... 2004......................... 1 (survey out of season)..... 2004 1
Little Colorado River Gravel pit...... NN...................... 1956......................... Unknown...................... 2005 21
Shinumo Altar......................... NN...................... 1991......................... Unknown...................... 2005 7
Tiger Wash 1.......................... NN...................... 1993......................... 30........................... 2005 2
Gray Mountain (South of Cameron)...... NN...................... 1962......................... 4............................ 2009 3

[[Page 60530]]

Hellhole Bend......................... NN...................... 2009......................... 314.......................... 2009 314
Salt Trail Canyon..................... NN...................... 2006......................... 119.......................... 2011 70
Blue Spring........................... NN...................... 2005......................... 30........................... 2005 30
Gray Mountain (Sewage Disposal Pond).. Private................. 1984......................... ............................. 1984 4
Cataract Canyon....................... Private................. 2007......................... 54........................... 2011 146
Cataract Canyon....................... State................... 2007......................... 98........................... 2011 161
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL............................. ........................ ............................. ............................. ........... 1, 105
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: Navajo Nation (NN).

Table 4--Numbers of Fickeisen Plains Cacti Recorded in BLM Monitoring Plots and Cluster Plots
[1986 to 2011]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Sunshine Salaratus Temple Toquer
Year Dutchman Clayhole Sunshine Ridge Canyon Navajo Ridge II I and II Trail Tank ** Ward Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1986 Plants outside 167 8 9....................... ......... ......... ......... 17 ....... ....... ....... 201
plots*.
1986..................... 21 ........ 6....................... 14 4 2 .......... 5 8 10 70
1987..................... 107 23 12...................... 16 ......... ......... .......... ....... 7 ....... 165
1988..................... 102 35 ........................ 27 ......... ......... .......... ....... 9 ....... 173
1989..................... 185 31 8....................... 28 ......... ......... .......... ....... 9 ....... 261
1990..................... 186 32 33...................... 33 ......... ......... .......... ....... 6 ....... 290
1991..................... 194 37 43...................... 36 ......... ......... .......... ....... 13 ....... 323
1992..................... 219 44 44...................... 7 ......... ......... .......... ....... 7 ....... 321
1993..................... 168 34 32...................... 13 0 ......... 13 1 ....... 0 261
1994..................... 168 38 35...................... 16 ......... ......... 44 ....... 7 ....... 308
1995..................... 188 30 25...................... 11 ......... ......... .......... ....... ....... ....... 254
1997..................... 122 21 7....................... 21 ......... ......... .......... ....... ....... ....... 171
1998..................... 49 16 6....................... 26 ......... ......... .......... ....... ....... ....... 97
1999..................... 45 17 5....................... 28 ......... ......... .......... ....... ....... ....... 95
2000..................... 37 20 Not Observed............ 22 ......... ......... .......... ....... ....... ....... 79
2001..................... 40 63 3....................... 34 10 23 0 7 0 10 190
2002..................... 30 60 12...................... 24 ......... ......... .......... ....... ....... ....... 126
2003..................... 50 56 Not Observed............ 24 ......... ......... .......... ....... ....... ....... 130
2004..................... 45 59 7....................... 40 ......... ......... .......... ....... ....... ....... 151
2005..................... 34 59 33...................... 40 ......... ......... .......... ....... ....... ....... 166
2006..................... 36 48 26...................... 32 ......... ......... .......... ....... ....... ....... 142
2007..................... 32 38 30...................... 39 ......... ......... .......... ....... ....... ....... 139
2008..................... 23 40 23...................... 33 ......... ......... .......... ....... ....... ....... 119
2009..................... 33 37 33...................... 31 ......... ......... .......... ....... ....... ....... 134
2011..................... 12 42 34...................... 39 ......... ......... .......... ....... ....... ....... 127
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: * BLM reported counts of Fickeisen plains cacti outside of established monitoring plots for 1986 only. No monitoring occurred in 1996 by the BLM
due to dry conditions resulting in plants retracted underground. No monitoring reports were submitted to the Service for the years 2010 and 2012.

Our knowledge of abundance and trend information was assessed from
annual monitoring reports by the BLM (1986 to 2011) and Navajo Nation
(2006 to 2011). Each agency has monitoring plans that are set up to
track specific information in each of their populations. However, there
are differences in data collection, and this inconsistency makes it
difficult to compare trends across the landscape and ownerships.
Therefore, results are presented for each landowner separately. No
monitoring program has been established for the Fickeisen plains cactus
on the Kaibab National Forest and the Cataract Ranch.
Trend information from the five monitored plots indicates that
these populations have experienced significant declines in plant
numbers. Plant numbers in the four BLM plots increased by approximately
98 percent from 1987 to 1992, but declined by 59.5 percent from 1993 to
2011 (Table 4). The reported decline is based on the number of tagged
Fickeisen plains cactus that are present (emergent and alive) during
the monitoring period. If an individual tagged plant is retracted
underground during the monitoring period, it is counted as missing or
retracted but is not included in the live plant count. If that plant
does not emerge after 3 consecutive years, the BLM will mark the plant
as dead. The Salt Trail Canyon plot on the Navajo Nation plot shows a
49 percent decline over the last 5 years. This decline is also based on
the number of live, emergent plants counted during the monitoring
period. Plants that are reportedly dead or missing are tallied
separately in each successive year that monitoring occurs.
Bureau of Land Management Lands--The BLM manages habitat for 13
documented Fickeisen plains cactus populations (Table 3) that occupy an
estimated 36.9-ha (91.3-ac) area (BLM 2007b, p. 67) on the Arizona
Strip. The total known population on the Arizona

[[Page 60531]]

Strip has declined from 323 individuals in 1991 to 127 individuals in
2011 (Table 4).
The Fickeisen plains cactus was first documented on the Arizona
Strip in 1977 at Sunshine Ridge with the remaining populations
discovered up through 1986 (Phillips 1979, entire; AGFD 2011b, entire).
The populations are widely separated from one another (roughly 31 km
(19 mi) apart) in geographically disjunct locations. In Mohave County,
populations have been documented in Mainstreet Valley near Dutchman
Draw, in Hurricane Valley near Toquer Tank, in Lower Hurricane Valley
near Temple Trail, in Salaratus Draw in the Hurricane Cliffs, on
Clayhole Ridge, and on Sunshine Ridge. Populations have also been
documented in Coconino County near the canyon rims of Marble Canyon,
South Canyon, and North Canyon Wash in House Rock Valley. Searches for
the Fickeisen plains cactus after 1987 have not located any additional
occurrences despite the abundance of suitable habitat present (Hughes
1996a, p. 47; Hughes 2011, pers. comm.).
In 1986, the BLM established long-term monitoring at the Dutchman
Draw, North Canyon wash, Clayhole Ridge, and Sunshine Ridge populations
(Hughes 1996a, p. 47). The plots were located in populations that
contained the densest number of Fickeisen plains cacti and were easily
accessible (Hughes 2009, p. 28; Hughes 2011, pers. comm.). They were
visited each year from 1986 to 2009, and in 2011, to record information
on abundance, size (diameter), reproduction, recruitment, mortality,
and missing or retracted plants. BLM classified plants into five
different size classes based on measured width between 1987 and 1995.
After 1997, two size classes were used to reflect the juvenile (0 to 15
mm (0.6 in)) and adult (16 to 31 mm and greater (0.63 to 1.22 in)) size
classes. The changes to the size classes prevents comparing the data
among years; however, it does provide some information regarding the
proportion of the population in the small and larger size classes that
can be used to describe recruitment. Besides the four plots, BLM
established seven cluster plots: Navajo, Ward, Salaratus Draw 1,
Salaratus Draw 2, Sunshine Ridge 2, Temple Trail, and Toquer Tank.
Cluster plots consist of rebar centered among a small number of
scattered individuals. These are visited once every 5 to 10 years for
the purpose of recording presence/absence.
Dutchman Draw--The Dutchman Draw plot is the largest plot, situated
within tall, dense grass in Mainstreet Valley. It has experienced a 95
percent decline in the last 18 years. Up until 1999, plant numbers in
the plot accounted for 64 to 74 percent of the total reported numbers
for the Arizona Strip population. Abundance in this plot increased
during the late 1980s from 167 individuals to a high of 219 plants in
1992. As of 2011, only 12 plants occur in the plot. The plot
experienced its highest number of seedlings from 1989 to 1992, a period
when the BLM recorded plants in the smallest size class. Only one other
seedling was detected in 1994. Between 1997 and 2005, the two size
classes were relatively equal. After 2007, the larger size class showed
an upward trend, while a significant drop occurred in the smaller size
class. This gap between the two size classes has continued through
2011, in which 83 percent of the plot's individuals are adult plants.
There were a total of 111 plants counted as recruitment (plants with a
diameter less than 20 mm (0.79 in)) with an average of 7 individuals
per year; 94 percent of those were reported from 1994 to 2004. On
average, 31 percent of tagged plants fruited in 5 of the 22 years of
percent fruiting was recorded. From 2001 to 2011, 174 plants were
reported missing or retracted (average 35 plants per year). Mortality
totaled 257 plants over a 15-year period from 1987 to 2011 with 144 of
those occurring in the year 2000. The BLM stated that the 144
mortalities included tagged plants that that were previously counted as
retracted plants but because they had not been seen since the late
nineties, they were assumed to be dead (Hughes 2000a, p. 2). In
summary, this plot has shown a continued decline since 1992. Although
many plants are within reproductive age, there have not been any
significant increases in plant numbers. Mortality and the number of
plants missing or retracted have been higher than the number of new
recruits. With only 12 plants in 2011, we believe this plot could be
extirpated in the near future.
Clayhole Ridge--The Clayhole Ridge plot occurs on top of a
limestone ridge (BLM 2007b, p. 67). Plant numbers have varied with a
high of 63 individuals (2001) and a low of 16 individuals (1998). Since
2001, plant numbers have declined by 33 percent. As of 2011, the plot
has 42 plants. No seedlings were reported from 1987 to 1995, when the
small size classes were measured. During that period, 76 percent of the
individuals were greater than 20.1 mm (0.79 in) in diameter, while 9
percent were less than 10 mm (0.39 in) in diameter. The gap between the
small and larger size classes has continued through 2011, with 88
percent of the individuals in the larger size class. Hughes (1996b, p.
17) attributed this division to the lack of intensive surveys for
seedlings. This plot had the highest percent of cactus producing fruit
and in the most years compared to the other plots. Fruiting production
occurred in 16 of the 22 years reported with 6 to 85 percent of tagged
cactus fruiting in any given year. New recruits, however, appeared to
be low, with a total of 34 new plants (average of 2 per year) reported
in 11 of the 16 years. There were a total of 40 mortalities between
1988 and 2005, and 251 plants were reported missing or retracted from
1998 to 2009 (average of 21 plants per year). In summary, abundance has
varied in this plot overall. Since 2001, plant numbers have declined by
33 percent. Even with the high number of plants that produced fruit and
considering that larger individuals produced multiple fruit,
recruitment appears to be poor. Mortalities, in combination with the
number of plants missing or retracted, are substantially high in light
of overall plant numbers. The years between 2000 and 2001 are the
exception, when plant numbers increased from 20 to 63. Reasons
attributed for the sharp increase are unknown and do not appear to be
correlated to weather, as the spring of 2000 was very dry (Hughes
2000a, p. 1).
Sunshine Ridge--The Sunshine Ridge plot is located along a
ridgeline and downslope on a bench next to Toroweap Road (Hughes 1996b,
p. 17). This plot has experienced great variations in plant numbers.
Monitoring began with six plants in 1986, and as of 2011, the plot
contained 34 plants. Plant numbers fluctuated from a high of 44 (1992)
to none being observed in 2000, because they were either retracted or
dead (Hughes 2000a, p. 1; Hughes 2005a, pers. comm.), possibly in
response to below-average precipitation that year. The plot had two
distinct periods of relatively high numbers; from 1990 to 1995, with an
average of 35 plants, and from 2005 to 2011, with an average of 29
plants. The worst years occurred in between these peaks. The plot was
vandalized in 1996, which may have contributed to the significant
decline, although plants were not observed to have been damaged by the
vandalism (Hughes 2005a, pers. comm.). From 1987 to 1995, 77 percent of
individuals were greater than 10.1 mm (0.40 in) in diameter, while only
two very small plants were discovered during this period. From 1997
through 2011, the majority of the plants were in the larger size class
which currently includes 85 percent of the individuals in this plot.

[[Page 60532]]

Fruit production occurred in 10 of the 22 years, with 16 to 79 percent
of tagged cacti fruiting. A total of 26 new recruits (average 1.7 per
year) occurred in 7 of the 16 years reported. A total of 43 plants
died, with 74 percent of those mortalities occurring from 1989 to 1995.
There was also a total of 45 plants reported missing or retracted
(average of 4 per year), with 82 percent of these reports occurring
from 2006 to 2009. In summary, this plot has experienced great
fluctuations in numbers but has maintained an average of 21 plants over
the years. Reasons for the fluctuations have not been fully
investigated. Despite a high percentage of plants fruiting, only two
seedlings were documented over a 16-year period. Both mortality and the
number of plants missing or retracted exceeds the number of new
recruits. The status of the species in the plot appears to be unstable
and trending towards decline.
North Canyon--The North Canyon Plot occurs in House Rock Valley on
two small hills near North Canyon wash. As of 2011, the plot contained
39 plants. Plant numbers have also varied and have not been
investigated. From 1987 to 1991, plant numbers increased by
approximately 55 percent, then declined by approximately 81 percent in
1992. The sharp decline was attributed to a high number of plants lost
from rodent predation in 1992. Post 1992, plant numbers have gradually
increased to a high of 40 in 2004 and 2005, and currently fluctuate
between 31 and 39 individuals. Size structure has been dominated by
larger individuals since 2000; few to no seedlings have been reported.
From 1988 to 1995, 85 percent of plants were greater than 10.1 mm (0.40
in) in diameter. No small-sized plants were found during these years.
From 1997 through 2002, the size class distribution was relatively
equal. After 2002, a shift occurred, with an increase in the number of
individuals in the larger size class and a decrease in the number in
the smaller size class. Currently, 90 percent of plants are in the
larger size class. Fruit production occurred in 11 of the 22 years
reported, with 8 to 64 percent of tagged cactus fruiting. There were 31
new recruits (average of 2 plants per year) in 10 of 16 years reported.
There were a total of 37 mortalities, including the 26 deaths in 1992.
A total of 72 plants were reported missing or retracted (about 6 plants
per year); 65 percent of those occurred from 2002 to 2005, when the
plot also increased in numbers. In summary, the plot has maintained
between 31 and 39 individuals since 2004. Given the size structure, the
plot appears to be dominated by aging adult cactus. Very few small
plants were documented between 1986 and 1995. In addition, mortality,
combined with the number of plants missing or retracted, exceeds
recruitment. This plot is trending towards decline due to poor
recruitment and the current size-class distribution.
Information collected on the seven cluster plots was reported in
BLM's 2001 annual monitoring report and is limited to count data
(Roaque 2012, pers. comm.). The Navajo and Ward clusters plots are
located in proximity to the Dutchman Draw population. In 1986, 4 plants
were found at Navajo and 12 at Ward. Visits to these sites in 1993
reported zero plants in both plots. These sites were last visited in
2001 and 10 plants each were found in both plots. No information
describing the 1993 visit was provided in the monitoring report.
Reported numbers for Salaratus Draw 1 and Salaratus Draw 2 were 5 and
12, respectively in 1986 (BLM 1986, p. 2) and, 2 and 11 plants,
respectively in 1993. In 1994, the Service visited Salaratus Draw sites
and counted 14 plants in Salaratus Draw I and 30 plants in Salaratus
Draw II (Brooks 1995, p.1). Both of these sites were last visited in
2001 and zero plants were reported (Roaque 2012, pers. comm.). We do
not have locations of these sites, in relation to the other, on file.
Because the BLM referred to these sites as simply Salaratus Draw in
their 1986 annual monitoring report and we do the same in this document
unless specificity between the two sites is called for. The Sunshine
Ridge II cluster plot had 9 plants in 1986 and 23 plants in 2001. The
Temple Trail cluster plot had 5 plants in 1986, 1 plant in 1993, and 7
plants in 2001.
The Toquer Tank cluster plot was visited regularly from 1986 to
1991. The reported number of plants found during that time ranged from
8 in 1986, up to 13 in 1991, to 7 in 1994 (Table 4) (Roaque 2012, pers.
comm.; AGFD 2011b, entire). Information from BLM's annual monitoring
reports for the years 1995 through 2000 noted ``no observations'' for
the Toquer Tank cluster plot but did not provide an explanation to what
this meant. We do not know if this signifies that the cluster plot was
not visited or whether a visit did occur but no Fickeisen plains cacti
were observed at the time. Subsequently, the BLM no longer included
Toquer Tank in their monitoring reports.
Despite the confusion with Toquer Tank and the length of time since
the Salaratus Draw cluster plots were last visited, we believe these
areas may still be occupied by the species. When Hughes last visited
Salaratus Draw I and II in 2001, he noted that both sites were very dry
(Roaque 2012, pers. comm.) and plants may have been retracted at the
time. Hughes further noted that the cluster plots are located in areas
with dense grass in which, the plants are difficult to find if they are
not in bloom. We do not have any additional information to describe the
conditions at the Toquer Tank cluster plot; however a visit to the area
is warranted. We are seeking any information about the status of the
Fickeisen plains cactus at these three areas, specifically information
to describe abundance, health, and age-class diversity of the plants.
We also seek information describing the status of its habitat and any
land use activities occurring within occupied areas (see Information
Requested).
We also have limited information about the three populations
located in House Rock Valley where the Fickeisen plains cactus has been
documented, but these areas have not been visited in over 18 years. The
populations are located at Beanhole Well, Marble Canyon, and South
Canyon in House Rock Valley near the North Rim of the Grand Canyon
National Park. The Beanhole Well population is located north of the
South Canyon site and just south of Highway 89A near the Vermillion
Cliffs. This is a small population that was discovered in 1979, and
contained only three plants (Anderson and Gierisch 1979, p.1; AGFD
2011b, entire). Field notes described the plants as healthy, scarce,
and with several size classes present. The site had been revisited by
Hughes, and while occupied habitat was observed, no plant numbers were
reported to us (Calico 2012, pers. comm.). The only available
information about the Marble Canyon site was that 8 plants were
documented there in 1979 within a 100-by 100-m area (0.06-by 0.06-mi)
(Phillips 1979, p. 3). Near the canyon rim of South Canyon, a total of
41 plants among three populations were observed in 1979 within a 1,000-
by 200-m (0.62-by 0.12-mi) area. Only three plants were noted having
several size classes present; plants appeared healthy but scarce. In
1987, 52 plants were observed during a soil study at the South Canyon
site (AGFD 2011b, entire). Travis (1987, p.4) observed animal burrows
at the site with the Fickeisen plains cactus found in the disturbed
ground. A short-term monitoring plot was established there from 1982
until 1989 (Phillips et al. 1982, p. 7). The only available information
described poor recruitment

[[Page 60533]]

in the plot, which was attributed to below average precipitation
(Service 2001a, p. 1). The site was last visited in 1993 by Hughes
(Roaque 2012, pers. comm.), who had observed several Fickeisen plains
cacti but did not provide specific information on plant numbers. We are
seeking any information about the status of the populations at these
three areas, specifically information to describe abundance, health,
and age-class diversity of Fickeisen plains cactus. We also seek
information describing the status of its habitat and any land use
activities occurring within occupied areas (see Information Requested).
Navajo Nation Lands-- The Navajo Nation lists the Fickeisen plains
cactus as a Group 3 species on the Navajo Endangered Species List,
which is a ``species or subspecies whose prospects of survival or
recruitment are likely to be in jeopardy in the foreseeable future''
(Navajo Nation Division of Natural Resources 2008). There are 15 known
populations of the Fickeisen plains cactus on the Navajo Nation (NNHP
2011a, p. 1). Eleven populations contain fewer than 20 plants, while
three and possibly five populations contain only two to three
individuals (Table 3). Three hundred and fourteen plants occur in a
single population discovered in 2009. This site was visited in February
2012 with monitoring planned in the near future. Only 4 of the 15
populations have been visited more than one time by the Navajo Nation
Heritage Program staff (NNHP 2011a, p. 1). They reported substantial
decreases in plant numbers recorded during their most recent visits to
two of these populations; the other two populations appeared stable. We
do not have information on the total amount of occupied habitat of the
Fickeisen plains cactus on the Navajo Nation.
Surveys for the Fickeisen plains cactus on the Navajo Nation
occurred in 1994, when 280 individuals were located (NNHP 1994, p. 3).
Re-surveying of known populations between 2004 and 2005 resulted in
only half of the 15 populations located and substantially fewer plant
numbers than the 280 previously reported (Roth 2005, pers. comm.). In
2006, a monitoring plot was established at one of their largest
populations (Salt Trail Canyon) (Roth 2007, p. 3). The plot has been
monitored annually except for 2010, to estimate population trends and
record reproductive efforts.
In 2006, 119 plants were recorded within the plot. Plant numbers
increased to 143 individuals in 2007, but this rise was primarily due
to increased survey efforts that year (Roth 2008, p. 6). Since 2007,
plant numbers have declined by 49 percent with 70 plants found as of
2011 (NNHP 2011b, p. 2). In 2009, 31 plants were found dead or could
not be relocated with 8 new recruits. In 2011, 28 plants were found
dead or were not located with one new seedling observed (NNHP 2011b, p.
3). Of the remaining plant in the plot, their observed condition, mean
diameter, and reproductive output declined as well. From 2006 to 2008,
the majority of plants were rated in excellent condition. The number of
plants rated fair or poor increased from 4 in 2008, to 23 in 2009.
These patterns may have been influenced by above-average rainfall in
2005 and 2007, but below-average precipitation in 2008 through 2010, on
the Navajo Nation (NNHP 2011b, p. 3). The mean diameter of plants
between 2008 and 2009 was 28 mm (1.10 in). By 2011, the mean diameter
declined by 5 mm (0.20 in) as a result of the cactus shrinking rather
than a loss of plants in that size class. The plot has been dominated
by the larger size classes with 1 percent of the plants recorded as
seedlings. Reproductive structures observed in 2009 and 2011 were
flower buds, flowers both at and past their peak, and aborted flower
buds, an observation which was similar to phenological results in 2008.
In general, reproductive effort in 2009 was moderate, while in 2011 it
was extremely low compared to 2008. In 2008, 205 reproductive
structures were observed on 98 plants, and this was attributed to
above-average rainfall in 2007, whereas 2008 and 2010 had below-average
rainfall (NNHP 2011b, p. 3). In summary, short-term results demonstrate
a continued decline over the last 5 years. Mortality, combined with the
number of plants missing between years, is exceeding the number of
smaller, young plants observed. In addition, the reproductive output
appears to be low, in that no fruit were observed, and was likely
influenced by below-normal precipitation.
Kaibab National Forest Lands--The Kaibab National Forest has
recorded two limited occurrences of the Fickeisen plains cactus (USFS
2005, p. 148; AGFD 2011b, entire). These occur near the National Forest
boundary of the North Kaibab Ranger District below the eastern and
western edges of the Kaibab Plateau. The total number of plants that
occur is unknown, but the population is considered to be small with
only a few individuals (Phillips 2005, pers. comm.). Additionally, the
amount of habitat is considered to be very limited and located in
remote areas far removed from management actions. Beyond their
discovery, the Kaibab National Forest has not monitored these plants.
Occupied areas are managed for multiple uses but the predominant uses
are wildlife habitat, livestock grazing, and recreation. Additional
suitable habitat is believed to exist in the Lower and Upper Basin
areas on the Tusayan Ranger District. Surveys for the Fickeisen plains
cactus are needed in order to verify this (USFS 2009, p. 72).
State and Private Lands--A large occurrence of the Fickeisen plains
cactus was documented in 2006, near the rim of Cataract Canyon on
Cataract and Espee Ranches, which is owned and managed by Babbitt
Ranches, LLC. These ranches are located on the Coconino Plateau south
of the Grand Canyon National Park. The land within Cataract Ranch
includes 18,210 ha (45,000 ac) of private land and 53,823 ha (133,000
ac) of land leased from the State of Arizona (The Nature Conservancy
(TNC) 2000, p. 4). On December 7, 2000, TNC acquired 13, 953 ha (34,480
ac) of the privately owned parcels and placed these lands under a
conservation easement; TNC refers to the easement land as the Cataract
Natural Reserve Land (TNC 2000, p. 22). The easement land forms a large
contiguous block in the southern portion of Cataract Ranch, but is
interspersed among numerous parcels of State land in the northern
portion of the ranch (TNC 2000, p. 3). The Espee Ranch is adjacent to
the western boundary of the Cataract Ranch and includes State and
private lands. Surveys for the Fickeisen plains cactus on the Espee
Ranch were planned for spring of 2012; the status of that survey is
unknown.
From 2006 to 2011, Goodwin located 307 Fickeisen plains cacti at 37
sites while conducting a general floristic inventory on the Cataract
and Espee Ranches (Goodwin 2006, p. 7; Goodwin 2008, pp. 8-10; Goodwin
2011a, pp. 1-9). The number of plants recorded at each site was
detected using a 5-10 minute visual search of the area (Goodwin 2011b,
pers. comm.). About 146 Fickeisen plains cacti are located on the
Cataract Natural Reserve Land, and 161 plants are on State land
(Goodwin 2011a, pp. 18-20). Only two mature plants were located on the
Espee Ranch. Goodwin defined sites as physical breaks in the habitat
separating one occupied area from another (Goodwin 2011b, pers. comm.).
Occupied sites had an average of 8.3 plants (range of 1 to 32
individuals) within a 0.10-ha (0.25-ac) or smaller sized area. About 30
percent (92 of 307 plants) of the plants observed were classified as
immature

[[Page 60534]]

plants that appear to be of less than breeding age. The distribution of
the plants appears to be loosely associated with the Cataract drainage.
Most occupied areas occurred no farther than 3.22 to 4.83 km (2 to 3
mi) from the rim of the canyon and covered a 48-km (30-mi) linear area
(Goodwin 2011a, p. 7). No formal surveys or permanent monitoring plots
have been established.
The Fickeisen plains cactus has been documented on a mix of
Federal, tribal, and private land near the vicinity of Gray Mountain.
These areas have not been visited for many years, and the status of the
plants is unknown. Information from the AGFD Heritage Data Management
System noted that a Fickeisen plains cactus found on the Navajo Nation
near the town of Gray Mountain was collected as a herbarium specimen in
1962 (AGFD 2011b, entire). This site was believed to have been
revisited in 1977, but location information provided from that visit
was too vague. The area was last visited in 2009 by the Navajo Nation
botanist and three plants were found (NNHP 2011a, p. 2). In 1984, four
Fickeisen plains cacti were found in the same vicinity, south of the
Navajo Nation but on private land near a sewage disposal pond on the
western side of Highway 89. This site has not been revisited since
1984. Across the highway on the eastern side, 29 live and 4 dead
Fickeisen plains cacti were found in 1981. The AGFD Heritage Data
Management System noted that plants were scattered near Mays Wash where
BLM, State, and privately owned lands occur (AGFD 2011b, entire);
however the location information suggests most plants are found on BLM
lands. In 1983, a monitoring plot was established but there is no
information that describes those efforts or results. The area was last
visited in 1984, and four plants were observed, three of which were in
bloom.
In summary, of the 1,150 Fickeisen plains cacti among 33
populations that have been documented since 1962, we only have recent
information pertaining to the status of 504 individuals among 6
populations. We acknowledge that additional Fickeisen plains cacti may
be present in the other 27 known populations, but these have not been
visited for over 18 years, and the status of the plant is unknown. Of
the six populations, five are currently monitored. These five plots are
within the largest populations on the Arizona Strip and one of the
largest populations on the Navajo Nation. Long-term results from the
BLM show a 59.5 percent decline in plant numbers for the four monitored
plots combined since 1992. The decline appears to be a result of higher
rates of missing or retracted plants and mortality over several
consecutive years and low seedling recruitment. Adult plants, which
produce more fruit and have a greater reproductive output then immature
plants have been removed from the BLM populations and are not being
replaced by new recruits. Short-term monitoring results from the Salt
Trail Canyon population on the Navajo Nation indicate plant numbers
have declined by 49 percent in the last 5 years. This population is
also dominated by older adult individuals that appear to have low
reproductive output based on aborted reproductive structures observed
in 4 of the 5 years monitoring occurred, with high mortality compared
to recruitment.
Of these five populations, the observed decline in seedling
recruitment and survival is difficult to attribute to a single cause;
it is more likely associated with a combination of environmental
factors that are acting together. The reproductive capacity for the
Fickeisen plains cactus is considered to be naturally low (e.g., low
seed production and poor dispersal mechanism), in which, introducing
external factors that may place additional stress on the life history
characteristics of these populations may further inhibit population
growth. Because these five monitoring plots are located in large
populations and have demonstrated significant decreases in plant
numbers, it is likely that the smaller, isolated populations whose
status is unknown are experiencing similar declines. The Fickeisen
plains cactus on the Cataract Ranch is the exception. This population
is the only location showing relatively good age-class diversity (30
percent of the population is considered to be immature); however, there
is no long-term monitoring information for this area to draw
conclusions. This area has the largest population of the Fickeisen
plains cactus, but only 29 percent of those individuals are protected
under the conservation easement.
Based on the best available information on the species, the known
numbers of the Fickeisen plains cactus have declined. It is likely that
the species will continue to decline, for the reasons described below,
as mature plants die and few seedlings are present to replace them. The
viability of the five monitored populations has been reduced due to low
recruitment and the loss of mature, reproductive plants. If the threats
described below continue to affect these populations, the long-term
viability of the populations may be compromised. We acknowledge that
the observed declines are restricted to monitoring plots that may not
accurately reflect rangewide trends. In addition, our inability to say
with certainty that plants that have been recorded as missing or
retracted are dead may mean that we have underestimated the decline.
However, we conclude, based on the information analyzed, that the
largest populations have declined, and that recruitment is reduced or
nonexistent for the monitored populations.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Fickeisen Plains Cactus

Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range

Based on the habitat characteristics described above, potential
factors that may affect the habitat or range of the Fickeisen plains
cactus are discussed in this section, including: (1) Livestock grazing;
(2) nonnative, invasive species; (3) uranium mining; (4) road
construction and maintenance; (5) ORV use and recreation; (6)
commercial development; and (7) drought and climate change.
Livestock Grazing
The habitat of the Fickeisen plains cactus has been grazed since
the late 1800s, and continues to be used for grazing by cattle,
domestic sheep, and feral horses. In general, livestock grazing may
result in direct loss or damage to the Fickeisen plains cactus and the
habitat that supports its persistence as a result of trampling,
compacting soil, increasing erosion, losing the soil seed bank,
introducing invasive species, and disturbing native pollinators
(Klemmedson 1956, p. 137; Ellison 1960, p. 24; Fleischner 1994, entire;
Trimble and Mendel 1995, pp. 234-240; Kearns et al. 1998, p. 90;
DiTomaso 2000, p. 257). For the Fickeisen plains cactus, the risk of
trampling is greatest when plants emerge above ground at the same time
that cattle occupy the area. Given their small size and lack of hard
spines, plants are vulnerable to being stepped on and may be killed or
damaged as a result (Phillips and Phillips 1995, p. 6). During the wet
winter months when rainfall is sufficient, water may collect in pockets
of bedrock on the canyon rims, attracting livestock to these areas.
Although most plants retract in winter, those plants whose crown sits
above the surface are still vulnerable to trampling and risk damage to
their meristem. Plants can also be dislodged by cattle as they wander
through an occupied area. Increased grazing pressure can

[[Page 60535]]

negatively impact Fickeisen plains cactus habitat. The soil where
plants occur is shallow, sandy, and easily compactible, and may be
covered by biological soil crusts, which are easily damaged by
trampling (NRCS 1997, p. 10; Evans and Johansen 1999, p. 185).
Livestock concentrating within occupied areas can lead to soil
compaction and erosion that may decrease the ability of the soil to
store seed and support seedling establishment, and may prevent plants
from seasonally retracting underground (BLM 2007b, p. 74).
Bureau of Land Management Lands--Livestock grazing has occurred on
the Arizona Strip and within the habitat of the Fickeisen plains cactus
since the mid-1800s (BLM 2007a, p. 3-123). Unregulated use of the
rangeland between the late 1880s and early 1900s resulted in
overgrazing and rangeland deterioration. The passage of the Taylor
Grazing Act (43 U.S.C. 315) in 1934 led to grazing reform and the
establishment of allotments, kind and number of livestock, and seasons-
of-use. Between the late 1950s and 1980s, the BLM made further
adjustments in livestock numbers and the season-of-use, and implemented
regulated grazing systems and management plans. Compared to 1900s, the
current permitted level of grazing has been substantially reduced. The
land and the vegetation community is slowly recovering, with habitat
improvements noted by the BLM over the last several decades. Although
populations of the Fickeisen plains cactus persisted during past years
of overgrazing, we do not have information to describe any historical
effects grazing may have had to the plant.
All habitat occupied by the Fickeisen plains cactus on the Arizona
Strip occurs within active grazing allotments (BLM 2007b, p. 67). The
Dutchman Draw plot is located in the Mainstreet Allotment and within a
transitional pasture that is used in May for 2 to 4 weeks; the Clayhole
Ridge plot is located within a single pasture of the White Pockets
Allotment and has season-long grazing from mid-October to June; the
Sunshine Ridge plot is within the Wildband pasture of the Wildband
Allotment that is used from mid-June to September; and the North Canyon
plot is within Rider Point pasture of the Soap Creek Allotment that has
winter-spring use. The Salaratus Draw population is in the Salaratus
pasture that is used in the winter season. Plants in the Temple Trail
cluster plot are in the Temple Trail Allotment, Beanhole Well plants
are in the Beanhole Allotment, and Toquer Tank plants are in the Toquer
Tank Allotment (BLM 2008a, Appendix C). The Beanhole, Soap Creek,
Temple Trail, and Wildband Allotments are categorized as ``improve
allotments.'' These are ``managed to improve resource conditions or
conflicts and receive the highest priority for funding and management
actions'' (BLM 2007a, p. 3-124). The Mainstreet, Toquer Tank, and White
Pockets Allotments are managed as ``maintain allotments.'' These
allotments are managed ``to maintain current satisfactory resource
conditions and are actively managed to ensure that resource values do
not decline'' (BLM 2007a, p. 3-124). The Mainstreet Allotment is
managed under a best pasture system, which attempts to match cattle
movements with variable precipitation patterns and seasonal forage
production rather than strict rotational schedules (Howery et al. 2000,
entire). Forage utilization levels for key species are authorized at
the 50 percent average of the current years' growth (BLM 2007a, 3-125).
We do not have trend information describing rangeland conditions for
the pastures occupied by the Fickeisen plains cactus. Available
information indicates varying levels of grazing use across occupied
habitat on the Arizona Strip (Brooks 1995, p.1; Roaque 2011, pers.
comm.).
Impacts associated with livestock grazing have documented direct
mortality to the Fickeisen plains cactus from trampling. Over a 17-year
period, monitoring by the BLM detected 12 Fickeisen plains cacti killed
from trampling. Three plants died at Clayhole Ridge following heavy
spring rains. Hughes (1988, p. 2) documented cattle had congregated in
the area of the Fickeisen plains cactus, and it appeared that
considerable bull fighting occurred, resulting in disturbance to the
plant and the soil. Seven plants died from trampling at Sunshine Ridge,
including a large mature plant and five seedlings in 2001 (Hughes 2004,
p. 2), and two plants died from trampling at Dutchman Draw (Hughes
2000a, p. 2). In House Rock Valley, the risk of trampling to the
Fickeisen plains cactus may be greatest during the wet winter months
when rainfall is sufficient to provide water for cattle on the canyon
rims and into occupied habitat (Hughes 2001, pers. comm.). Because not
all plants retract completely underground, directly stepping on the
plant can damage the meristem and prevent flower production in the
future.
There is evidence from other monitored Pediocactus species that
trampling can impact numerous plants and often results in direct
mortality. The BLM conducts similar monitoring for the Pediocactus
bradyi (Brady pincushion cactus) as they do for the Fickeisen plains
cactus. Over a 14-year period, Hughes (2005b, p. 17) reported two
plants killed in the monitored plots from trampling. However, in
response to the Service's concern for grazing impacts to the Brady
pincushion cactus, the BLM established linear transects to determine
livestock damage to the Brady pincushion cactus along the rim of Marble
Canyon (Service 2001b, entire). The results showed that 15 Brady
pincushion cacti were killed from trampling in the 3 years the
transects were monitored (Hughes 2005b, p. 17). Hughes commented that
the soil was wet and hoof prints were deep in the soil. Clark and Clark
(2008, p. 3), monitoring the Pediocactus winkleri (Winkler pincushion
cactus), found that 58 of 107 (54 percent) plants were stepped on
directly by cattle over a 13-year period, with some plants stepped on
more than once. Thirty-five of those plants died immediately from being
trampled, while of those that survived, 60 percent eventually died
within 4 years of their trampling injury. This provides some evidence
that damage caused to plants from trampling may not be readily apparent
immediately after the event. We anticipate that more Fickeisen plains
cacti have died from being stepped on, either immediately or later in
time, but are not being detected through the current monitoring methods
(Service 2000, p. 2; Service 2007a, p. 8).
In the House Rock Valley, past heavy use of the range, in
conjunction with arid conditions and drought, has resulted in
degradation of the rangeland (Grand Canyon Trust (GCT) 2011) and slowed
grassland regeneration. The North Canyon population was located in the
Cram Allotment, which has been conjoined into the Soap Creek Allotment
within the Kane Ranch. The BLM had identified the western half of the
Cram Allotment as having a severe overgrazing problem historically and
up until 1996. The North Canyon population occurred in the area heavily
grazed (Hughes 2000b, p. 21). An October 1995 site visit to the Cram
Allotment by Service staff reported that the number of cattle had been
reduced from 150 head yearlong to 50 head in the winter-spring season
due to the poor condition of the allotment (Brooks 1995, p. 1). In
1995, the BLM installed new water sources on the eastern half of the
allotment and blocked water tanks from filling up on the western half.
This was anticipated to reduce livestock use on the western half and
help to alleviate grazing pressure within occupied Fickeisen plains
cactus habitat (Hughes 2000b, p. 22). In 2003 to 2004, the

[[Page 60536]]

permittee of the Cram Allotment, now Soap Creek Allotment sold all of
the livestock and grazing ceased on the Kane Ranch until 2005. During
the period from 2003 to 2005, the Fickeisen plains cactus in the North
Canyon plot experienced the greatest increase in the number of plants
observed in the plot since 1986.
In 2005, the GCT and Conservation Fund purchased the grazing lease
and currently maintain a reduced number of cattle on the allotment
compared to previous levels (GCT 2011). They conducted a baseline
ecological assessment and found nonnative, invasive species,
particularly cheatgrass, abundant on the Kane Ranch in House Rock
Valley and the range in poor quality likely from past heavy winter
grazing. In addition, rangeland recovery has been slow due of the arid
climate and drought conditions, such that forage productivity,
vegetative cover, and soil stability are low (GCT 2011). The GCT began
an experimental reseeding project and is investigating restoration
techniques of the desert grassland community. These efforts, if
successful, would improve the quality of habitat for the Fickeisen
plains cactus.
In summary, the Fickeisen plains cactus populations on BLM lands
are within active grazing allotments. The timing of when cattle are
present within occupied Fickeisen plains cactus habitat varies among
the four populations but corresponds to the periods when the plants are
emergent, and also when they flower and produce fruit. Direct mortality
from trampling has resulted in the documented loss of 12 plants, but
more plants have likely been affected. Over time, losses to mature
individuals or damage caused by trampling that prevents future
reproduction will result in population declines. The rangeland that
supports habitat for the Fickeisen plains cactus experienced past
overgrazing. Although current grazing levels are far reduced from
historic levels, the rangeland continues to be grazed during periods of
drought. Information from the BLM and GCT suggests that the seasonal
variation and changes in the timing of precipitation have resulted in
slowed recovery of the rangelands from historic overgrazing and heavy,
winter grazing over the past few years. These effects have likely
diminished the quality of suitable habitat, particular in the Sunshine
Ridge and North Canyon wash plots that are being managed to improve
resource conditions or conflicts. Both of these plots have shown great
fluctuations in plant numbers that may be correlated with habitat
deterioration from livestock grazing coupled with climate conditions.
In addition, heavy use in occupied Fickeisen plains cactus habitat
during times when the plant may already be stressed from drought may be
contributing to the plant's poor or nonexistent germination and
recruitment. The Fickeisen plains cactus appears to be able to rebound
when the grazing pressure has been removed, as demonstrated in the
North Canyon plot. However, if the population numbers are too low--such
as the Dutchman Draw plot--recovery may be very slow, or may not occur.
Navajo Nation Lands--Livestock grazing on the Navajo Nation has
occurred since the 1880s, primary by domestic sheep and cattle.
Stocking rates and the impact of grazing on the landscape have varied
over the years (NNHP 2011a, p. 2). Overgrazing was documented in the
past (Libecap and Johnson 1980, pp. 71-75; Richmond and Baron 1989,
entire) and remained problematic through the mid-1990s (HCN 1996, p.
2). We do not have information on the current grazing levels, but
similar to the BLM land, drought conditions have compounded rangeland
recovery from past heavy use necessitating balancing rangeland
capacity, family-owned herd sizes, and local economies (Redsteer et al.
2010, pp. 5-6, 11). Navajo Nation also supports an estimated 30,000
feral horses that contribute to and cause overgrazing problems (Navajo
Times 2012). Attempts to control the feral horse population continue to
be an ongoing issue on the Navajo Nation.
Livestock grazing is managed by the District Grazing Committees,
Farm Boards, and Eastern Navajo Land Board members. Oversight and
technical assistance is provided by the Grazing Management Office under
the Navajo Nation Department of Agriculture. In general, grazing
permits are authorized year round on the west side of the Navajo
Nation, while the Eastern Navajo authorizes seasonal permits for the
mountainous areas (Hazelton 2012c, pers. comm.). Grazing permits are
held by individuals for a certain number of animal units. The grazing
permits are generally considered permanent and are inherited by the
spouse or children within a family. Livestock rotation is at the
discretion of the families that own the livestock.
All areas occupied by the Fickeisen plains cactus on the Navajo
Nation are potentially subjected to impacts associated with this
grazing (NNHP 2011a, p. 1). However, monitoring has not been conducted
in such a way to assess the overall impacts of grazing to the Fickeisen
plains cactus and its habitat. Notes from the Navajo Nation Heritage
Program pertaining to the 15 known Fickeisen plains cactus populations
indicate some livestock impacts have been observed within the 3 largest
populations (Hellhole Bend, Salt Trail Canyon, and Blue Spring) (NNHP
2011a, p. 4). A 2012 site visit to the Hellhole Bend population
observed habitat disturbance by feral horses and sheep, but no impacts
to plants were observed (Robertson 2012, p. 1). Some of the native
vegetation within occupied habitat appeared to have been heavily
grazed, likely attributable to animals seeking forage following a dry
winter.
Livestock damage by sheep was observed at the Salt Trail Canyon
population in 2005 (Roth 2007, p. 2) and again in 2008, with nine
livestock-related mortalities. Roth (2008, p. 2) documented six dead
plants located within a depression in the ground that was believed to
have been dug by sheep that bedded down on top of the plants.
Monitoring of the plot in 2011 found some evidence that the plot had
been disturbed by animals (i.e., one plant appeared to have been partly
eaten) and may have contributed to the high mortality that year (NNHP
2011b, p. 4). An October 2011 site visit by the Service observed the
habitat had been disturbed by feral horses and sheep concentrating in
the area. We do not know at this time how frequent or how long this
site may be used by livestock. The only other available information
documented hoof prints of cattle and sheep near a cluster of the
Fickeisen plains cactus at Shinumo Altar in 1991; one cactus had been
partially uprooted and was lying in a hoof print (NNHP 1994, p. 5).
Kaibab National Forest Lands--On the North Kaibab Ranger District,
the Fickeisen plains cactus occurs in the Slide Pasture of the Central
Winter Allotment that is also part of the Kane Ranch. The Slide Pasture
has not been grazed since 2002 (Phillips 2012, p. 1). In addition, the
Central Winter Allotment was closed to grazing from 1996 to 2001 due to
the 21,448-ha (53,000-ac) Bridger-Knoll wildfire. The habitat type
within 3.2 km (2 mi) of the Fickeisen plains cactus population is not
suitable for livestock; there are occasional sagebrush, but no
understory grasses. A 2011 Kane Ranch Environmental Assessment is
currently in process that would address the impacts of livestock
grazing to the Fickeisen plains cactus. Populations on the eastern side
of the forest boundary are within the Grand Canyon National Game
Preserve, which has no livestock grazing.
State and Private Lands--The Cataract Ranch has been utilized for

[[Page 60537]]

livestock grazing for well over 100 years. Livestock grazing, by cattle
and horses, occurs within occupied Fickeisen plains cactus habitat but
is managed differently than grazing on the BLM and Navajo Nation and is
not comparable. While the cattle operations are vital to the Cataract
Ranch, livestock grazing is managed in a manner that is consistent with
the philosophies, values, and conservation ethic of the Babbitt
Ranches. For example, cattle operations are one component of the
Cataract Ranch, but the Ranch and the other Babbitt Ranches are managed
in a holistic manner that incorporates ecology (wildlife habitat,
vegetation diversity, watershed health, historical preservation,
cultural values, and recreation), the local and regional economies, and
the local and regional human community (Babbitt Ranches 2012, entire).
Therefore, herd sizes are not adjusted in response to seasonal
availability of water and forage due to drought but are managed
together with rangeland health, watershed, and wildlife habitat. More
specific to the Fickeisen plains cactus, Goodwin (2011a, p. 8) noted no
habitat impacts from grazing in this population while conducting
searches for the plant from 2006-2011. Additionally, a land assessment
by TNC determined that much of Cataract Ranch remains in an
undisturbed, natural state (TNC 2000, p. 1), and the general ecological
conditions of the land are excellent (TNC 2011, p. 9). While the
Fickeisen plains cactus remains vulnerable to being stepped on by
cattle or horses, we anticipate that livestock grazing would not rise
to a population-level threat based on habitat conditions. We,
therefore, do not anticipate livestock grazing on the Cataract Ranch to
be a threat to the Fickeisen plains cactus and its habitat.
In summary, all habitat for the Fickeisen plains cactus occurs in
areas that have been grazed and will continue to be grazed in the
future. Heavy grazing has been documented on approximately 40 percent
of its range, including the Arizona Strip and Navajo Nations lands,
with the latter being largely unregulated grazing management. Although
current grazing pressures across the range of the Fickeisen plains
cactus are far below the levels of the late 1800s, the continued
presence of Fickeisen plains cactus does not suggest grazing has no
effect on the plant. Based on available information, the rangelands are
still recovering from past heavy grazing across the range of the
Fickeisen plains cactus. Continued grazing on the BLM and Navajo Nation
during the prolonged drought in the late 1990s and local droughts in
the 2000s has added to rangeland deterioration and changes to the
vegetation community, while the drier climate is compounding recovery
of the grasslands that support habitat for the Fickeisen plains cactus.
Long-term monitoring has documented direct mortality to the
Fickeisen plains cactus from livestock. More plants on the BLM lands
have likely been killed or damaged from trampling, especially given
evidence of trampling on other Pediocactus species, but for which the
effects are not captured during the monitoring period. Trampling has
removed adult individuals from the population. While this occurs
infrequently and affects a few plants, it contributes to population
declines and may exacerbate the effects of small population size (see
Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence section). Thus, livestock grazing, in and of itself, may not
rise to a population-level threat for the Fickeisen plains cactus, but
when combined with additional stressors such as nonnative species,
drought, and climate change, rodent and rabbit predation (discussed
below), the combined effect will likely produce population-level
impacts to the Fickeisen plains cactus. Therefore, we believe that
livestock grazing, in conjunction with other factors, is a threat to
the Fickeisen plains cactus and its habitat.
Nonnative, Invasive Plant Species
A potential threat to the Fickeisen plains cactus and its habitat
is nonnative, invasive species. The spread of nonnative, invasive
species is considered the second largest threat to imperiled plants in
the United States (Wilcove et al. 1998, p. 608). Invasive plants--
specifically exotic annuals--negatively affect native vegetation,
including rare plants. One of the most substantial effects is the
change in vegetation fuel properties that, in turn, alter fire
frequency, intensity, extent, type, and seasonality (Menakis et al.
2003, pp. 282-283; Brooks et al. 2004, p. 677; McKenzie et al. 2004, p.
898). Shortened fire return intervals make it difficult for native
plants to reestablish or compete with invasive plants (D'Antonio and
Vitousek 1992, p. 73).
Invasive plants can exclude native plants and alter pollinator
behaviors (D'Antonio and Vitousek 1992, pp. 74-75; DiTomaso 2000, p.
257; Traveset and Richardson 2006, pp. 211-213; Cane 2011, pp. 27-28).
For example, cheatgrass and red brome outcompete native species for
soil nutrients and water (Aguirre and Johnson 1991, pp. 352-353; Brooks
2000, p. 92), as well as modify the activity of pollinators through
producing different nectar from native species (Levine et al. 2003, p.
776) or introducing nonnative pollinators (Traveset and Richardson
2006, pp. 208-209). Introduction of nonnative pollinators or production
of different nectar can lead to disruption of normal pollinator
interactions for the Fickeisen plains cactus.
Within the range of the Fickeisen plains cactus habitat, the BLM
identified 15 nonnative, invasive species: 9 that are designated as
noxious weeds in Arizona and 6 nonnative species that are not listed as
noxious weeds on the Arizona Strip (BLM 2007a, pp. 3-34). The Cataract
Ranch identified 26 nonnative, invasive species on their land. Some of
these species are the same species that are also found on the BLM
(Goodwin 2011a, p. 11). Those nonnative, invasive species that are
common to both landowners include Acroptilon repens (Russian knapweed),
Alhagi maurorum (camelthorn), Bromus tectorum (cheatgrass), B. rubens
(red brome), Halogeton glomeratus (halogeton), Salsola tragus (Russian
thistle), and Taeniatherum caput-medusae (medusahead). In addition,
Roth (2007, p. 2) documented Erodium cicutarium (redstem filaree)
within Fickeisen plains cactus habitat on the Navajo Nation.
On the Arizona Strip, we have some information on the distribution
of nonnative, invasive species relative to the Fickeisen plains cactus.
Generally, the majority of nonnatives occur near areas between
Mainstreet Valley and just east of Hurricane Cliffs (BLM 2007a, Figure
3-12), where Fickeisen plains cactus populations are scattered. During
a site visit in 2011, Russian thistle was identified in the Dutchman
Draw plot, but any negative effects the species may have on the plant
have not been documented by the BLM. Cheatgrass, at varying levels of
abundance, is found on the Kane Ranch in House Rock Valley. Based on
preliminary modeling results that predict the probability of cheatgrass
occurrence, the probability of cheatgrass occurrence appears to be low
within in the vicinity of the Fickeisen plains cactus at North Canyon
wash, although cheatgrass is present within proximity to the canyon
rims.
On the Kaibab National Forest, cheatgrass is the only nonnative,
invasive species known to exist in the Fickeisen plains cactus habitat
(USFS 2005, p. 139). According to the Forest, cheatgrass occurs in very
low densities and is not expected to increase due to lack of available
substrate and minimal habitat disturbance. However, the GCT, through
their modeling, identified a

[[Page 60538]]

high probability of cheatgrass occurrence just south of occupied
Fickeisen plains cactus habitat (GCT 2011). If this patch is ignited by
a lightning strike, there is the potential for cheatgrass to carry a
fire into the area where the Fickeisen plains cactus occurs. Another
concern would be if a high density patch of cheatgrass were ignited but
the fire stops short of Fickeisen plains cactus habitat, the areas
burned could facilitate the spread of cheatgrass towards occupied
Fickeisen plains cactus habitat, where the cactus could potentially
decrease in density and cheatgrass become a prolific competitor.
On the Navajo Nation, the presence of invasive, annual grasses may
have contributed to the decline of the Fickeisen plains cactus within
the Salt Trail Canyon (Roth 2007, p. 2). During high rainfall years,
high densities of red brome and redstem filaree have dominated the
habitat in the Salt Trail Canyon monitoring site (Roth 2008, p. 4).
Roth (2005, p. 1) observed an overall decline in the Fickeisen plains
cactus population at that time, finding more numbers of the Fickeisen
plains cacti in areas where fewer exotic grasses occurred. Red brome is
known to deplete soil water faster and at greater depths than native
annual species (Brooks 2009, p. 118), and can germinate before native
annuals in years with low precipitation and earlier in the season (Salo
2004, p. 293). Higher densities of red brome may also reduce the
germination of native plant species (Brooks and Esque 2000, p. 40). Red
brome is an early flowering, winter annual species that utilizes winter
precipitation (Rice et al. 1992, pp. 32, 38; Salo 2004, p. 291).
Fickeisen plains cactus is also a species that germinates early in the
spring, and, although no studies have investigated the relationship of
nonnative, invasive annuals on the seed germination of the plant (Roth
2008, p. 4), the occurrence of red brome and redstem filaree are likely
to result in competition for resources the Fickeisen plains cactus
depends on.
Cheatgrass and red brome can increase in abundance after a wildfire
and increase the chance for more frequent fires (D'Antonio and Vitousek
1992, pp. 74-75; Brooks 2000, p. 92; Brooks and Pyke 2001, p. 5). In
addition, cheatgrass invades areas in response to surface disturbances
(Hobbs and Huenneke 1992, pp. 324-325, 329, 330). Cheatgrass and red
brome are likely to increase due to climate change (see ``Drought and
Climate Change'' discussion, below) because nonnative, invasive annuals
increase biomass and seed production at elevated levels of carbon
dioxide (Smith et al. 2000, pp. 80-81; Ziska et al. 2005, p. 1328).
The Fickeisen plains cactus has likely evolved adaptions to low
intensity, frequent grass fires but may not survive high intensity
fires even at low fire return intervals. Some of the Fickeisen plains
cacti populations occur on ledges and in areas with sparse vegetation
away from annual grasses and would likely not be impacted. However,
there are some populations, such as Dutchman Draw, Sunshine Ridge, and
the Salt Trail Canyon, where invasive, annual grasses could facilitate
the spread of fire into occupied habitat and impact the population. It
is difficult to know for certain if cheatgrass could affect the
Fickeisen plains cactus or its habitat on the Kaibab National Forest.
With the probability of high densities of the species surrounding the
plant, the potential for negative impacts does exist. In other species
of Pediocactus, monitoring of the Pediocactus paradinei (Kaibab plains
cactus) exposed to different fire intensities indicated high intensity
fires resulted in plant mortality (Warren et al. 1992, abstract). There
is also evidence suggesting that invasion and dominance of cheatgrass
following a past fire may have contributed to the decline or loss of
some Kaibab plains cactus in the House Rock Valley (USFS 2007, p. 47),
suggesting that fire could impact the Fickeisen plains cactus in a
similar manner. At this time, however, we do not have sufficient
information to evaluate whether the presence of nonnative, invasive
species would facilitate the spread of wildfires into Fickeisen plains
cactus habitat.
In summary, nonnative, invasive species such as cheatgrass, red
brome, and redstem filaree grow rapidly and are prolific seed producers
in wet years. Although we lack site-specific information on where
nonnative, invasive species occur, we do know they occur in varying
densities within or near the Fickeisen plains cactus. Invasion of these
species may contribute to the low recruitment of the Fickeisen plains
cactus by inhibiting seedling germination due to competition and
increasing the plant's risk of exposure to high intensity fires.
Densities of the nonnative, invasive species may increase due to
climate change (see ``Drought and Climate Change'' section, below)
because invasive annuals increase biomass and seed production at
elevated levels of carbon dioxide (Brooks and Pyke 2001, p. 42; Bradley
2009, p. 203). Based on available information, we anticipate that
densities of nonnative, invasive species will increase in the future.
Therefore, we consider nonnative, invasive species to be a threat to
the Fickeisen plains cactus.
Uranium Mining
High-quality uranium ore deposits are found on the Arizona Strip
and on the Coconino Plateau. Interest in the region's uranium deposits
increased in 2008, as the price for uranium ore rose, and applications
for new mining claims were sought on public lands surrounding the Grand
Canyon. In response, the Secretary of the Interior signed Public Land
Order Number 7787 (PLO 7787) effectively withdrawing 407,335 ha
(1,006,545 ac) of Federal mineral estates within three parcels from any
individual or company making a new mining claim under the Mining Law of
1872 (30 U.S.C. 22 et seq.) for a 20-year period (BLM 2012a, pp. 1-4).
Existing locatable mineral operations in the withdrawal area will
continue to be managed under the current Federal land agency
regulations.
However, notices of intent or plans of operations submitted after
the effective date of the withdrawal for mineral exploration or
development on BLM and the National Forest System lands on claims pre-
dating the withdrawal would not be able to proceed unless the mining
claim was determined to be valid under the Mining Law of 1872 as of the
date of the segregation from new mining claims (July 21, 2009).
Sampling may still occur on claims pre-dating the withdrawal to support
the mineral examination. In the event the claims are determined to be
valid, mining activities could occur at some point in the future (BLM
2011a, 2-14).
There are three Fickeisen plains cactus populations in two parcels
of the withdrawal area boundary. The Sunshine Ridge population is in
the North parcel; the North Canyon wash and the Kaibab National Forest
populations are in the East parcel (BLM 2011a, Figure 3-8.1). The
mineral withdrawal essentially removed the potential for negative
effects on the Fickeisen plains cactus and its habitat that would be
associated with the location and development of new mining claims for
the longevity of PLO 7787. Although, if the development of existing
valid mining claims in the East parcel were to proceed, we anticipate
that the potential for adverse effects from the mine on the North
Canyon wash population would be low. This is primarily due to plants
growing on ledges and along the rim of the wash, where mineral activity
would not likely occur. We also anticipate this low impact scenario to
be likely for the

[[Page 60539]]

Kaibab National Forest population due to its proximate location near
canyon rims.
On the North Parcel, there are six mines surrounding the Sunshine
Ridge population (BLM 2011a, Figure 2.4-2). Two mines (Hack Canyon and
Hermit mines) are located in close proximity to the Sunshine Ridge
population but are currently in reclamation status and no impacts to
the population are anticipated. Three mines (Arizona 1, Kanab North,
and Pinenut) have an approved plan of operation and pre-date the
withdrawal. All three are located well outside of occupied Fickeisen
plains cactus habitat. The Arizona 1 mine has been operating since late
2009 (BLM 2012b, p. 6), and no impacts to the plants have been
documented by the BLM. The Pinenut mine is scheduled to begin
operations in 2012 (McKernan 2012, pers. comm.), but due to its
distance from the Sunshine Ridge population, no impacts are
anticipated. The Kanab North mine is operating under interim management
(e.g., standby status) and will begin reclamation activities in the
summer of 2012. The sixth mine, EZ Mine, is located to the west of the
population and proposed for development. The potential direct and
indirect effects to the Fickeisen plains cactus would be the loss,
removal, or injury of plants and loss of habitat from the development
of the mine but also habitat degradation or fragmentation from road
construction, material transport, and new power lines (Payne et al.
2010, pp. 8-9; BLM 2011a, p. 2-15). The BLM, however, will complete a
project-specific environmental analysis in the near future that
addresses site-specific analysis, findings, and decisions regarding the
EZ Mine, and what plan of operations will be made (BLM 2011a, pp. 2-29-
2-30). We anticipate the opportunity to work with BLM and address any
potential negative impacts from this mine on the Fickeisen plains
cactus at that time. In addition, the North Parcel has seven breccia
pipes that are confirmed to have uranium resources, and those uranium
resources have been estimated (BLM 2011a, pp. 3-35-3-36; BLM 2012b, p.
7). Any mining claim containing these seven breccia pipes would be able
to demonstrate valid existing rights and would be mined. If one of the
claims were to be developed into a mine, the BLM would take measures to
minimize impacts to the Fickeisen plains cactus, such as conducting
preconstruction surveys to flag avoidance areas and minimize impacts to
the species (BLM 2007b, pp. 74-76).
Lands on the Arizona Strip that are outside of the withdrawal area
boundary are open to uranium mineral development (BLM 2008a, pp. 1-20).
Because the Fickeisen plains cactus occurs in small, isolated areas on
particular soil types, small disturbances to the vegetation and soils
may reduce suitable habitat; increase the erosion potential; enable
invasion of nonnative, invasive plants; and increase the risk of
mortality from clearing, crushing, or trampling associated with
developing mining sites (Service 2007a, p. 90; BLM 2011a, p. 4-154).
The BLM anticipates a very low likelihood that any such project would
be proposed within the habitat of the Fickeisen plains cactus. If such
a project is proposed, the BLM would take measures to minimize impacts
to the Fickeisen plains cactus as described above (BLM 2007b, pp. 74-
76).
On the Coconino Plateau, just south of the Grand Canyon National
Park, there is a continued interest in uranium mining on State land.
The company VANE Minerals holds mineral rights (or mineral interest to
mine uranium) on a large number of properties that are spread over an
area of approximately 16,187 sq km (6,250 sq mi) (VANE Minerals 2012)
and that include occupied Fickeisen plains cactus habitat on State land
within the Cataract Ranch. The company has completed surface drilling
for their Wate Uranium Breccia Pipe--located 9 miles south of the Grand
Canyon National Park and near the Hualapai Indian Reservation. The
company is pursuing a mineral lease from the Arizona State Land
Department for ``uranium exploitation'' of the Wate deposit and for
preliminary efforts regarding development of the mine. No Fickeisen
plains cactus has been documented in this general area, and therefore
the plant would not be affected by development of a mine. Exploration
drilling has been conducted for twelve additional uranium mineralized
breccia pipes that are located within 32 km (20 mi) of the Wate deposit
(SRK Consulting 2011, p. 14-1). No mineral resources for these have
been established as of 2011, but if a uranium resource is confirmed, a
potential exists for a mine to be developed. If that occurs and
depending on location information, there is a potential for
construction and operations to impact the Fickeisen plains cactus on
State land within Cataract Ranch. Direct and indirect impacts would be
the same as those identified for the Sunshine Ridge population.
However, any development, including mining and associated roads from
State land that would need to cross onto land in the Cataract Natural
Reserve Land, would be prohibited. Additionally, the location of some
Fickeisen plains cacti growing near the rim of Cataract Canyon may be
protected from development activities, but those located 4.8 km (3 mi)
from the rim could potentially be impacted. Loss of individual plants
would lead to declines in the Cataract Ranch population, which is
currently the largest known population, and hinder the ability of the
Fickeisen plains cactus to increase its distribution in this area. It
would also contribute to the further decline of the rangewide
population.
In summary, PLO 7787 effectively withdrew over 407,335 ha
(1,006,545 ac) of federal mineral estates for a 20-year period; this
action removes the immediate threat of habitat loss or degradation
associated with development of new uranium mines to the Fickeisen
plains cactus populations in House Rock Valley, in the Kaibab National
Forest, and on Sunshine Ridge. We acknowledge the possibilities that
valid existing mining claims in the withdrawal area boundary could
result in the development of a uranium mine in the future. If that
happens, we are less concerned with the three populations being
adversely affected because of the specific location of the plants near
canyon rims. For land on the Arizona Strip that is outside of the
withdrawal boundary area, we anticipate a low probability that
Fickeisen plains cactus populations would be impacted by future uranium
development. If a mine were to be developed near occupied habitat, the
BLM would implement avoidance measures to reduce or minimize impacts to
the Fickeisen plains cactus, which we anticipate would be incorporated
into their analyses for the development of the EZ Mine. On State land,
the potential for uranium mining could result in direct mortality and
loss of habitat within the Cataract Ranch population. However, most
plants are located in close proximity to the rim of Cataract Canyon and
would not likely be affected by mining construction or operations.
Additional protection to the plant is provided through the terms of the
conservation easement, which prohibits new development, including
mining, on those parcels, thus preventing new roads or right-of-ways
from State lands crossing onto private lands. Therefore, based on
available information, we do not anticipate that development of a
uranium mine would rise to the level of significance and meaningfully
impact the Fickeisen

[[Page 60540]]

plains cactus and its habitat. Thus, we conclude that uranium mining is
not a threat to the Fickeisen plains cactus or its habitat.
Road Construction and Road Maintenance
Roads can destroy or modify habitat and increase human access that
may lead to trampling (discussed below). Additionally, road
construction can lead to increased erosion, and vehicle traffic on
unimproved roads can result in increased atmospheric dust and dust
deposition on vegetation. Road maintenance on U.S. Highway 64 near the
Navajo Nation resulted in three Fickeisen plains cacti being salvaged
from the existing right-of-way and a fourth cactus protected by fencing
(Arizona Department of Transportation 1992, p. 1). Road maintenance
also contributed to an unknown amount of habitat loss or disturbance,
which was likely small in size.
We analyzed road maintenance and considered it a potential threat
to the Fickeisen plains cactus in the November 9, 2009, Candidate
Notice of Review (74 FR 57804). On the Arizona Strip, the Fickeisen
plains cactus occurs next to roads that receive routine maintenance.
The cactus grows close to and, in some cases, in the middle of existing
unpaved but well-maintained roads, making it highly vulnerable to
becoming crushed or injured by motorized vehicles. Road maintenance
activities had resulted in the mortality of a few individuals of the
Fickeisen plains cactus on BLM land. These appear to have been isolated
occurrences that happen infrequently and impacted a small number of
individual plants. Future road construction associated with both
uranium and urban development may impact plants that occur on non-BLM
lands. However, future road construction is anticipated to be localized
in time and space, and would not rise to the level of becoming a
significant threat to the Fickeisen plains cactus. Therefore, we do not
consider road construction and road maintenance to be a threat to the
Fickeisen plains cactus.
Off-Road Vehicle Use and Recreation
Off-road vehicles are a means of transportation and a form of
recreation in the range of the Fickeisen plains cactus. On the Arizona
Strip, the BLM limits motorized and mechanized vehicle use within
Fickeisen plains cactus habitat to existing routes and trails. However,
motorized vehicles may pull off a designated route up to 30.5 m (100
ft) on either side of the centerline to camp. There is the potential
for vehicles to injure or kill a Fickeisen plains cactus and impact its
habitat by pulling off the roadway to park or turn around (BLM 2007b,
p. 75). Plants growing along the Navajo Trail near Mainstreet Valley
have been affected by drivers pulling off designated routes in the past
(Hughes 2005, pers. comm.). Disturbance from ORV use associated with
unauthorized camping was documented in House Rock Valley, where a
driver drove off-road towards the canyon rim near the South Canyon
population (Service 2007b, p. 1). These are the two documented reports
that we have of the Fickeisen plains cactus being impacted by ORV use
on BLM lands since 2005. In reviewing the BLM's monitoring reports,
there were no documented mortalities associated with ORV use to the
Fickeisen plains cactus over the 23 years the plant was monitored.
Most of the Fickeisen plains cactus habitat on the Navajo Nation is
accessible by dirt two-track roads. Although traffic in these areas is
light, and there is an extensive network of existing dirt roads, new
roads are continually being created, presumably by locals herding
livestock (NNHP 2011a, p.1). No plants have reportedly been impacted,
but there is potential for habitat degradation as a result. In
addition, 9 of the known 15 populations are located along the scenic
canyon rims of Marble Canyon and the Little Colorado River gorge, where
tourist traffic is concentrated. Car tires and foot traffic have been
documented as damaging the Fickeisen plains cactus at some of these
sites (NNHP 1994, p. 5; NNHP 2011a, p. 1). These impacts are likely to
increase in the future as there are future plans to develop tourist
activities on Navajo land near Marble Canyon and the Little Colorado
River gorge (NNHP 2011a, p. 1).
On the Cataract Ranch, increased recreation, primarily associated
with hunting, has been observed since 2006. Hunting relies on the use
of ORV to retrieve wildlife and access camp sites. However, no impacts
to the Fickeisen plains cactus related to recreational activities or
ORV use have been observed while conducting searches for the plant on
the Cataract Ranch (Goodwin 2011a, p. 8).
In summary, the habitat of the Fickeisen plains cactus is mostly
open with flat topography. With most plants growing along scenic canyon
rims, there is an increased risk of plants being destroyed or damaged
by vehicles driving off-road for recreational purposes. We identified
ORV use as a potential threat to the Fickeisen plains cactus in our
annual assessment for candidate species (most recently at 75 FR 69222,
November 10, 2012). At this time, however, we cannot quantify the
extent of ORV-use impacts on the taxon or its habitat, but they
continue at some unknown level. Most documented occurrences happened in
the past and were isolated occurrences. ORV use may become a threat to
the Fickeisen plains cactus in the future but at this time, we do not
consider it to be a threat to the plant or its habitat.
Commercial Development
The Navajo Nation is currently interested in developing its land
along the canyon rims of Marble Canyon and the Little Colorado River
gorge to increase tourism and create more jobs that would boost their
local economy (NNHP 2011a, p. 1; Navajo-Hopi Observer 2012). The Navajo
Nation President recently signed a nonbinding agreement with a local
Arizona developer that lists a resort hotel and spa, restaurant, half-
mile river walk, and recreational vehicle park among the attractions
that would enable tourists to easily descend into the Grand Canyon.
While we do not have specific information about these plans,
development along the rim of the Little Colorado River has the
potential to impact the Salt Trail Canyon population located nearby.
Trampling of plants by people and loss of plants and habitat to make
way for development are both of concern. Available information suggests
that plans for the proposed development have not begun (NNHP 2011a, p.
1) and may still be in the early design phase.
The Salt Trail Canyon is a known recreational site located to the
north of the Fickeisen plains cactus population. Aside from use by
hikers, the area is used by Federal and State agencies as a point of
entry to conduct native fish surveys in the Little Colorado River.
Overall use of the area appears to be minimal, and no recreational
impacts to the Fickeisen plains cactus have been observed.
A popular tourist destination that has existed for many years
occurs within the Fickeisen plains cactus population that is adjacent
to a Little Colorado River overlook. This population was last visited
in 1997, and contained 15 plants distributed among two ridges (NNHP
2011a, p. 4). Abundant foot traffic within occupied habitat was
identified as a threat to the population by the Navajo Nation Heritage
Program. Although the tourism at this site will continue in the future,
most foot traffic is confined to paved sidewalks leading towards the
canyon rim and outside of occupied habitat. An additional population
occurs east of the overlook

[[Page 60541]]

area that is also well known among plant enthusiasts and, as a
consequence, frequently visited (NNHP 1994, p. 5). This population was
last visited in 1999, and one individual was located (Table 3). The
timing of the visit was outside of the flowering season, making it
difficult to locate plants (NNHP 2011a, p. 4). Both of these areas are
easily accessible from the highway and receive a large number of
visitors. Trampling of plants and habitat disturbance associated with
tourism may increase in the future simply due to the popularity of this
site and the accessibility of plants next to the highway. Although
habitat disturbances to the Fickeisen plains cactus have occurred here
in the past and may be occurring presently, we have no information to
be able to quantify this threat.
There is also a potential for human development to expand into or
next to the Fickeisen plains cactus habitat on the Navajo Nation. A
land dispute between the Navajo and Hopi Tribes resulted in the
implementation of a construction ban in 1966 that limited development
(Maxx 2012, p. 2). That ban was lifted in 2009, but no development has
occurred due to the poor economy. The land has remained mostly
undeveloped, but the ability to construct new homes or make
improvements provides Tribal members access to areas previously
restricted. If this occurs, we do not anticipate the Fickeisen plains
cactus to be significantly impacted because new home locations would
not be near the canyon rim where the plant occurs. Additionally, the
Fickeisen plains cactus is listed as a Group 3 species on the Navajo
Endangered Species List, which is a ``species or subspecies whose
prospects of survival or recruitment are likely to be in jeopardy in
the foreseeable future'' (Navajo Nation Division of Natural Resources
2008, entire). Its listed status on tribal land, in addition to the
location of the Salt Trail Canyon population within an area designated
as a Preserve, would likely reduce or minimize impacts to the
population (see Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory
Mechanisms, below).
In summary, commercial development associated with tourism
activities has impacted the Fickeisen plains cactus' habitat. Impacts
to occupied habitat near the Little Colorado River overlook were
documented in the past and are ongoing. This population is small and
would benefit from a current site visit. Plans for future commercial
development near Marble Canyon and the Little Colorado River gorge may
substantially impact the Salt Trail Canyon population through potential
habitat loss or disturbance. The Salt Trail Canyon population is one of
the larger populations on the Navajo Nation and rangewide. Losses to
this population would result in further declines to the rangewide
population. However, the protected status of the Fickeisen plains
cactus and its occurrence within a designated Preserve would to
minimize or reduce potential impacts from future commercial
development. In addition, we do not have any information to indicate
whether plans to develop commercial properties will occur in the
future. Therefore, the threat of commercial development is not
impending, and we do not consider this a threat at this time or within
the near future.
Drought and Climate Change
For background information, please refer to the first paragraph of
the ``Drought and Climate Change'' discussion under Factor A. The
Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of its
Habitat or Range in the Summary of Factors Affecting the Acu[ntilde]a
Cactus. As previously discussed, the Fickeisen plains cactus is an
endemic species with localized, small populations. In addition, these
populations are restricted to very specific soil types. Global climate
change exacerbates the risk of extinction for species that are already
vulnerable due to low population numbers and restricted habitat
requirements. Predicted changes in climatic conditions include
increases in temperature, decreases in rainfall, and increases in
atmospheric carbon dioxide in the American Southwest (Easterling et al.
2000, pp. 2072-2073; IPCC 2007, p. 48; Archer and Predick 2008, pp. 23-
24; Karl et al. 2009, p. 129). Although we have no information on how
the Fickeisen plains cactus will respond to effects related to climate
change, persistent or prolonged drought conditions are likely to reduce
the frequency and duration of flowering and germination events; lower
the recruitment of individual plants; compromise the viability of
populations; and impact pollinator availability, as pollinators have
been documented to become locally extinct during periods of drought
(Memmott et al. 2007, pp. 713-715). The smallest change in
environmental factors, especially precipitation, plays a decisive role
in plant survival in arid regions (Jordan and Nobel 1981, pp. 904-905;
Nobel 1984, pp. 310, 316).
In the last 30 years, the Colorado Plateau has experienced a 0.2 to
0.5 [deg]C (32.36 to 32.9 [deg]F) increase in average temperature,
particularly in average fall-winter temperatures. Future climate
projections forecast increases in both the average and extreme
temperatures that are expected to result in less available soil
moisture for plants (Schwinning et al. 2008, p. 14). In addition, the
Colorado Plateau may be shifting towards a climate of reduced winter
precipitation over the next 20 to 30 years. Winter accumulation, which
recharges the soil moisture needed for spring vegetative growth, was
below average in 11 years from 1996 to 2007. Similarly, spring
precipitation was below average in 8 years from 1996 to 2006 (Hereford
2007, p. 6). By 2090, precipitation is predicted to decline by as much
as 5 percent across the Colorado Plateau, placing greater stress on
native plants and resulting in a greater susceptibility of existing
ecosystems to be replaced by nonnative, invasive plant species (BLM
2011b, entire).
The Fickeisen plains cactus is adapted to the semi-arid climate of
the Colorado Plateau by retracting underground in response to dry and
cold climatic conditions. Weather patterns, timing of precipitation,
and cool nighttime lows influence germination and seedling
establishment of the Fickeisen plains cactus (Brack 2012, pers. comm.).
If climate patterns move towards more aridity, the reproductive output
of the Fickeisen plains cactus may be reduced. Increases in summer
temperatures may lead to longer periods of time that the plant remains
retracted underground, and temperatures may rise to a level that is
beyond the plants' natural threshold for survival. Studies on cacti
seedling survival have shown that seedlings are able to survive long
periods of drought when they are larger and have the capacity to store
enough water to endure their first dry season (Nobel 1984, p. 316).
Seedlings of the Fickeisen plains cactus have been observed under
mature plants, which act as nurse plants; the shading provided by a
parent or nurse rock may increase their survival (NNHP 1994, p. 4).
Increases in soil temperatures, coupled with below-average
precipitation, may increase seedling mortality.
A study published in 2012 modeled the species' distribution of
endemic plants on the Colorado Plateau (Krause and Pennington 2012,
entire). It identified limiting factors that define the habitat needs
of the species and the top-five predictor variables that influence
their distribution. In level of

[[Page 60542]]

importance, the model included the Fickeisen plains cactus' and ranked
the minimum temperature of the coldest month second, precipitation of
driest quarter third, and isothermality fourth in predicting Fickeisen
plains cactus distribution (Krause and Pennington 2012, p. 140). Of
emphasis was the variable isothermality, the mean day-to-night
temperature range compared to the annual temperature range, in
predicting endemism on the Colorado Plateau. As nighttime lows during
the winter season are predicted to increase, isothermality or the
reduction in daily temperature variance may hinder seedling germination
for the Fickeisen plains cactus for reasons discussed above.
On BLM lands, observed trend information from the four monitoring
plots appear to correlate with changes in climate patterns. Increases
in plant numbers and observed seedlings were documented between 1986
and roughly 1992. These years were characterized as a wet period where
the annual precipitation was above the regional median on the Colorado
Plateau (USGS 2002, p. 2). After 1992 through approximately 2005, when
the region experienced a prolonged drought, the Fickeisen plains cactus
among the plots experienced variable decreases in plant numbers.
Monitoring of the Fickeisen plains cactus during years with below-
average precipitation documented low recruitment, increased rodent
predation, and an increase in the number of plants retracted or missing
(Hughes 1988, p. 1; Hughes 1996c, p. 1; Roaque 2012, pers. comm.). In
total, 817 plants were recorded as missing or retracted over the 13
years when this parameter was recorded. The years with the highest
number of missing plants were from 1999 to 2007, the time period that
corresponds to the drought in the Southwest. We do not believe all 817
missing plants are attributed solely to drought, but drought is likely
a significant contributing factor to the observed decline in the
populations.
The Navajo Nation is in one of these driest areas in the State.
About 45 percent of all annual precipitation occurs during the warmer
months of July through September. Climate data are variable on the
reservation, but long-term information shows a drying trend has
occurred since 1944, and a warming trend has occurred since the mid-
1970s (Navajo Times 2011). The drought in the Four Corners region was
officially recorded from 1999 to 2009, although many residents believe
it began in 1996, which would make it the longest drought in Navajo
history. The effects of the last drought have been particularly extreme
on the population. For example, from 2001 to 2002, Navajo officials
reported 30,000 cattle mortalities from lack of water and forage. Many
traditional people on the reservation live in subsistence lifestyles.
Over half of the population lives without indoor plumbing and are
dependent on hauling water. Their water supplies are derived from
shallow aquifers and are sensitive to dry conditions. When availability
is low, families often use water supplies intended for livestock
(Redsteer et al. 2010, p. 2).
In interviews with 50 tribal elders, Redsteer et al. (2010, p. 7)
summarized the most common observations regarding drought: (1) Long-
term decreases in the amount of annual snowfall over the past century;
(2) decline in surface water features and water availability; (3)
disappearance of springs and of plant and animal populations; and (4)
changes in the frequency of wind, sand, and dust storms. These have
been corroborated with other findings. Weiss et al. (2009, p. 5923)
found that a significant increase in evapotranspiration occurred during
the warmer months of the 2000s drought due to higher temperatures. It
is likely that above-average spring temperatures are linked to a
decrease in the amount of new growth among plants. It has been
suggested that warmer spring temperatures lead to early germination.
Plants respond by ending dormancy and begin using available soil
moisture earlier and more quickly in the season. Then, they must
survive longer dry periods before the start of the monsoons (Redsteer
et al. 2010, p. 7).
Seasonal increases in temperature and changes in the timing of
precipitation have likely influenced the observed 49 percent decline in
the Salt Trail Canyon population. The observed low recruitment, high
number of plants missing between years, and mortality can be thus be
partly attributed to the drought (NNHP 2011b, pp. 4-5). Corresponding
with regional climate patterns, annual precipitation during the
monitoring period was below average for each year except for 2007.
Winter precipitation was uncommonly high during 2005, the year before
the monitoring plots were installed, and in 2010, the year that the
plots were not monitored. While several winter storms came through the
region, total rainfall accumulation was still below average during the
2011 monitoring period. Many of the plants that could not be located in
2011 were assumed dead because their vigor during previous surveys was
rated as ``poor'' in 2009 (NNHP 2011b, p. 3). Some of these plants may
have been retracted at the time. However, many plants observed between
2008 and 2011 failed to produce fruit or flower, and fruit buds were
observed to be aborted. This suggests low seed production, which would
cause that population to decline over time.
In summary, the climate on the Colorado Plateau and Navajo Nation
is predicted to become warmer with reduced precipitation in the future.
We have strong evidence to suggest that the Fickeisen plains cactus is
being impacted by drought coupled with increased annual temperatures.
We believe that the high number of dead and missing or retracted plants
in all plots monitored is influenced by below-average winter or spring
precipitation at the time when plants need soil moisture to flower.
Poor reproduction in the Fickeisen plains cactus is likely to worsen in
the future if climatic patterns shift towards becoming more arid with
increased winter nighttime temperatures. With climatic models
predicting future regional droughts, it is likely that all populations
of the Fickeisen plains cactus will continue to be affected by drought
and climate change. However, it is not clear if drought or climate
change, of themselves, present population-level threats of extinction.
It appears that drought and climate change in combination with rodent
predation (see Factor C. Disease or Predation, below), as a combined
effect, is the more likely scenario for population-level impacts to the
plant. Additionally, the small and declining populations of the
Fickeisen plains cactus make the species susceptible to natural
environmental variability, including climate conditions. Therefore,
based on our review of the available information, we conclude that
climate change and drought are threats to the Fickeisen plains cactus
populations.
Summary of Factor A
Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information, we conclude that fire associated with nonnative, invasive
plant species; uranium mining; road construction and road maintenance;
ORV use; and commercial development are not threats to the Fickeisen
plains cactus and its habitat. We have determined that direct loss of
plants and habitat loss and modification due to the direct and indirect
effects of livestock grazing; nonnative, invasive plant species; and
drought and climate change are threats to the Fickeisen plains cactus.
These threats, in and of

[[Page 60543]]

themselves, may not result in significant population-level impacts to
the Fickeisen plains cactus. However, the above factors appear to be
acting synergistically, placing a major stress on the known plants
monitored rangewide with little indication of population growth and
age-class diversity. The populations for which we do not have reliable
and current information on their status are likely in decline. These
populations are also being impacted by drought and are also susceptible
to the same level of threats as the monitored populations. Thus, the
combined effects of each threat elevate the intensity and scope of
impacts to the Fickeisen plains cactus and its habitat to where these
threats are significant over time. Therefore, based on our review of
the available information, we conclude that the present or threatened
destruction, modification, or curtailment of the Fickeisen plains
cactus habitat or range is a threat to the species.

Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes

Unauthorized collection is a potential threat for all species of
cacti, but it is a specific and definite threat for the genus
Pediocactus. Their small size, large attractive flower, and rarity make
Pediocactus species in general highly sought by collectors, growers, or
gardens (Benson 1982, p. 243). Pediocactus are difficult to grow and
maintain in cultivation. As plants grown in backyard gardens die, there
is more demand for replacement plants. Unauthorized collection is
currently a continuing problem for populations of the threatened
Pediocactus winkleri (Winkler cactus) in south-central Utah (NPS 2004,
p. 1; Borthwick 2012, pers. comm.).
We identified unauthorized collection of the Fickeisen plains
cactus as a potential threat in our 2006 Candidate Notice of Review (71
FR 53756) and as a minor threat in our 2010 Species Assessment and
Listing Priority Assignment Form. Phillips et al. (1982, p. 5)
considered the Fickeisen plains cactus to be highly sought after and
collected by commercial cactus collectors or hobbyists wherever it was
found. For the period 1994 to 1997, the Convention on International
Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) annual report documented a total of
5 specimens and 5015 seeds of Fickeisen plains cactus exported (Service
2001a, p. 4). However, we do not know what impact the unauthorized
collection had on the Fickeisen plains cactus during that time. We are
not aware of any evidence of unauthorized collection of the Fickeisen
plains cactus within the last ten years. The BLM and the Navajo Nation
have not observed or documented incidences of Fickeisen plains cacti
being collected on their lands. In addition, we do not have information
from the Arizona Native Plant Division indicating that unauthorized
collection of Fickeisen plains cactus from their natural habitat has
occurred (Reimer 2012, pers. comm.). Furthermore, apprehension of
collectors or enforcement of the law is difficult for Pediocactus
species considering they occur in remote areas that are not regularly
patrolled.
Currently, collection pressure on the Fickeisen plains cactus and
demand for plants in the wild appears to be low for several reasons.
Over the past 20 years, there has been increased sensitivity towards
collection of rare plants from their natural populations among
collectors who are satisfied with taking photographs rather than live
specimens (Brack 2005, pers. comm.; Brack 2012, pers. comm.). Secondly,
the Fickeisen plains cactus has been difficult to grow in cultivation
mainly because of its specificity to particular climate conditions
(cold winter temperatures) (Brack 2012, pers. comm.). However, more
experienced growers have successfully propagated seeds and grown
seedlings in captivity. Growers in Europe have successfully gown the
Fickeisen plains cactus in cultivation because their climate is similar
to that of the Colorado Plateau (Brack 2012, pers. comm.). Currently,
the Fickeisen plains cactus is available from commercial vendors who
can meet the market demand for this rare plant which has helped
alleviate collection pressures. Seeds of the Fickeisen plains cactus
are also readily available for sale on the Internet to cactus
hobbyists.
In summary, unauthorized collection is a threat for some
Pediocactus species and a potential threat for the Fickeisen plains
cactus. Based on the best available information, we have no evidence
suggesting that overutilization of the Fickeisen plains cactus for
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes has occurred or is
negatively affecting individuals or populations within the species'
range. We also have no evidence to suggest that overutilization of the
Fickeisen plains cactus will occur in the future to such an extent that
the survival of the species would be compromised. Therefore,
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes is not considered to be a threat to the Fickeisen
plains cactus now, nor do we expect it to be in the future.

Factor C. Disease or Predation

We are aware of a single report of a potential diseased plant in
the Shinumo Altar population on the Navajo Nation. In 1991, a mature
plant in poor condition was observed to have a large hole through its
caudex with orange-red material there. We have no further information
regarding disease in other Fickeisen plains cactus populations.
Therefore, we do not consider disease to be a threat to the Fickeisen
plains cactus.
Rodent and Rabbit Predation
Small mammal herbivory on cactus species is known to occur during
dry conditions when animals seek available moisture from the plant or
available food from cactus fruit (Butterwick 1987, p. 3; Phillips and
Phillips 2004, pp. 14-15; Sivinski and McDonald 2007, p. 104). Because
of their small size and spongy spines, the Fickeisen plains cactus may
be less protected from animals than other spiny cactus species.
Herbivory, primarily by rodents, on the Fickeisen plains cactus has
been reported only on BLM lands; however, it likely occurs throughout
the range.
The BLM reported a total of 56 plant mortalities associated with
rodent predation in the years 1988, 1989, 1990, and 1992. All of the
four plots have had reported rodent predation. The greatest losses were
reported at Dutchman Draw plot, with 21 plants lost between 1988 and
1990 (Hughes 1988, p. 2; Hughes 1989, p. 2; Hughes 1990, p. 2), and 26
plants at the North Canyon plot in 1992 (Roaque 2012, pers. comm.).
Correspondingly, the winter-spring precipitation in 1992 was below
average. Small mammal burrows have been observed at the Dutchman Draw,
Clayhole Ridge (Robertson 2011, p. 1), and South Canyon (Travis 1987,
p. 4) populations. We do not have information about these burrows;
however, they may be contributing to the high number of missing or
retracted plants within plots. Hughes (1996a, p. 51) believed that
heavy cattle grazing may in some part contribute to high incidences of
rodent predation through competition for available forage, particularly
during periods of drought that, in turn, cause rodents to eat the
cactus. While the relationship between drought and rodent predation is
less obvious on BLM lands, mortality associated with rodent herbivory
on other Pediocactus species suggests that the Fickeisen plains cactus
is likely being impacted rangewide in a similar fashion.
Monitoring efforts on other Pediocactus species reported high rates

[[Page 60544]]

of plant mortality associated with rodent herbivory. The BLM found that
rodent predation resulted in 81 Brady pincushion cactus mortalities
over a 15-year period (BLM 2007b, p. 55). Phillips and Phillips (1995,
p. 7) reported 23 Peebles Navajo cactus individuals were lost due to
herbivory in 1989, which was attributed to a dry and warmer than normal
winter. Sivinski and McDonald (Service 2010, p. 5) identified rabbit
and rodent predation as a significant cause of mortality on the
Pediocactus knowltonii (Knowlton's cactus). They also found that
predation rates increase during periods of drought, and no significant
germination events had been observed over a 14-year period (Service
2010, p. 12). They infer that low recruitment may be due to high seed
predation by rodents in 1993, and they find that seeds of mature fruit
are readily eaten by rodents as the fruit ripens, resulting in little
seed left to mature.
We acknowledge that small mammal herbivory is natural under drought
conditions. While the data are variable for the Fickeisen plains
cactus, there is adequate evidence from monitoring studies on this
species and other Pediocactus species that rodent predation is high in
drought years. Climatic conditions throughout the Southwest are
predicted to continue to warm with less precipitation in the future as
previously discussed. We, therefore, anticipate that rodent or rabbit
herbivory may increase in the future as a result of predicted changes
in climate. In addition, rodent predation results in the mortality of a
large number of individuals, effectively causing population declines in
a population that is already small in number. Although we lack clear
evidence of the scope of the impact that rodent predation has had on
the Fickeisen plains cactus and its seeds, taken in conjunction with
other habitat disturbances occurring across its range, low recruitment,
and small population size, rodent predation is likely to rise to the
level where it becomes a threat to the plant.

Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

Please refer to the two introductory paragraphs of the Factor D
discussion presented above for the acu[ntilde]a cactus. There are no
existing laws or regulations in place that address the primary threats
to the Fickeisen plains cactus and its habitat from livestock grazing;
nonnative, invasive species; rodent predation; drought; or climate
change. Those legal and regulatory mechanisms that are in place appear
to be adequate to protect the plant.
The Fickeisen plains cactus is listed as a highly safeguarded
native plant under the Arizona Native Plant Law (Arizona Revised
Statutes, Chapter 7, 2007, entire). Removal of highly safeguarded
native plants and their parts is prohibited on public land except by
permit. They are also protected from international trade by CITES;
however, CITES does not regulate take or domestic trade. While these
measures lessen the impact from regulated collection, as described
above, there is no indication that an active trade for this plant
exists or poses a threat to this plant.
The BLM lists the Fickeisen plains cactus as a sensitive species
(BLM 2007a, p. 3-87). As described in the BLM Manual section 6840 (BLM
2008b, pp. 37-38), the BLM will focus sensitive species management on
maintaining species' habitat in functional ecosystems, ensuring the
species is considered in land management decisions, and prioritizing
conservation that emphasizes habitat needs for the species, thereby
preventing the need to list the species under the Act. The BLM has the
ability to implement conservation measures and best management
practices to reduce the threats to the Fickeisen plains cactus from
livestock grazing, but we are not aware of any efforts to minimize
cattle impacts to the plant or its habitat. In their approved 2008
Resource Management Plan, the BLM designated vegetative habitat areas
at Twist Hills and Upper Clayhole Valley for the Fickeisen plains
cactus (BLM 2008a, p. 2-41). Management actions that apply to
vegetative habitat areas include increased emphasis on protection of
the species; increased consideration during National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) analyses; and the ability to
modify, mitigate, postpone, or restrict proposed actions to minimize
effects to the species. Species-specific conservation measures will
apply to management of these and all other areas of occupied and
unoccupied habitat for special status species. Because these vegetative
habitat areas were recently designated, beneficial effects to the plant
and its habitat have yet to be documented.
On the Navajo Nation, the Fickeisen plains cactus is a Group 3
species on the Navajo Endangered Species List. Group 3 species are
those ``species or subspecies whose prospects of survival or
recruitment are likely to be in jeopardy in the foreseeable future''
(Navajo Nation Division of Natural Resources 2008, entire). Species
listed pursuant to the Navajo Nation Tribal Code 17, Subsection 507 are
protected by take (17 N.N.C. Sec. 507). In addition to its listed
species protection, 9 of the 15 populations are within areas designated
as a Preserve, including the three largest populations. No new activity
or development is allowed within these Preserves, unless it is
compatible with management goals established by the Navajo Nation
Department of Fish and Wildlife for that area. Any development project
proposed within a Preserve requires a biological evaluation be
prepared. The biological evaluation must demonstrate that the
development activity is compatible with management goals for the
Preserve, as defined by the Navajo Nation Department of Fish and
Wildlife Resource Land Use Clearance Policies. These policies are also
used by Navajo Nation Department of Fish and Wildlife to ensure that
proposed development activity in a Preserve will not negatively affect
any listed species, including the Fickeisen plains cactus. It does not,
however, apply to daily activities, such as livestock herding and any
tourist activities that cannot be easily regulated (e.g., driving and
parking at unofficial overlooks) (Hazelton 2012c, pers. comm.). It also
does not include approved pre-existing activities.
On the Cataract Ranch, privately owned parcels occupied by the
Fickeisen plains cactus are under a conservation easement held by TNC
(TNC 2000, entire). These deeded lands prohibit any development
activities from occurring on these parcels and protect the inherent
value of the land for perpetuity. Daily activities such as livestock
grazing and range improvements are permitted. Approximately 29 percent
of the known Fickeisen plains cactus population is protected by the
conservation easement.
In summary, there are no existing legal or regulatory mechanisms in
place to address the primary threats to the Fickeisen plains cactus and
its habitat. While the BLM has the ability to provide habitat
protection for the Fickeisen plains cactus, any actions would be
voluntary under conservation measures aimed to improve the status of
sensitive species. The existing legal or regulatory mechanisms that are
currently in place do appear to provide adequate protection to the
Fickeisen plains cactus and its habitat in the manner they were
intended to provide.

[[Page 60545]]

Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence

Small Population Size
The Fickeisen plains cactus is a rare, endemic cactus that is
restricted to a particular soil type. Factors such as the small
population size, low population density, the isolation of populations
between occurrences, and a poor mechanism for seed dispersal renders
this cactus vulnerable to extinction from human and natural
disturbances. We recognize that this species appears to have always
been rare, yet continues to survive, and could be well equipped to
continue to exist into the future. Many naturally rare species have
persisted for long periods within small geographic areas, and many
naturally rare species exhibit traits that allow them to persist
despite their small population sizes. Consequently, the fact that a
species is rare does not necessarily predispose it to being an
endangered or threatened species.
However, this species has shown a marked decline in recent years,
and populations across its range do not appear to be recovering. This
indicates that there is a heightened risk of extinction, and the
contributing factors of ever decreasing population size, coupled with
poor seed dispersal, increase the extinction risk. Small populations
that are restricted by habitat requirements are more vulnerable to the
effects of climate change, such as prolonged droughts and increased
fire frequencies. Although small population size and climate change
make the species intrinsically more vulnerable, we are uncertain
whether they would rise to the level of threat by themselves. However,
when combined with the threats from livestock grazing, rodent and
rabbit predation, and nonnative, invasive species, small population
size likely exacerbates the effects of these threats on the Fickeisen
plains cactus.

Proposed Determination for the Fickeisen Plains Cactus

We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the Fickeisen plains cactus. We find that the species is in danger
of extinction due to the current and ongoing modification and
destruction of its habitat and range (Factor A) from ongoing and future
livestock grazing; nonnative, invasive species; and long-term drought.
The most significant factors threatening the Fickeisen plains cactus
across its range are long-term drought and warmer winters occurring in
the past several decades and projected to continue with the effects of
climate change. We find that livestock grazing and nonnative species,
in combination with drought and climate change, exacerbate the threats
to this species (Factor A). We also find predation (Factor C) and other
natural or manmade factors are threats to the Fickeisen plains cactus
(Factor E). We do not find any threats to the species from unauthorized
collection (Factor B). We find no inadequate existing regulatory
mechanisms (Factor D).
The Act defines an endangered species as any species that is ``in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range'' and a threatened species as any species ``that is likely to
become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range
within the foreseeable future.'' We find that the Fickeisen plains
cactus is presently in danger of extinction throughout its entire range
based on documented loss of individuals on the majority of its range,
little to no recruitment, and continuation of the threats, as described
above. Therefore, on the basis of the best available scientific and
commercial information, we propose listing the Fickeisen plains cactus
as an endangered species in accordance with sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1)
of the Act.
The elevated risk of extinction of the Fickeisen plains cactus is a
result of the cumulative stressors on the species and its habitat. We
have detailed information about population trends from 5 large
populations, all of which show a significant decline in overall
population, reduction in reproductive adults, little to no seedlings,
and low representation of age-class diversity. The decline of these 5
populations is likely indicative of what is occurring in other
populations that are smaller, more isolated and not as well studied.
Some of these smaller populations have already shown declines in plants
numbers; at some sites, plants no longer are found. Information from
the 27 populations would increase our knowledge of the species, but it
is uncertain if these populations will be monitored in the future due
to resource limitations and access to the land. Losses of adult plants
in a naturally rare, endemic species exacerbate the species
vulnerability to extinction because the older, larger adults contribute
more to the population's growth. In the Fickeisen plains cactus, water
and heat stress results in reduced flower and seed production, and
seedling survival is dependent on winter precipitation and soil
moisture. Climate change is anticipated to increase drought periods and
warming winters. This combination is expected to continue the
documented trend of mortality exceeding recruitment across all
populations. All of these factors contribute together to heighten the
risk of extinction and lead to our finding that the Fickeisen plains
cactus is in danger of extinction, and thus meets the definition of an
endangered species.
Listing the Fickeisen plains cactus as a threatened species is not
the appropriate determination because the ongoing threats described
above are severe enough to create the immediate risk of extinction. The
continued loss of reproductive adults without adequate recruitment
poses a significant and immediate risk of extinction to the species
throughout the species' range, and is not restricted to any particular
significant portion of that range. All of these factors combined lead
us to conclude that the threat of extinction is high and immediate,
thus warranting a determination of endangered species status rather
than threatened species status for the Fickeisen plains cactus.
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is an endangered species or a threatened species
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The threats to
the survival of the species occur throughout the Fickeisen plains
cactus' range and are not restricted to any particular significant
portion of that range. Accordingly, our assessment and proposed
determination applies to the species throughout its entire range.

Available Conservation Measures for the Acu[ntilde]a Cactus and the
Fickeisen Plains Cactus

Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions,
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain
practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness and
conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies; private
organizations; and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the
States and requires that recovery actions be carried out for all 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. Subsection 4(f) of

[[Page 60546]]

the Act requires 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 includes the development of a recovery outline
shortly after a species is listed, preparation of a draft and final
recovery plan, and revisions to the plan as significant new information
becomes available. The recovery outline guides the immediate
implementation of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to
be used to develop a recovery plan. The recovery plan identifies site-
specific management actions that will achieve recovery of the species,
measurable criteria that determine when a species may be downlisted or
delisted, 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 (comprised of species experts, Federal and State
agencies, nongovernment 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 Web site (https://www.fws.gov/endangered), or from our
Arizona Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal
agencies, States, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, businesses,
and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat
restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive
propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The
recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on
Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or solely on non-
Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires
cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and Tribal lands.
If these species are 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,
under section 6 of the Act, the State of Arizona would be eligible for
Federal funds to implement management actions that promote the
protection and recovery of the acu[ntilde]a cactus and the Fickeisen
plains cactus. Information on our grant programs that are available to
aid species recovery can be found at: https://www.fws.gov/grants.
Although the acu[ntilde]a cactus and the Fickeisen plains cactus
are only proposed for listing under the Act at this time, please let us
know if you are interested in participating in recovery efforts for
either of these species. Additionally, we invite you to submit any new
information on these 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
endangered or threatened 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 formal consultation with the Service.
Federal agency actions within both species' habitat that may
require conference or consultation, or both, as described in the
preceding paragraph include any management actions that could result in
impacts to soil characteristics or seedbank viability, pollinators or
their habitat, and associated native vegetation community, and any
other landscape-altering activities on Federal lands administered by
Federal agencies, such as: Issuance of section 404 Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) permits by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers;
construction and management of gas pipeline and power line rights-of-
way by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; reauthorization of
grazing permits by the BLM and the U.S. Forest Service, and
construction and maintenance of roads or highways by the Federal
Highway Administration.
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to endangered plants.
All prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act, implemented by 50 CFR
17.61, apply. These prohibitions, in part, make it illegal for any
person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to import or
export, transport in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of a
commercial activity, sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign
commerce, or remove and reduce the species to possession from areas
under Federal jurisdiction. In addition, for plants listed as an
endangered species, the Act prohibits the malicious damage or
destruction on areas under Federal jurisdiction and the removal,
cutting, digging up, or damaging or destroying of such plants in
knowing violation of any State law or regulation, including State
criminal trespass law. Certain exceptions to the prohibitions apply to
agents of the Service and State conservation agencies. The acu[ntilde]a
cactus and the Fickeisen plains cactus are protected under the Arizona
Native Plant Law as a highly safeguarded plant, which makes it unlawful
for any person to destroy, dig up, cut, collect, mutilate, harvest or
take, and place into possession any of these plants on public lands
(Arizona Revised Statutes, Chapter 7, 2007, entire). However, the
Arizona Native Plant Law does not prohibit landowners from removing or
destroying protected plants on their property. They are required to
notify the Arizona Department of Agriculture 20 to 60 days prior to
destruction of a protected native plant on their private property.
However, the Arizona Native Plant Law does not afford protection to the
habitat of either cactus species, and there is no protection for the
acu[ntilde]a cactus or the Fickeisen plains cactus on State lands,
above what is allowable under the Arizona Native Plant Law.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered and threatened plant species under certain
circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR
17.62 for endangered plants, and at 17.72 for threatened plants. With
regard to endangered plants, a permit must be issued for the following
purposes: For scientific purposes, or for the enhancement of
propagation or survival of the species.
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

[[Page 60547]]

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 species proposed
for listing. The following activities could potentially result in a
violation of section 9 of the Act. Unauthorized collecting, handling,
possessing, selling, delivering, carrying, or transporting of the
species, including import or export across State lines and
international boundaries, except for properly documented antique
specimens of these taxa at least 100 years old, as defined by section
10(h)(1) of the Act.
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).

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.
Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise
relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation
with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is
not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect
land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or
other conservation area. Such designation does not allow the government
or public to access private lands. Such designation does not require
implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by
non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner requests Federal agency
funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed species
or critical habitat, the consultation requirements of section 7(a)(2)
of the Act would apply, but even in the event of a destruction or
adverse modification finding, the obligation of the Federal action
agency and the landowner is not to restore or recover the species, but
to implement reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid destruction
or adverse modification of critical habitat.
Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they
contain physical or biological features (1) 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 and biological features within an area, we focus on the
principal biological or physical constituent elements (primary
constituent elements such as roost sites, nesting grounds, seasonal
wetlands, water quality, tide, soil type) that are essential to the
conservation of the species. Primary constituent elements are the
specific elements of physical or biological features that provide for a
species' life-history processes, and are essential to the conservation
of the species.
Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the
species. We designate critical habitat in areas outside the
geographical area occupied by a species only when a designation limited
to its range would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the
species.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on
the basis of the best scientific data available. Further, our Policy on
Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act (published in
the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the Information
Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658)),
and our associated Information Quality Guidelines, provide criteria,
establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that our decisions
are based on the best scientific data available. They require our
biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of
the best scientific data available, to use primary and original sources
of information as the basis for recommendations to designate critical
habitat.
When we are determining which areas should be designated as
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the
information developed during the listing process for the species.
Additional information sources may include the recovery plan for the
species, articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans
developed by States and counties, scientific status surveys and
studies, biological assessments, other unpublished materials, or
experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another
over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a
particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that
we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species.
For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that
habitat outside the designated area is 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 of section 9 of the Act if actions
occurring in these areas may affect the species. Federally funded or
permitted projects affecting listed species outside their designated
critical

[[Page 60548]]

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 for the Acu[ntilde]a Cactus and the Fickeisen
Plains Cactus

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 designate critical habitat at
the time the species is determined to be an endangered or threatened
species. Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that the
designation of critical habitat is not prudent when one or both of the
following situations exist: (1) The species is threatened by taking or
other human activity, and identification of critical habitat can be
expected to increase the degree of threat to the species; or (2) such
designation of critical habitat would not be beneficial to the species.
There is no documentation that the acu[ntilde]a cactus and the
Fickeisen plains cactus are threatened by collection. Therefore, they
are unlikely to experience increased threats by the identification and
mapping of critical habitat. In the absence of a finding that the
designation of critical habitat would increase threats to a species, if
there are any benefits to a critical habitat designation, then a
prudent finding is warranted. The potential benefits of designation
include: (1) Triggering consultation under section 7 of the Act, in new
areas for actions in which there may be a Federal nexus where it would
not otherwise occur because, for example, it is or has become
unoccupied or the occupancy is in question; (2) focusing conservation
activities on the most essential features and areas; (3) providing
educational benefits to State or county governments or private
entities; and (4) preventing people from causing inadvertent harm to
the species.
The primary regulatory effect of critical habitat is the Act's
section 7(a)(2) requirement that Federal agencies refrain from taking
any action that destroys or adversely modifies critical habitat. At
present, the acu[ntilde]a cactus and the Fickeisen plains cactus occurs
on Federal, State, Tribal, and private lands in Arizona. Lands proposed
for designation as critical habitat would be subject to Federal actions
that trigger the section 7 consultation requirements. These include
land management actions and permitting by the BLM, OPCNM, and BMGR for
the acu[ntilde]a cactus; and by the BLM and Kaibab National Forest for
the Fickeisen plains cactus. In addition, lands proposed for
designation as critical habitat, whether or not under Federal
jurisdiction, may be subject to Federal actions that trigger the
section 7 consultation requirement, such as the granting of Federal
monies or Federal permits.
There may also be some educational or informational benefits to the
designation of critical habitat. Educational benefits include the
notification of lessees and the general public of the importance of
protecting habitat.
Although we make a detailed determination of the habitat needs of a
listed species during the recovery planning process, the Act has no
provision to delay designation of critical habitat until such time as a
recovery plan is prepared. We reviewed the available information
pertaining to habitat characteristics where these two species are
located. This and other information represent the best scientific data
available and lead us to conclude that the designation of critical
habitat is prudent for the acu[ntilde]a cactus and the Fickeisen plains
cactus.

Critical Habitat Determinability for the Acu[ntilde]a Cactus and the
Fickeisen Plains Cactus

As stated above, section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires the
designation of critical habitat concurrently with the species' listing
``to the maximum extent prudent and 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) Information sufficient to perform required analyses of the
impacts of the designation is lacking, or
(ii) The biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well
known to permit identification of an area as critical habitat.
When critical habitat is not determinable, the Act provides for 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 acu[ntilde]a cactus and the Fickeisen
plains cactus.

Acu[ntilde]a Cactus

Physical or Biological Features

In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act and
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas within the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing to
designate as critical habitat, we consider the physical or biological
features that are essential to the conservation of the species and
which may require special management considerations or protection.
These include, but are not limited to:
(1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal
behavior;
(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or
physiological requirements;
(3) Cover or shelter;
(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development)
of offspring; and
(5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are
representative of the historical, geographic, and ecological
distributions of a species.
We derive the specific physical or biological features required for
the acu[ntilde]a cactus from studies of this species' habitat, ecology,
and life history as described below. We have determined that the
physical or biological features described below are essential for the
acu[ntilde]a cactus.
Habitat for Individual and Population Growth, Including Sites for
Germination, Pollination, Reproduction, Pollen and Seed Dispersal, and
Seed Banks
Pollination and Pollen Dispersal--Preservation of the mix of
species and interspecific interactions they encompass greatly improves
the chances for on-site survival of rare species (Tepedino et al. 1996,
p. 245). Bee nesting habitat, foraging plants, and corridors must be
preserved to protect the acu[ntilde]a cactus (Buchmann 2012, pers.
comm.; McDonald 2007, p. 4). The acu[ntilde]a cactus relies solely on
the production of seeds for reproduction, with pollination highly
linked to the acu[ntilde]a cactus' survival. A lack of pollinators
would lead to a reduction of seed production that would lead, in turn,
to a gradual reduction in the seed bank (Wilcock and Neiland 2002, p.
276). Although viability of seed in the

[[Page 60549]]

seed bank is unknown, germination trials in the greenhouse suggest the
seeds are short-lived (Rutman 2007, p. 7), thus this could result in
decrease in the acu[ntilde]a cactus population's persistence.
Successful pollination depends on the pollinator species needed and
the distance the pollinator can travel between flowers (McDonald 2005,
p. 15). Acu[ntilde]a cacti are pollinated by a suite of bees from the
Andrenidae, Anthophoridae, Anthophorinae, Halictidae, and Megachilidae
families; however, the most abundant, robust, and consistent visitors
in a 2-year study at OPCNM were leafcutter bee (Megachile palmensis)
and cactus bee (Diadasia rinconis) (Johnson 1992, p. 406). Leafcutter
and cactus bees are native cactus specialist bees requiring a
sufficient quantity of the acu[ntilde]a and other cacti pollen
throughout their foraging season to provide a continuous source of
pollen to provision their nests and support their own survivorship
(Blair and Williamson 2008, p. 428).
No studies of pollinator dispersal distance have been conducted for
the acu[ntilde]a cactus; however, in a study of a similar rare cactus
of Arizona's Sonoran Desert, the Pima pineapple cactus, McDonald (2005,
p. 29) determined that the maximum distance that the cactus bees
travelled between Pima pineapple cactus individuals was 900 m (2,953
ft). The maximum distance travelled by the leafcutter bee is thought to
be less than this (Buchmann 2012, pers. comm.). This distance around
individual cacti is needed to support pollinator foraging, nesting, and
survivorship.
Therefore, based on our review of the best available information,
we identify a pollination area with a radius of 900 m (2,953 ft) around
each reproducing acu[ntilde]a cactus plant as a physical or biological
feature of acu[ntilde]a cactus habitat.
Seed Dispersal, Germination, Growth, and Seed Banks--Bare soils
within the seed dispersal range of the acu[ntilde]a cactus are
necessary for recruitment and soil seed banking. Primary and secondary
dispersal of these seeds can occur via a number of mechanisms including
gravity, ants, wind, or rain (Butterwick 1982-1992, entire; Rutman
1996b, pers. comm.; Rutman 2001, pers. comm.; Anderson 2011, p. 1).
Primary dispersal is the movement of seeds short distances from the
plant, whereas secondary dispersal involves the redistribution of seeds
by living (e.g., insects) or non-living (e.g., wind) factors (van
Rheede van Oudtshorrn and van Rooyen 1999, pp. 186-187).
As evidenced by their commonly clumped habit, the majority of the
acu[ntilde]a cactus seeds are dispersed by gravity; that is, they fall
very close to the mother plant, which serves as a nurse plant for
germination (Johnson et al. 1993, p. 178). Although with this type of
dispersal the distance seeds travel is limited, the immediate
environment of the mother plant is typically very suitable for
establishment, and these seeds have a better chance of germination,
establishment, and survival than seeds dispersed by other mechanisms
(van Rheede van Oudtshorrn and van Rooyen 1999, p. 91).
Ants have been reported to both transport and consume the seeds of
the acu[ntilde]a cactus (Butterwick 1982-1992, entire; Rutman 1996b,
pers. comm.; Rutman 2001, pers. comm.; Anderson 2011, p. 1).
Transported seeds may be dropped, discarded, or buried at either an
appropriate or inappropriate depth for germination and emergence (van
Rheede van Oudtshorrn and van Rooyen 1999, p. 15). Transported seed has
the benefit of reduced competition from other seeds and reduced rodent
predation found near the mother plant (O'Dowd and Hay 1980, p. 536;
Vander Wall et al. 2005, p. 802). The maximum distance seeds are
dispersed by ants is typically less than 3 m (9.8 ft) and rarely more
than 10 m (32.8 ft) (van Rheede van Oudtshorrn and van Rooyen 1999, p.
186).
The maximum distance seeds are dispersed by wind depends on many
factors including the height of the plant, characteristics of the
surrounding vegetation, seed mass and size, and wind conditions (van
Rheede van Oudtshorrn and van Rooyen 1999, p. 186). Secondary dispersal
by wind can be farther in deserts, where vegetation is widely spaced
and interspaces between trees and shrubs support wind velocities as
much as four times higher than under trees and shrubs (van Rheede van
Oudtshorrn and van Rooyen 1999, p. 187). Wind-blown soil, litter, and
small seeds accumulate under shrubs and trees, or in soil surface
depressions (Shreve 1942, p. 205; van Rheede van Oudtshorrn and van
Rooyen 1999, p. 187).
Dispersal of seed from rain wash or sheet flow over the ground is
considered to occur across a relatively short distance; in hot deserts,
many plants disperse seed by rain (van Rheede van Oudtshorrn and van
Rooyen 1999, pp. 69, 76). The distance that the acu[ntilde]a cactus
seeds travel by either wind or water is not known; however, spacing of
associated nurse trees and shrubs where soil, litter, and seed could
accumulate is roughly 8 m (26.2 ft). This number was determined by
using the average height of the largest tree associate, palo verde, as
height and density are closely related (Shreve 1942, pp. 202-203;
Kearney and Peebles 1951, p. 407).
Therefore, based on our review of the best available information
regarding the maximum distance that seed may be expected to disperse,
and within which the acu[ntilde]a cactus seed banks, seedling
establishment, and seedling growth can occur, we identify bare soils
immediately adjacent to and within 10 m (32.8 ft) of existing
reproductive acu[ntilde]a cactus plants as a physical or biological
feature of acu[ntilde]a cactus habitat.
Appropriate Geological Layers and Topography That Support Individual
Acu[ntilde]a Cactus Plants
Geology--Bedrock and soil chemistry could help explain the current
distribution of the acu[ntilde]a cactus across small islands of habitat
in southern Arizona. Various reports describe the acu[ntilde]a cactus
occurring on both fine and course textured soils derived from volcanic,
granitic, and metamorphic rocks (Geraghty and Miller 1997, p. 3; Rutman
2007, pp. 1-2). Specifically, parent rock materials of preferred
habitat include extrusive felsic volcanic rocks of rhyolite, andesite,
and tuff, and intrusive igneous rocks composed of granite,
granodiorite, diorite, and quartz monzonite (Rutman 2007, pp. 1-2).
We applied this knowledge of the acu[ntilde]a cactus geologic
habitat preference by analyzing geology features and known plant
locations attained for populations occurring within the United States
using Geographic Information Systems (GIS). We determined 11 geologic
feature classes that occur within the known locations of the
acu[ntilde]a cactus in the United States (Arizona State Land Department
2012, GIS data layer). These feature classes can be summarized as
Volcanic rocks from the middle Miocene to Oligocene and from the
Jurassic; Granitoid rocks from the early Tertiary to Late Cretaceous
and from the Jurassic; Granitic rocks from the early Tertiary to Late
Cretaceous; Metamorphic rocks from the early Proterozoic; and surficial
deposits from the Holocene to the latest Pliocene. Therefore, based on
our review of the best available information regarding bedrock geology
and associated soils required by the acu[ntilde]a cacti, we identify
the presence of any one of these 11 feature classes as a physical or
biological feature of acu[ntilde]a cactus habitat. These feature
classes can be further summarized to include the following rock types
as identified in the literature for this species: rhyolite, andesite,
tuff, granite, granodiorite,

[[Page 60550]]

diorite, or Cornelia quartz monzonite (Rutman 2007, pp. 1, 2).
Topography--The acu[ntilde]a cactus is known to occur in valley
bottoms and on ridge tops or small knolls, on slopes up to 30 percent
(Phillips et al. 1982, p. 4; Geraghty and Miller 1997, p. 3). We
applied this knowledge of the acu[ntilde]a topographic habitat
preference by analyzing topography features using a digital elevation
model in GIS. Therefore, based on our review of the best available
information regarding topography, we identify valley bottoms, ridge
tops, and small knolls with slopes of 30 percent or less as a physical
or biological feature of acu[ntilde]a cactus habitat.
Appropriate Vegetation Community and Elevation Range That Support
Individual Acu[ntilde]a Cactus Plants
Nurse Plants--Known populations of the acu[ntilde]a cactus have
been reported from between 365 and 1,150 m (1,198 to 3,773 ft)
elevation within the paloverde-cacti-mixed scrub series of the Arizona
Upland Subdivision of the Sonoran Desert-scrub (Brown 1994, p. 200;
Arizona Rare Plant Guide Committee 2001, unnumbered pages; AGFD 2011,
entire). This scrubland or low woodland contains leguminous trees,
shrubs, and succulents including Cercidium microphyllum (palo verde),
Olneya tesota (ironwood), Larrea tridentata var. tridentata (creosote
bush), Ambrosia spp. (bursage), and Carnegia gigantea (saguaro). The
acu[ntilde]a cactus seedlings benefit from the protection of these
native Sonoran Desert trees and shrubs, as well as other larger
acu[ntilde]a cacti that act as nurse plants by providing protection
from temperature extremes and physical damage (Felger 2000, p. 208;
Johnson et al. 1993, p. 178). The acu[ntilde]a cactus individuals are
generally more robust in these situations, as opposed to in open,
exposed locations (Felger 2000, p. 208). Therefore, based on the
information above, we identify the presence of creosote bush, ironwood,
palo verde, and other native protective plants to be a physical or
biological feature necessary for acu[ntilde]a cactus survival.
Native Vegetation Dominance--The acu[ntilde]a cactus habitat should
be relatively free from perennial grass invaders as these alter
structure, function, dominance, and disturbance regimes, and have been
shown to drastically lower species diversity, within the Sonoran Desert
(Olsson et al. 2012, p. 10). Such changes have great potential to
impact acu[ntilde]a cacti and their pollinators. In addition, such
introduced grasses as buffelgrass form continuous mats and remove open
bare ground for nesting bees such as Diadasia spp. (Buchmann 2007, p.
13). These bees move nesting sites yearly to shed parasites, therefore
requiring the continued availability of sandy, well-drained, bare
ground available to create nests (Buchmann 2012, pers. comm.).
Therefore, based on our review of the best available information, we
identify Sonoran Desert-scrub habitat dominated by native plant species
to be a physical or biological feature necessary for acu[ntilde]a
cactus survival.

Primary Constituent Elements for the Acu[ntilde]a Cactus

Under the Act and its implementing regulations, we are required to
identify the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of acu[ntilde]a cactus in areas occupied at the time of
listing, focusing on the features' primary constituent elements. We
consider primary constituent elements to be the elements of physical or
biological features that provide for a species' life-history processes
and are essential to the conservation of the species.
Based on our current knowledge of the physical or biological
features and habitat characteristics required to sustain the species'
life-history processes, we determine that the primary constituent
elements specific to the acu[ntilde]a cactus are:
(i) Native vegetation within the Paloverde-Cacti-Mixed Scrub Series
of the Arizona Upland Subdivision of the Sonoran Desert-scrub at
elevations between 365 to 1,150 m (1,198 to 3,773 ft). This vegetation
must contain predominantly native plant species that:
a. Provide protection to the acu[ntilde]a cactus. Examples of such
plants are creosote bush, ironwood, and palo verde;
b. Provide for pollinator habitat with a radius of 900 m (2,953 ft)
around each individual, reproducing acu[ntilde]a cactus;
c. Allow for seed dispersal through the presence of bare soils
immediately adjacent to and within 10 m (32.8 ft) of individual,
reproducing acu[ntilde]a cactus.
(ii) Soils overlying rhyolite, andesite, tuff, granite,
granodiorite, diorite, or Cornelia quartz monzonite bedrock that are in
valley bottoms, on small knolls, or on ridgetops, and are generally on
slopes of less than 30 percent.

Special Management Considerations or Protection

When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
of listing contain features which are essential to the conservation of
the species and which may require special management considerations or
protection. The features essential to the conservation of the
acu[ntilde]a cactus may require special management considerations or
protection to reduce the following threats: livestock grazing; border
activities; ORV use; mining; and nonnative, invasive plant species.
Currently some of these threats are not identified to occur at a level
that threatens populations with extinction; however without management
of these threats, they could rise to this level. Refer to the five-
factor analysis above for more information on these threats. Management
activities that could ameliorate these threats include, but are not
limited to, improving habitats and potentially increasing plant
population numbers on lands the BLM, NPS, or the State of Arizona
currently holds or may hold in the future. Special management to
protect the features essential to the conservation of the species
include conservation measures and actions to minimize effects of
livestock grazing, road and trail building; construction of new border
control facilities, towers or fences, ORV use, and mining, and to
control nonnative, invasive plants on these lands. These management
activities will protect the essential physical or biological features
for the species by maintaining native vegetation communities,
preserving soil characteristics, and providing habitat for the
acu[ntilde]a cactus and its pollinators.

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

[[Page 60551]]

habitat requirements of the acu[ntilde]a cactus. This information
included research published in peer-reviewed articles and presented in
academic theses and agency reports, as well as data collected from
long-term monitoring plots, interviews with experts, and regional
climate data and GIS coverage. Sources of information include, but are
not limited to, Brown 1994, Buchmann 2007, Butterwick 1982-1992, Felger
2000, Holm 2006, Johnson 1992, Johnson et al. 1993, McDonald 2007,
Olsson et al. 2012, Phillips et al. 1982, NPS 2011a, NPS 2011b, Rutman
2007, Van Rheede van Oudtshorrn, K. and M.W. van Rooyen 1999, and WRCC
2012. Based on this information, we developed a strategy for
determining which areas meet the definition of critical habitat for
acu[ntilde]a cactus.
Occupied Area at the Time of Listing
In identifying proposed critical habitat units for acu[ntilde]a
cactus, we proceeded through a multi-step process. We obtained all
records for acu[ntilde]a cactus distribution from AGFD, as well as both
published and unpublished documentation from our files. There is no
information on the historical range of this species; survey results
confirm that plant distribution is comprised of disjunct occupied
habitat in two general areas of south-central Arizona.
Our approach to delineating critical habitat units was applied in
the following manner:
(1) We overlaid acu[ntilde]a cactus locations into a GIS database.
This provided us with the ability to examine slope, aspect, elevation,
geologic type, vegetation community, and topographic features. These
data points verified and slightly expanded the previously recorded
elevation ranges for acu[ntilde]a cactus.
(2) In addition to the GIS layers listed above, we then included a
900-m (2,953-ft) buffer around known populations to ensure that all
potential pollinators would have a sufficient land base to establish
nesting sites and to provide pollinating services for acu[ntilde]a
cactus, as described in Physical or Biological Features for the
Acu[ntilde]a cactus above.
(3) We then drew critical habitat boundaries that captured the
locations elucidated under (1) and (2) above. Critical habitat
designations were then mapped using Albers Equal Area (Albers) North
American Datum 83 (NAD 83) coordinates.
We defined six units within the current distribution of the species
in two general areas of south-central Arizona. Two of the subunits are
not occupied at the time of listing; the remaining units and subunits
contain approximately 2,730 individuals. Within these units and
subunits, several geologic, topographic, elevation, slope, and
vegetation community features have been defined which, in combination,
create appropriate acu[ntilde]a cactus habitat that is essential to the
conservation of the species, though not all lands containing this
combination support the acu[ntilde]a cacti.
Areas Essential for the Conservation of Acu[ntilde]a Cactus Outside of
Occupied Areas
As discussed above in the five-factor analysis and ``Drought and
Climate Change'' section, with reduced annual precipitation over the
past 30 years, mature acu[ntilde]a cactus plants produce fewer flowers
and seeds, and seedling establishment and survival does not offset
mortality. Increased insect attack, possibly due to warmer winter
temperatures throughout the region, in combination with water and heat
stresses, have resulted in a documented mortality of more than 80
percent of individuals within populations that have been visited more
than once.
Although the specific water needs of the species are unknown,
acu[ntilde]a cactus seedlings require adequate precipitation for
survival, and adults require precipitation for flowering and fruit set.
To determine what amount of precipitation is adequate, we analyzed
precipitation monitoring records from OPCNM. Through our analysis, we
determined the acu[ntilde]a cactus flower production and recruitment
peaked in 1992, when 902 flowers were produced (Holm 2006, p. 2-10)
following a winter period with total precipitation of 29.7 cm (11.66
in) (WRCC 2012, entire). Flower production reached measured lows in
1999, 2002, and 2006 (NPS 2011a, p. 2), years when total winter
precipitation ranged between 2.2 and 3.3 cm (0.85 and 1.3 in) (WRCC
2012, entire). Similarly, recruitment peaked in the early 1990s (Holm
2006, p. 2-6; NPS 2011a, p. 1), following a 1990 summer period with
24.6 cm (9.7 in) of precipitation (WRCC 2012, entire). Therefore, based
on our review of the best available information, we identify that areas
that currently receive 29.7 cm (11.66 in) or higher total yearly
precipitation are necessary for the acu[ntilde]a cactus reproduction
and survival due to the continuing and impending region-wide drought.
Following determination of critical habitat as outlined in the
previous section, we then used an overlay of the areas containing
appropriate geology, vegetation community, percent slope, and
elevation, as defined in the physical and biological features, plus
Parameter-elevation Regressions on Independent Slopes Model (PRISM)
climate data, to map areas that contain the correct geology, vegetation
community, elevation range, and slope range, and that receive 29.7 cm
(11.66 in) or more annual precipitation over a 30-year average (see the
Physical or Biological Features for the Acu[ntilde]a catus above). The
result was additional polygons representing suitable habitat which are
not known to be occupied at the time of listing, but that contain
appropriate habitat for the species, and are more northerly, higher in
elevation, and receive higher mean annual precipitation than other
acu[ntilde]a cactus habitat. It is generally recognized that as climate
change progresses, species will move both north and upslope to adapt to
hotter and dryer climate (Lesica and McCune 2004, p. 687). Our
reasoning in defining these two additional areas as critical habitat is
that they will provide the greatest probability of higher precipitation
and cooler temperatures of the available acu[ntilde]a cactus habitat
throughout south-central Arizona, and thus provide an avenue for
natural expansion of the species' range (small mammals and birds likely
disperse the red fruits) and for off-site conservation efforts
(transplant populations). Areas that currently support the cactus will,
hopefully, continue to support the cactus in the future; however, given
the ongoing drought and the predictions for reduced precipitation
throughout the region, we conclude that additional areas are essential
to the conservation 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 for the acu[ntilde]a cactus. The scale
of the maps we prepared under the parameters for publication within the
Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect the exclusion of such
developed lands. Any such lands inadvertently left inside critical
habitat boundaries shown on the maps of this 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.

[[Page 60552]]

The critical habitat designation is defined by the map or maps, as
modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the end of
this document in the rule portion. We include more detailed information
on the boundaries of the critical habitat designation in the preamble
of this document. We will make the coordinates or plot points or both
on which each map is based available to the public on https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2012-0061, on our Internet
sites https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/, and at the field office
responsible for the designation (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
above).

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation for Acu[ntilde]a Cactus

We are proposing six units as critical habitat for the acu[ntilde]a
cactus. The critical habitat areas we describe below constitute our
current best assessment of areas that meet the definition of critical
habitat for the acu[ntilde]a cactus. The six units we propose as
critical habitat are: (1) Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, (2) Ajo,
(3) the Sauceda Mountains, (4) the Sand Tank Mountains, (5) Mineral
Mountain, and (6) Box O Wash. Table 5 shows the occupied units.

Table 5--Occupancy of the Acu[ntilde]a Cactus by Proposed Critical
Habitat Units
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Occupied at time of
Unit listing?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument Unit:
Dripping Spring......................... Yes.
Acu[ntilde]a Valley..................... Yes.
2. Ajo Unit:
Townsites............................... Yes.
Little Ajo Mountains.................... Yes.
3. Sauceda Mountains Unit:
Coffeepot Mountain...................... Yes.
Cimarron Mountain....................... No.
4. Sand Tank Mountains Unit:
Javelina Mountain....................... Yes.
Sand Tank Mountain...................... No.
5. Mineral Mountain Unit.................... Yes.
6. Box O Wash Unit.......................... Yes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The approximate area of each proposed critical habitat unit is
shown in Table 6.

Table 6--Proposed Critical Habitat Units for the Acu[ntilde]a Cactus
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal State Tribal Private Total
Unit Subunit ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ha (Ac) Ha (Ac) Ha (Ac) Ha (Ac) Ha (Ac)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Organ Pipe Cactus National Dripping Spring...... 1,591 (3,931) 0 0 0 1,591 (3,931)
Monument.
Acu[ntilde]a Valley.. 2,416 (5,971) 0 0 0 2,416 (5,971)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit Total.................... ..................... 4,007 (9,902) 0 0 0 4,007 (9,902)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Ajo............................ Townsites............ 89 (220) 0 0 330 (815) 419 (1,035)
Little Ajo Mountains. 106 (263) 0 0 141 (347) 247 (610)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit Total.................... ..................... 195 (483) 0 0 470 (1,162) 666 (1,645)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Sauceda Mountains.............. Coffeepot Mountain... 1,481 (3,659) 0 156 (385) 0 1,637 (4,044)
Cimarron Mountain.... 0 0 2,100 (5,190) 0 2,100 (5,190)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit Total.................... ..................... 1,481 (3,659) 0 2,256 (5,575) 0 3,737 (9,234)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Sand Tank Mountains............ Javelina Mountain.... 911 (2,251) 0 0 0 911 (2,251)
Sand Tank Mountain... 3,107 (7,677) 0 0 0 3,107 (7,677)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit Total.................... ..................... 4,018 (9,928) 0 0 0 4,018 (9,928)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Mineral Mountain............... ..................... 874 (2,160) 217 (537) 0 0 1,092 (2,697)
6. Box O Wash..................... ..................... 1,378 (3,404) 5,556 (13,729) 0 1,287 (3,180) 8,221 (20,314)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Total................... ..................... 11,953 (29,536) 5,773 (14,266) 2,256 (5,575) 1,757 (4,342) 21,740 (53,720)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.

We present brief descriptions of all units, and reasons why they
meet the definition of critical habitat for the acu[ntilde]a cactus,
below.
Unit 1: Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument
Unit 1 is located within OPCNM, in southwestern Pima County,
Arizona. The unit consists of two subunits totaling 4,007 ha (9,902
ac), of which all is federally owned land. The Federal land is
administered by the NPS.
Unit 1a: Acu[ntilde]a Valley--Unit 1a consists of 2,416 ha (5,971
ac) in central OPCNM. Lands within this subunit are occupied at the
time of listing with the largest known population of the acu[ntilde]a

[[Page 60553]]

cactus, approximately 2,000 individuals. This subunit contains all of
the primary constituent elements of the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the acu[ntilde]a cactus.
Unit 1b: Dripping Spring--Unit 1b consists of 1,591 ha (3,931ac) in
southern OPCNM. An acu[ntilde]a cactus herbarium specimen was collected
from within this unit in 1952. A general location was recorded on this
specimen, and from this information, a GIS map was created by the AGFD.
Because OPCNM personnel were not aware that an acu[ntilde]a cactus had
been collected in this area, they did not revisit the area to survey
for the species and are not able to survey now due to security issues
along the border. We believe there is a possibility this population
remains extant because: (1) We know of no other acu[ntilde]a cactus
population that has been extirpated. This unit is in the center between
the two largest known populations, which are located in the United
States and Mexico. There have been no natural, environmental changes
from climate change, drought, or insect predation that have caused an
acu[ntilde]a cactus population in the two largest known populations to
be extirpated. Because this unit is centered between the two largest
known populations, we have no evidence to indicate that climate change,
drought, or insect predation have extirpated this population. (2)
Episodic recruitment events during years of higher than average
precipitation may have occurred in this population since the time of
its discovery. The acu[ntilde]a cactus may not have been reproducing
offspring in periods of drought years, but there have been periods
since 1952 there was enough precipitation that would have resulted in
higher than average reproduction. In his 3-year study of the
reproductive ecology of the acu[ntilde]a cactus in Unit 1a, Johnson
(1992, pp. 403, 405) concluded that the positive association of
rainfall and annual variation in the number of flowers produced
indicates that water availability limits flower production in this
species. Within monitoring plots established by Buskirk in 1977
(Buskirk 1981, p. 1), total flowers counted peaked at 902 in 1992 (Holm
2006, p. 10); corresponding precipitation during the winter of 1992-
1993 was 29.7 cm (11.66 in) (WRCC 2012, entire). Even though cacti in
this unit were not monitored, it is likely that recruitment events
during years of higher than average precipitation may have occurred in
this population. (3) This species appears to be fairly long-lived. The
OPCNM has been monitoring individuals for 35 years in Unit 1a, and it
is likely that individuals have a life span that is much longer. Even
though this plant has not been looked for in this unit since 1952, it
is likely that some individuals, or their offspring, that were alive in
1952 remain in this unit today. (4) Even though illegal border
activities may have potentially caused damage to the acu[ntilde]a
cactus and its habitat in this unit, we have no evidence to indicate
that these activities have occurred at such a level the acu[ntilde]a
cactus population in this unit has been extirpated. Therefore, for the
reasons stated above, we consider this subunit occupied at the time of
listing. This subunit contains all of the primary constituent elements
of the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of
the acu[ntilde]a cactus.
Grazing and mining are not permitted within OPCNM; however, off-
road border-related activities do occur in OPCNM. Special management
considerations or protections may be required within each subunit to
address off-road border-related human disturbances, invasive plant
removal, and insect predation in acu[ntilde]a cactus habitat.
Unit 2: Ajo
Unit 2 is located in and near the town of Ajo in southwestern Pima
County, Arizona. The unit consists of two subunits totaling 666 ha
(1,645 ac). This unit contains 195 ha (483 ac) of federally owned land
and 470 ha (1,162 ac) of private land. The Federal land is administered
by the BLM.
Subunit 2a: Townsites--Subunit 2a consists of 330 ha (815 ac) of
private land and 89 ha (220 ac) of BLM land in and around the town of
Ajo, Arizona. This subunit is comprised of three separate populations
of the acu[ntilde]a cactus on private and BLM lands, which are close
enough in proximity to be combined within the 900 m (2,953 ft) radius
defined for pollinators. Lands within this subunit are occupied at the
time of listing; the combined number of plants occurring within this
subunit is 33. This subunit contains all of the primary constituent
elements of the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the acu[ntilde]a cactus.
Subunit 2b: Little Ajo Mountains--Subunit 2b consists of 106 ha
(263 ac) of BLM lands and 141 ha (347 ac) of private lands south of the
town of Ajo, Arizona. Lands within this subunit are occupied at the
time of listing, containing seven individual plants. This subunit
contains all of the primary constituent elements of the physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the acu[ntilde]a
cactus.
The features essential to the conservation of the species within
both subunits are threatened by mining, urban development, off-road
border activities, and exotic plant invasion. Special management
considerations or protections may be required within the subunits to
minimize habitat fragmentation; to minimize disturbance to acu[ntilde]a
cactus individuals, soil, and associated native vegetation; and to
prevent or remove invasive, exotic plants within the acu[ntilde]a
cactus habitat.
Unit 3: Sauceda Mountains
Unit 3 is located in the Sauceda Mountains of northwestern Pima and
southwestern Maricopa Counties, Arizona. This unit consists of two
subunits totaling 3,737 ha (9,234 ac). This unit contains 1,481 ha
(3,659 ac) of federally owned land and 2,256 ha (5,575 ac) of Tribally
owned land. The Federal land is administered by the BLM and BMGR; the
Tribal land is administered by the Tohono O'odham Nation. We will
coordinate with the Tribe and examine what conservation actions,
management plans, and commitments and assurances for the acu[ntilde]a
cactus occur on these lands for potential exclusion from the final
designation of critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
Subunit 3a: Coffeepot Mountain--Subunit 3a consists of 1,637 ha
(4,044 ac) in the Sauceda Mountains of northwestern Pima and
southwestern Maricopa Counties, on and near Coffeepot Mountain. This
subunit is comprised of four separate populations on lands administered
by the BLM (1,102 ha (2,724 ac)), the BMGR (378 ha (935 ac)), and the
Tohono O'odham Nation (156 ha (385 ac)), which are close enough in
proximity as to be combined within the 900 m (2,953 ft) radius defined
for pollinators. Lands within this subunit are occupied at the time of
listing; the combined number of plants occurring within this subunit is
445. This subunit contains all of the primary constituent elements of
the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of
the acu[ntilde]a cactus.
The features essential to the conservation of the species within
subunit 3a are threatened by mining, grazing, and off-road border
activities. Special management considerations or protections may be
required within the unit to minimize habitat fragmentation; to minimize
disturbance to individual acu[ntilde]a cactus individuals, soil, and
associated native vegetation; and to prevent or remove invasive, exotic
plants within acu[ntilde]a cactus habitat.
Subunit 3b: Cimarron Mountain--Subunit 3b consists of 2,100 ha
(5,190

[[Page 60554]]

ac) of potential acu[ntilde]a cactus habitat all on land owned by the
Tohono O'odham Nation. This unit has not been surveyed for the
acu[ntilde]a cactus, and no acu[ntilde]a cacti are known to occur here
at the time of listing. Modeling demonstrated that this subunit
contains suitable habitat for the species. In addition, the area
receives higher mean annual precipitation (greater than 29.7 cm/year
(3.82 in/year)), a factor found to be essential for the conservation of
the species (see the Acu[ntilde]a Cactus Physical or Biological
Features section above). Therefore, this subunit provides space for the
growth and expansion of the species, particularly in the face of
ongoing drought and climate change model predictions, and is essential
for the conservation of the species.
Unit 4: Sand Tank Mountains
Unit 4 is located in the Sand Tank Mountains of southwestern
Maricopa County, Arizona. This unit consists of two subunits totaling
4,018 ha (9,928 ac), all of which is federally owned land. The Federal
land is administered by the BLM and BMGR.
Subunit 4a: Javelina Mountain--Subunit 4a consists of 911 ha (2,251
ac) of land within the Sonoran Desert National Monument administered by
the BLM. This subunit contains three separate populations totaling 200
individuals. This subunit contains all of the primary constituent
elements of the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the acu[ntilde]a cactus.
Grazing and mining are not permitted within the Sonoran Desert
National Monument and the BMGR; however, off-road border-related
activities and trespass livestock grazing may occur in Subunit 4a.
Special management considerations or protections may be required within
Subunit 4a to address increased off-road border-related human
disturbances; to minimize disturbance to acu[ntilde]a cactus
individuals, the soil, and associated native vegetation; and to prevent
or remove invasive, exotic plants within acu[ntilde]a cactus habitat.
Subunit 4b: Sand Tank Mountain--Subunit 4b consists of 3,107 ha
(7,677 ac) of potential acu[ntilde]a cactus habitat within the Sonoran
Desert National Monument (140 ha (347 ac)) and the BMGR (2,967 ha
(7,331 ac)). This unit has not been surveyed for the acu[ntilde]a
cactus, and no acu[ntilde]a cacti are known to occur there at the time
of listing. Modeling demonstrated that this subunit contains suitable
habitat for the species. The area also receives higher mean annual
precipitation (greater than 29.7 cm/year (11.69 in/year)), a factor
found to be necessary for the conservation of the species. Therefore,
this subunit is essential for the conservation of the acu[ntilde]a
cactus because it provides space for the growth and expansion of the
species, especially in the face of ongoing drought and climate change
model predictions.
Unit 5: Mineral Mountain
Unit 5 consists of 1,092 ha (2,697 ac) on Mineral Mountain of
north-central Pinal County, Arizona. This unit contains 874 ha (2,160
ac) of federally owned land and 217 ha (537 ac) of State-owned land.
The Federal land is administered by the BLM (873 ha (2,158 ac)) and the
Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) (1 ha (2 ac)).
This unit contains five separate known populations totaling at
least 30 individuals on lands administered by the BLM and the State of
Arizona. This unit contains all of the primary constituent elements of
the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of
the acu[ntilde]a cactus.
Livestock grazing and ORV activity occur on this unit, and mining
occurs nearby. Special management considerations or protections may be
required within the unit to minimize habitat fragmentation; to minimize
disturbance to acu[ntilde]a cactus individuals, soil, and associated
native vegetation; and to prevent or remove invasive, exotic plants
within acu[ntilde]a cactus habitat.
Unit 6: Box O Wash
Unit 6 consists of 8,221 ha (20,314 ac) near Box O Wash of north-
central Pinal County, Arizona. This unit contains 1,378 ha (3,404 ac)
of federally owned land, 5,556 ha (13,729 ac) of State-owned land, and
1,287 ha (3,180 ac) of privately owned land. The Federal land is
administered by the BLM (1,058 ha (2,615 ac)) and BOR (320 ha (790
ac)).
This unit contains three separate populations totaling at least 11
individuals. This unit contains all of the primary constituent elements
of the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of
the acu[ntilde]a cactus.
Livestock grazing and ORV activity occur on this unit, and mining
occurs nearby. Special management considerations or protections may be
required within the unit to minimize habitat fragmentation; to minimize
disturbance to acu[ntilde]a cactus individuals, soil, and associated
native vegetation; and to prevent or remove invasive, exotic plants
within acu[ntilde]a cactus habitat.

Fickeisen Plains Cactus

Physical or Biological Features

We derive the specific physical or biological features required for
the Fickeisen plains cactus from studies of the species' habitat,
ecology, and life history as described below. We have determined that
the Fickeisen plains cactus requires the following physical and
biological features:
Space for Individual and Population Growth, and for Normal Behavior and
Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals or Other Nutritional or Physiological
Requirements
The Fickeisen plains cactus is a narrow endemic with a limited
distribution in northern Arizona on the Colorado Plateau. Within its
range, the Fickeisen plains cactus requires the appropriate soils,
associated geologic formations, slope, drainage, and plant community
within the landscape to provide space for individual growth and
population growth and to provide food, water, air, light, minerals or
other nutritional or physiological requirements. The Fickeisen plains
cactus is found on soils formed from alluvium, colluvium, or Aeolian
deposits derived from limestone of the Harrisburg member of the Kaibab
Formation and Toroweap Formation, underlain with Coconino Sandstone,
and sandstone and mudstone of the Moenkopi Formation (Billingsley et
al. 2001, entire; AZGS 2011). Several occurrences are located on or in
close proximity to active or quaternary faults.

Table 7--Soil Class Associated With the Fickeisen Plains Cactus Habitat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Soil class associations Percent slope
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Strych very gravelly loam........ 2-10 percent slope.
Mellenthin-Rock outcrop- 10-70 percent slope
Torriorthents complex.
Mellenthin-Tanbark complex....... 5-50 percent slope.
Moenkopie-Goblin complex......... 5-50 percent slope.
Dutchman-McCullan complex........ 1-10 percent slope.
Twist sandy loam................. 2-10 percent slope.

[[Page 60555]]

Mellenthin very gravelly loam.... 1-25 percent slope.
Saido-Brinkerhoff complex........ 1-5 percent slope.
Kinan gravelly loam.............. 1-15 percent slope.
Mellenthin-Progresso complex..... 1-7 percent slope.
Kinan-Pennell complex............ 4-15 percent slope.
Pennell cobbly loam.............. 3-10 percent slope.
Pennell gravelly sandy loam...... 20-45 percent slope.
Monierco clay loam............... 2-15 percent slope.
Monue-Seeg complex............... 1-6 percent slope.
Hajisho-Cataract family-Shinume 4-15 percent slope.
complex.
Hajisho-Seeg complex............. 2-15 percent slope.
Salten-Meriwhitica-Wayneco-Tassi 5-30 percent slope.
family, complex.
Winona gravelly loam............. 0-8 percent slope.
Winon stony loam................. 0-8 percent slope.
Winon-Boysag gravelly loam....... 0-8 percent slope.
Winona-Rock outcrop.............. 15-30 percent and 30-70 percent
slope.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Fickeisen plains cactus is affiliated with several soil series
across its range (Table 7). The Fickeisen plains cactus is found on
nonsaline to slightly saline soils that are shallow to moderately deep;
well-drained; and consisting of gravelly loam, fine sandy loam,
gravelly sandy loam, clay loam, and cobbly loam (NRCS 2012), with a
soil pH between 7.9 to 8.4 (NatureServe 2011; NRCS 2012). The fine
textured and very loose soil texture may enable the plant to be
completely buried once retracted (NNHP 1994, p. 3), thereby protecting
the apex from exposure to low temperatures during the winter season.
The Fickeisen plains cactus is found at elevations from 1,310 to 1,813
m (4,200 to 5,950 ft). These elevations support between 15.25 and 35.56
cm (6 to 14 in) of annual rainfall, although precipitation patterns and
monthly amounts are highly variable within the range of the Fickeisen
plains cactus. Plants are found growing on mesa tops or plateaus and
depositional areas consisting of flat terraces and benches, along the
margins of canyon rims or on the toe of well-drained hills. Individuals
are found on the western, southwestern, and southern-facing exposures
with slopes of 0 to 20 percent (Arizona Rare Plant Committee 2001,
unpaginated; AGFD 2011a, p. 2), although most plants are observed on
slopes less than 10 percent.
The Fickeisen plains cactus occurs within the Plains and Great
Basin grasslands and Great Basin desert scrub vegetation communities
(Benson 1982, p. 764; NatureServe 2011). Dominate native plant species
that are commonly associated with these biotic communities include:
Artemisia tridentata (sagebrush), Atriplex canescens (four-wing
saltbush), Atriplex confertifolia (shadscale), Bouteloua eriopoda
(black grama), Bouteloua gracilis (blue grama), Bromus spp. (brome),
Chrysothamnus spp. (rabbit-bush), Ephedra torreyana (Mormon tea),
Eurotia lanata (winterfat), Gutierrezia sarothrae (broom snakeweed),
Pleuraphis jamesii (James's galleta), Oryzopsis hymenoides (Indian
ricegrass), Sphaeralcea spp. (globe-mallow), and Stipa spp.
(needlegrass). Other native cactus species that are commonly found
include Agave utahensis (century plants), Echinocactus polycephalus
spp. and Escobaria vivipara var. rosea (foxtail cactus) (Brown 1994,
pp. 115-121; Turner 1994, pp. 145-155; Hughes 1996b, p. 2; Goodwin
2011a, p. 4; NatureServe 2011).
The Fickeisen plains cactus is found growing in open, sparsely
vegetated areas in full sun but also in areas of dense grass cover.
Seedlings and adult Fickeisen plains cacti observed growing underneath
a shrub canopy or from clumps of grama grass appeared to be larger and
fuller than those in open areas. Some type and amount of canopy cover
may create suitable microhabitat conditions that enhance Fickeisen
plains cactus' survival by providing protection from the sun and wind,
and by decreasing the rate of evapotranspiration (Milne 1987, p. 34).
In order for the Fickeisen plains cactus to produce flower and set seed
in the spring, adequate soil moisture during the winter is necessary
(Brack 2012, pers. comm.). The general soil moisture recharge period
across its range is from December to March (Travis 1987, p. 3), when
temperatures and soil evaporation are low. Accumulated soil moisture is
usually depleted by the summer months in which the Fickeisen plains
cactus will retract underground but may emerge following summer monsoon
thunderstorms. Therefore, based on the information presented above, we
identify limestone soils derived from the appropriate formations;
gravelly, shallow, and well-drained soils; the appropriate elevation
range; and adequate precipitation to be essential physical or
biological features for this species.
Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, Rearing, Germination, Seed Dispersal
or Pollination
The Fickeisen plains cactus does not require areas for breeding or
reproduction other than the areas they occupy and any area necessary
for pollinators and seed dispersal (refer to Pollination and Pollen
Dispersal section in Acu[ntilde]a Cactus above). Reproduction sites
accommodate all life-history phases of the Fickeisen plains cactus.
Like other native plants within the Colorado Plateau region, adequate
precipitation and low temperatures during the winter season, which
reduce evaporation, favor seedling germination (Comstock and Ehleringer
1992, pp. 196-199).
The Fickeisen plains cactus is found in areas of sparse vegetation
and in tall, dense grass. Seeds of the Fickeisen plains cactus would
likely require certain soil conditions to germinate, such as adequate
amounts of soil moisture and nutrients, and temperatures conducive to
germination, but we do not have any information regarding those
specific requirements. Seed production in the Fickeisen plains cactus
is considered to be low (Hughes 2011, pers. comm.), and most species of
Pediocactus have poor seed dispersal mechanisms (Benson 1982, p. 750).
Seedlings are often observed near the parent plant (Goodwin 2011a, p.
9) and do better when shade is provided by a

[[Page 60556]]

parent or nurse rock (Nobel 1984, p. 316; Milne 1987, p. 34). The
Fickeisen plains cactus relies solely on the production of seed for
reproduction (Pimienta-Barrios and del Castillo 2002, p. 79). Optimal
seed set occurs through visitation and pollination by native bees.
Pollinators observed visiting flowers of the Fickeisen plains
cactus include hover flies (family Syrphidae), bee flies (family
Bombyliidae), mining bees (family Andrenidae), and sweat bees (family
Halictidae) (Milne 1987, p. 21; NNHP 1994, p. 3). However, the primary
pollinators for the Fickeisen plains cactus are believed to be halictid
bees from the genera Lasioglossum, Halictus, and Agapostemon, based on
several studied species of Pediocactus (Tepedino 2012, pers. comm.).
Additionally, although flies may pollinate flowers of the Fickeisen
plains cactus when they eat pollen or nectar, bees are considered to be
the essential pollinators for native plants and likely for the
Fickeisen plains cactus. Foraging distances vary by species and body
size (Greenleaf et al. 2007, p. 592), but the typical flight distances
of halictid bees in the genera Lasioglossum are 10 to 410 m (33 to
1,345 ft). The foraging distance for the largest bodied bee in the
genera Agapostemon is approximately 1,000 m (3,280 ft) (Tepedino 2012,
pers. comm.).
For the Fickeisen plains cactus, because of its endemism, small
population size, and disjunct occurrence, maintaining genetic diversity
is essential for its persistence (Tepedino et al. 1996, p. 245). In
general, maintaining adequate populations of the Fickeisen plains
cactus' primary pollinators, which likely depends on the presence and
diversity of other native plant species in sufficient numbers within,
near, and between populations (``stepping stones''), is essential to
facilitate gene flow (NatureServe 2011). Therefore, maintaining areas
with a high diversity of native plant species is necessary to sustain
populations of native pollinators (Peach et al. 1993, p. 314). Low
numbers of abundant flowers offering little reward can lead to low
rates of plants visited by pollinators (Wilcox and Neiland 2002, pp.
272-273). The Fickeisen plains cactus relies solely on the production
of seeds for reproduction, with pollination highly linked to their
survival. A lack of pollinators would gradually decrease the number of
seeds in the seed bank and the conservation potential for the Fickeisen
plains cactus (Wilcock and Neiland 2002, p. 276). Therefore, based on
the information above, we identify a pollination area-with a radius of
1,000 m (3,280 ft) around each reproducing Fickeisen plains cactus and
containing native vegetation as a physical or biological feature of
Fickeisen plains cactus habitat.
Habitats That are Protected From Disturbance or Representative of the
Historical, Geographical, and Ecological Distribution of the Species
The Fickeisen plains cactus has a restricted geographical
distribution. Endemic species whose populations exhibit a high degree
of isolation are extremely susceptible to extinction from random and
non-random, catastrophic, natural or human-caused events. Therefore,
the conservation of the Fickeisen plains cactus is dependent on several
factors, including but not limited to: (1) Maintenance of areas of
sufficient size and configuration to sustain natural ecosystem
components, functions, and processes (such as sun exposure, native
shrubs or grasses that provide microhabitats for seedlings, natural
fire and hydrologic regimes, preservation of biological soil crusts
that support the surrounding vegetation community, and adequate biotic
balance to prevent excessive herbivory); (2) protection of the existing
substrate continuity and structure; (3) connectivity among clusters of
plants within geographic proximity to facilitate gene flow among these
sites through pollination activity and seed dispersal; and (4)
sufficient adjacent suitable habitat for reproduction and population
expansion.
A natural, generally intact surface and subsurface that is free of
inappropriate disturbance associated with land use activities (such as
trampling and soil compaction from livestock grazing) and associated
physical processes such as the hydrologic regime are necessary to
provide water, minerals, and other physiological needs for the
Fickeisen plains cactus. A natural intact surface and subsurface
includes the preservation of soil qualities (texture, slope, rooting
depth) to enable the seasonal ability of plants to retract below the
subsurface to enter dormancy but emerge when conditions are favorable.
A natural hydrologic regime includes the seasonal retention of soil
moisture followed by the drying out of the substrate to promote growth
of plants for the following season. These processes enable populations
to develop and maintain seed banks, and to provide for success seedling
survival, adult growth, and expansion of populations. The Fickeisen
plains cactus must sustain and expand in number if ecological
representation of this species is to be ensured. Therefore, based on
the information above, we identify natural, generally intact surface
and subsurface that preserves the physical processes, such as soil
quality and the natural hydrology of a natural vegetation community, to
be physical or biological features for this species.

Primary Constituent Elements for the Fickeisen Plains Cactus

Based on our current knowledge of the physical or biological
features and habitat characteristics required to sustain the species'
life-history processes, we determine that the primary constituent
elements specific to the Fickeisen plains cactus are:
(i) Soils in northern Arizona on the Colorado Plateau that are:
a. Formed from alluvium, colluvium, or Aeolian deposits;
b. Derived from limestone of the Harrisburg member of the Kaibab
Formation and Toroweap Formation;
c. Underlain with Coconino Sandstone, and sandstone and mudstone of
the Moenkopi Formation;
d. At an elevation of 1,310 to 1,813 m (4,200 to 5,950 ft);
e. Are gravelly-loam, fine-textured, well drained, and shallow;
f. On terraces, benches, tops of mesas and plateaus, toe-slope of
hills with a 0 to 20 percent slope;
g. Supportive of biological soil crusts;
h. Within the Plains and Great Basin grassland and Great Basin
desert scrub vegetation communities;
(ii) Native vegetation in areas that have natural, generally intact
surface and subsurface features that provide habitat and suitable
nesting substrate for the cactus' pollinators and space for seed
dispersal and germination; and
(iii) Provide for pollinator habitat with a radius of 1,000 m
(3,280 ft) around each individual, reproducing Fickeisen plains cactus.

Special Management Considerations or Protection

[[Page 60557]]

address these threats. Management activities that could ameliorate
these threats include (but are not limited to) improving habitats and
potentially increasing plant population numbers on lands the BLM,
Forest Service, or the State currently holds or may hold in the future.
Special management to protect the features essential to the
conservation of the species include conservation measures and actions
to minimize effects of livestock grazing; control nonnative, invasive
plants; reduce rodent and rabbit predation, and manage activities in
response to drought conditions on these lands. These management
activities will protect the features essential to the conservation of
the species by maintaining native vegetation communities, preserving
soil characteristics, and providing habitat for the Fickeisen plains
cactus and its pollinators.

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best
scientific data available to designate critical habitat. We review
available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of the
species. In accordance with the Act and its implementing regulation at
50 CFR 424.12(e), we consider whether designating additional areas--
outside those currently occupied as well as those occupied at the time
of listing--are necessary to ensure the conservation of the species. We
have determined that all areas we are proposing to designate as
critical habitat are within the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing (see the ``Abundance and Trends''
section, above, for more information).
Based on the best available information, we conclude that the nine
proposed units are occupied by the Fickeisen plains cactus. We
acknowledge that several of the populations have not been visited for
many years, but our rationale for including them within occupied units
is described below.
The Salaratus Draw (which includes Salaratus Draw I and Salaratus
Draw II) and Toquer Tank sites were within the BLM's ``seldom''
monitored cluster plots and contain a few, widely spaced individuals.
These cluster plots were for the purpose of tracking presence or
absence and not intended to be intensively searched or to establish a
population estimate. They were originally created to be visited every 5
to 10 years in which, the Toquer Tank plot was last visited in 1994 and
the Salaratus Draw plots in 2001. We have very little information about
the Fickeisen plains cactus in the Toquer Tank plot. A fair number of
plants were documented there for several consecutive years and the site
was occupied in 1994. When the Salaratus Draw plots were last visited
in 2001, the sites were reported to be dry. Climate data for 2001
recorded below-average precipitation, and the region was experiencing a
prolonged drought. Given that the Fickeisen plains cactus can be
difficult to locate, particularly when plants are not flowering, it is
likely that they were retracted below ground and missed during the
count. In addition, plants may remain underground for several years in
a row, as has been documented in the plots that are regularly monitored
by the BLM. Even plants that have their crown exposed just above the
soil surface can be difficult to locate. When conditions are ideal
(adequate precipitation), plants will emerge above ground and are
easier to detect. Additionally, BLM documented one instance when the
Sunshine Ridge population had declined to zero plants in 2000, but
three of the tagged plants were detected the following year. This
provides basis for our assumption that the Salaratus Draw and Toquer
Tank may still be occupied as of 2012.
Furthermore, the Fickeisen plains cactus was documented at six
sites that have never been monitored and have not been visited in over
18 years. These unmonitored sites (Beanhole Well, Marble Canyon, South
Canyon, Tiger Wash1, Tiger Wash 2, and Shinumo Wash) are within 6 km (4
mi) of the monitored sites in House Rock Valley where the Fickeisen
plains cactus has been documented within the last 6 years. Livestock
grazing has been reported in the area of the South Canyon site, but
there is no evidence that the grazing resulted in the Fickeisen plains
cactus being removed from the population. Similarly, there have been no
large-scale, surface-disturbing activities occurring in proximity to
the monitored or unmonitored areas that would lead us to believe that
the Fickeisen plains cactus is no longer viable at the sites. Also, the
life span of the Fickeisen plains cactus is estimated to be between 10
to 15 years (Phillips et al. 1982, p. 9). Because these six unmonitored
sites are within close proximity to the monitored sites that contain
the Fickeisen plains cactus, the environmental conditions have not been
severe enough to extirpate the cactus from nearby monitored sites,
impacts to the habitat from livestock grazing have not removed plants
from the monitored populations, and the cactus has a lifespan of 10 to
15 years, we believe that the six unmonitored subunits are still
occupied by the Fickeisen plains cactus.
To further our assumption that unsurveyed areas may still be
occupied, the Fickeisen plains cactus exhibits episodic recruitment
when climatic conditions are ideal. Based on BLM's monitoring
information, a few small plants do emerge, perhaps not each year, but
at least every 2 to 4 years. Information that describes the habitat of
these sites is very limited. Livestock grazing is the primary surface-
disturbing activity. Based on our evaluation of grazing for the regular
monitored plots, we anticipate that the habitat has been degraded and
impacted by other identified threats to the plant. We also acknowledge
that these small populations are being affected by drought and climate
change, and when coupled with surface disturbance, this likely results
in increased mortality. But based on the best available information,
there is no indication that leads us to believe that the Fickeisen
plains cactus is no longer viable at the unsurveyed sites.
We considered areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
Fickeisen plains cactus at the time of listing, but we are not
proposing to designate any areas outside the geographical area occupied
by the Fickeisen plains cactus. In our review, the Fickeisen plains
cactus occurs across a broad range with different topography, large
elevational gradients, and vegetation communities (Grahame and Sisk
2002, entire; USGS 2002, entire). Due to the vastness and diversity of
the range, there are areas within its geographical range that provides
for in-situ conservation if needed in the future. Therefore, we
determined that a subset of occupied lands within the species' current
range is adequate to ensure the conservation of the Fickeisen plains
cactus.
We reviewed available information and supporting data that pertains
to the habitat requirements of the Fickeisen plains cactus. This
information included research published in peer-reviewed articles, soil
surveys, agency reports, special land assessments, and data collected
from long-term monitoring plots, interviews with experts, and regional
climate data and GIS coverage. Sources of information include, but are
not limited to: AGFD 2011b, AZGS 2011, Billingsley 2000, Billingsley
and Dyer 2003, BLM 2007a, Calico 2012, Goodwin 2011a, Hazelton 2012a,
Milne 1987, NNHP 2011a, NRCS 2012, Phillips et al. 1982, Travis 1987,
and WRCC 2012. Based on this

[[Page 60558]]

information, we developed a strategy for determining which areas meet
the definition of critical habitat for the Fickeisen plains cactus.
In identifying proposed critical habitat units for the Fickeisen
plains cactus, we proceeded through a multi-step process. We obtained
all records for the distribution of the Fickeisen plains cactus from
AGFD, as well as both published and unpublished documentation from our
files. Recent survey results confirm that plant distribution is similar
to known distributions with the exception that additional populations
have been found following survey efforts.
Our approach to delineating critical habitat units was applied in
the following manner:
(1) We overlaid locations of the Fickeisen plains cactus into a GIS
database. This provided us with the ability to examine slope,
elevation, geologic type, vegetation community, and topographic
features. These data points verified and slightly expanded the
previously recorded elevation ranges for the Fickeisen plains cactus.
(2) In addition to the GIS layers listed above, we then included a
1,000 m (3,280 ft) pollination area around known populations to
encompass native vegetation surrounding individual Fickeisen plains
cacti, as described in Primary Constituent Elements for the Fickeisen
Plains Cactus, above.
(3) We then drew critical habitat boundaries that captured the
locations elucidated under (1) and (2) above. Critical habitat
designations were then mapped using Albers Equal Area (Albers) North
American Datum 83 (NAD 83) coordinates.
Occupied Area at the Time of Listing
Areas where plants are or have been documented within the species'
described range were considered to be occupied at the time of listing.
The known range of the Fickeisen plains cactus is from Mainstreet
Valley and Hurricane Valley in Mohave County to House Rock Valley in
Coconino County on the Arizona Strip; along the canyon rims of the
Colorado River and Little Colorado River, to the area of Gray Mountain;
and along the rims of Cataract Canyon on the Coconino Plateau.
Occupied occurrences of the Fickeisen plains cactus located in
close proximity were grouped into one unit (e.g., Hurricane Cliffs).
Areas where plants are distributed over a large distance (e.g.,
Cataract Ranch) were also categorized into one unit. All of the units
contained all of the identified elements of physical or biological
features and supported multiple life-history processes.
The critical habitat designation is defined by the map or maps, as
modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the end of
this document in the rule portion. We include more detailed information
on the boundaries of the critical habitat designation in the preamble
of this document. We will make the coordinates or plot points or both
on which each map is based available to the public on https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2012-0061, on our Internet
sites https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/, and at the field office
responsible for the designation (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
above).

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation for the Fickeisen Plains Cactus

We are proposing nine units as critical habitat for the Fickeisen
plains cactus. The critical habitat areas we describe below constitute
our current best assessment of areas that meet the definition of
critical habitat for the Fickeisen plains cactus. The nine areas we
propose as critical habitat are: (1) Hurricane Cliffs; (2) Sunshine
Ridge; (3) Clayhole Valley; (4) Snake Gulch; (5) House Rock Valley; (6)
Tiger Wash; (7) Little Colorado River Overlook; (8) Gray Mountain; and
(9) Cataract Canyon. All of the nine critical habitat units are
occupied by the Fickeisen plains cactus.
The approximate area of each proposed critical habitat unit is
shown in Table 8.

Table 8--Proposed Critical Habitat Units for the Fickeisen Plains Cactus
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal State Tribal Private Total
Unit Subunit ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ha (Ac) Ha (Ac) Ha (Ac) Ha (Ac) Ha (Ac)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Hurricane Cliffs................... Dutchman Draw 1,525 (3,769) 0 0 2 (5) 1,527 (3,774)
Salaratus Draw 445 (1,098) 266 (658) 0 13 (33) 724 (1,789)
Temple Trail 443 (1,096) 0 0 0 443 (1,096)
Toquer Tank 350 (865) 0 0 0 350 (865)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit Total........................ ................. 2,763 (6,828) 266 (658) 0 15 (38) 3,044 (7,524)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Sunshine Ridge..................... Sunshine Ridge 612 (1,512) 142 (351) 0 0 754 (1,863)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Clayhole Valley.................... Clayhole Ridge 338 (836) 76 (188) 0 0 414 (1,024)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Snake Gulch........................ Snake Gulch 945 (2,335) 0 0 0 945 (2,335)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. House Rock Valley.................. Beanhole Well 745 (1,841) 126 (312) 0 0 871 (2,153)
North Canyon Wash 472 (1,166) 0 0 0 472 (1,166)
Marble Canyon 214 (528) 0 0 0 214 (528)
South Canyon 336 (831) 0 0 0 336 (831)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit Total........................ ................. 1,767 (4,366) 126 (312) 0 0 1,893 (4,678)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Tiger Wash......................... Tiger Wash 1 0 0 380 (940) 0 380 (940)
Tiger Wash 2 0 0 1,497 (3,700) 0 1,497 (3,700)
Shinumo Wash 0 0 380 (940) 0 380 (940)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit Total........................ ................. 0 0 2,257 (5,580) 0 2,257 (5,580)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 60559]]

7. Little Colorado River (LCR) LCR Overlook 0 0 1,170 (2,891) 0 1,170 (2,891)
Overlook.............................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Gray Mountain...................... Mays Wash 246 (609) 80 (198) 0 0 371 (917) 697 (1,724)
Gray Mountain 0 7 (17) 438 (1,083) 514 (1,271) 960 (2,371)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit Total........................ ................. 246 (609) 87 (215) 438 (1,083) 885 (2,188) 1,656 (4,095)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Cataract Canyon.................... Cataract Canyon 0 4,920 (12,159) 0 0 2,848 (7,037) 7,768 (19,196)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Total....................... ................. 6,671 (16,486) 5,617 (13,883) 3,865 (9,554) 3,748 (9,263) 19,901 (49,186)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.

We present below brief descriptions of all units, and reasons why
they meet the definition of critical habitat for the Fickeisen plains
cactus.
Unit 1: Hurricane Cliffs
The Hurricane Cliffs Unit is located within the Hurricane Cliffs
geographic area that is bounded to the west by Mainstreet Valley and to
the east by Hurricane Cliffs. The unit consists of four subunits
totaling 3,044 ha (7,524 ac) on the Arizona Strip in Mohave County. The
unit includes private land, lands owned by the State of Arizona, and
federally owned land managed by the BLM. This subunit contains all of
the primary constituent elements of the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the Fickeisen plains cactus. Occupancy
of the Hurricane Cliffs Unit by the Fickeisen plains cactus has been
documented since 1986 (BLM 1986, p. 1). The species was considered
generally rare but in abundant numbers at Dutchman Draw with scattered
individuals located in small clusters adjacent to the Dutchman Draw
populations. These smaller clusters include the Navajo, Ward, Salaratus
Draw I and Salaratus Draw II, Temple Trail, and Toquer Tank
populations.
Subunit 1a: Dutchman Draw--Subunit 1a consists of 1,527 ha (3,774
ac) in Mainstreet Valley next to Dutchman Draw. Lands within this
subunit are occupied at the time of listing. This site has been
monitored regularly since 1986, and contains 12 plants as of 2011. This
subunit also includes the Navajo and Ward cluster plots. These small
plots were last visited in 2001 and 10 plants were found at both of the
sites. This subunit contains all of the primary constituent elements of
the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of
the Fickeisen plains cactus.
Subunit 1b: Salaratus Draw--Subunit 1b consists of 724 ha (1,789
ac) in Mainstreet Valley. Lands within this subunit are occupied at the
time of listing. This site was visited only three times between 1986
and 2001. This subunit includes Salaratus Draw I and Salaratus Draw II
populations. At most, 44 plants were located in these areas in 19994.
This subunit contains all of the primary constituent elements of the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
Fickeisen plains cactus.
Subunit 1c: Temple Trail--Subunit 1c consists of 443 ha (1,096 ac)
in Lower Hurricane Valley. Lands within this subunit are occupied at
the time of listing. This site was last visited in 2001 when seven
individuals were found. This subunit contains all of the primary
constituent elements of the physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the Fickeisen plains cactus.
Subunit 1d: Toquer Tank--Subunit 1d consists of 350 ha (865 ac) in
Mainstreet Valley. Lands within this subunit are occupied at the time
of listing. This site was regularly monitored from 1986 to 1991, when
abundance counts ranged from 7 to 13 plants. This site was last visited
in 1994 and seven individuals were found. This subunit contains all of
the primary constituent elements of the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the Fickeisen plains cactus.
In all subunits of Unit 1, the features essential to the
conservation of the species may require special management
considerations to address threats from livestock grazing; nonnative,
invasive species; rodent or rabbit predation, and long-term drought.
Unit 2: Sunshine Ridge Unit
The unit includes lands owned by the State and federally owned land
that is managed by the BLM. Plants are located east of the Uinkaret
Plateau and east of the range of the Pediocactus sileri (Siler
pincushion cactus). Occupancy of the Sunshine Ridge Unit by the
Fickeisen plains cactus has been documented since 1977 (AGFD 2011b,
entire). This population has been regularly monitored since 1986, and
has 34 plants as of 2011. Land within this unit is occupied at the time
of listing and contains all of the primary constituent elements of the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
Fickeisen plains cactus.
The features essential to the conservation of the species may
require special management considerations to address threats from
livestock grazing; nonnative, invasive species; rodent or rabbit
predation, and long-term drought.
Unit 3: Clayhole Valley
Unit 3 is located in Upper Clayhole Valley on the Uinkaret Plateau.
The unit consists of the Clayhole Ridge subunit totaling 414 ha (1,024
ac) on the Arizona Strip in Mohave County. The unit includes land owned
by the State and federally owned land that is managed by the BLM.
Occupancy of the Clayhole Valley Unit by the Fickeisen plains cactus
has been documented since 1980 (AGFD 2011b, entire). The population has
been monitored annually since 1986. As of 2011, the population contains
42 plants. Land within this unit is occupied at the time of listing and
contains all of the primary constituent elements of the physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the Fickeisen
plains cactus.
The features essential to the conservation of the species may
require

[[Page 60560]]

special management considerations to address threats from livestock
grazing; nonnative, invasive species; rodent or rabbit predation, and
long-term drought.
Unit 4: Snake Gulch Unit
Unit 4 is located on the western boundary of the Kaibab National
Forest in Coconino County. The unit consists of 945 ha (2,335 ac) on
the North Kaibab Ranger District. The entire unit consists of federally
owned land that is managed by the U.S. Forest Service. Occupancy was
confirmed in 2004, by the Kaibab National Forest. The number of plants
occurring here has not been documented except in general terms of
presence/absence. This unit is occupied at the time of listing and
contains all of the primary constituent elements of the physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the Fickeisen
plains cactus.
The features essential to the conservation of the species may
require special management considerations to address threats from
nonnative, invasive species and long-term drought. Livestock grazing is
permitted in this subunit during the winter, but is not considered a
threat to the features essential to the conservation of the Fickeisen
plains cactus.
Unit 5: House Rock Valley
Unit 5 is located on the eastern edge of the Arizona Strip in
Coconino County and near the North Rim of the Grand Canyon National
Park. The unit consists of four subunits totaling 1,893 ha (4,678 ac).
The unit consists of land owned by the State and federally owned land
that is managed by the BLM. Lands within this unit are occupied at the
time of listing and contain all of the primary constituent elements of
the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of
the Fickeisen plains cactus.
Occupancy of the Fickeisen plains cactus in the House Rock Valley
Unit was first documented in 1979 (Phillips 1979, entire; AGFD 2011b,
entire), at Beanhole Well, Marble Canyon, and South Canyon. These sites
have not been visited for many years. However, we have no reason to
believe these sites are not occupied at the time of listing for the
before-mentioned reasons. Occupancy at the North Canyon Wash site was
documented in 1986, and it has been regularly monitored. The House Rock
Valley Unit is bounded by the Colorado River that runs northwest to
southwest, U.S. Highway 89A to the north, and the Kaibab National
Forest to the west.
Subunit 5a: Beanhole Well--Subunit 5a consists of 745 ha (1,841 ac)
of federally owned land that is managed by the BLM, and 126 ha (312 ac)
of State-owned land. Lands within this subunit are occupied at the time
of listing. Three plants were documented at Beanhole Well in 1979, and
the site has been visited since then, but we do not have information
available regarding numbers of plants. This subunit contains all of the
primary constituent elements of the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the Fickeisen plains cactus.
Subunit 5b: North Canyon Wash--Subunit 1b consists of 472 ha (1,166
ac) of federally owned land that is managed by the BLM. Lands within
this subunit are occupied at the time of listing. This site has been
regularly monitored since 1986. As of 2011, the site contains 39
Fickeisen plains cactus. This subunit contains all of the primary
constituent elements of the physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the Fickeisen plains cactus.
Subunit 5c: Marble Canyon--Subunit 5c consists of 214 ha (528 ac)
of federally owned land that is managed by the BLM. Lands within this
subunit are occupied at the time of listing. Eight plants were
documented at Marble Canyon in 1979. This site has not been visited for
many years. This subunit contains all of the primary constituent
elements of the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the Fickeisen plains cactus.
Subunit 5d: South Canyon--Subunit 5d consists of 336 ha (831 ac) of
Federal Land in House Rock Valley along the rim of Marble Canyon. Lands
within this subunit are occupied at the time of listing. A total of 52
plants have been documented at this site historically. This subunit
contains all of the primary constituent elements of the physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the Fickeisen
plains cactus.
In all subunits of Unit 5, the features essential to the
conservation of the species may require special management
considerations to address threats from livestock grazing; nonnative,
invasive species; rodent and rabbit predation, and long-term drought.
Unit 6: Tiger Wash
Unit 6 is located near the rim of Marble Canyon on the Navajo
Nation. The unit consists of three subunits totaling 2,257 ha (5,580
ac) in Coconino County. The entire unit is managed by the Navajo
Nation. Occupancy of the Tiger Wash Unit by the Fickeisen plains cactus
was first documented in 1991 (NNHP 2011a, p. 3). At that time, it
contained 41 plants that were observed to be in good-to-excellent
condition and reproductive (NNHP 1994, p. 6). We will coordinate with
the Tribe and examine what conservation actions, management plans, and
commitments and assurances for the Fickeisen plains cactus occur on
these lands for potential exclusion from the final designation of
critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
Subunit 6a: Tiger Wash 1--Subunit 6a consists of 380 ha (940 ac) on
the Navajo Nation near the Marble Canyon. Lands within this subunit are
occupied at the time of listing. This site was visited in 2005, and two
plants were found. This subunit contains all of the primary constituent
elements of the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the Fickeisen plains cactus.
Subunit 6b: Tiger Wash 2--Subunit 6b consists of 1,497 ha (3,700
ac) on the Navajo Nation near the Marble Canyon. Lands in this subunit
are considered occupied at the time of listing. This site was visited
in 1993, when 11 plants were found among 3 areas within this site. This
subunit contains all of the primary constituent elements of the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
Fickeisen plains cactus.
Subunit 6c: Shinumo Wash--Subunit 6c consists of 380 ha (940 ac) on
the Navajo Nation near the Marble Canyon. This subunit is considered
occupied at the time of listing. This site was visited in 1993, and
seven plants were found. This subunit contains all of the primary
constituent elements of the physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the Fickeisen plains cactus.
In all subunits of Unit 6, the features essential to the
conservation of the species may require special management
considerations to address threats from livestock grazing, nonnative,
invasive species, and long-term drought.
Unit 7: Little Colorado River Overlook
Unit 7 is located on the rim of the Little Colorado River on the
Navajo Nation in Coconino County. The unit consists of 1,170 ha (2,891
ac). The entire unit is managed by the Navajo Nation. Lands in this
subunit are considered occupied at the time of listing. Occupancy of
the Little Colorado River Overlook Unit by the Fickeisen plains cactus
has been documented since 1956 (AGFD 2011b, entire; NNHP 2011a, p. 3).
This unit was visited between 1997 and 2005, and a total of 36 plants
have been documented among three areas. This unit contains all of the
primary constituent elements of the physical or biological features
essential

[[Page 60561]]

to the conservation of the Fickeisen plains cactus. We will coordinate
with the Tribe and examine what conservation actions, management plans,
and commitments and assurances for the Fickeisen plains cactus occur on
these lands for potential exclusion from the final designation of
critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
The features essential to the conservation of the species may
require special management considerations to address threats from
livestock grazing, nonnative, invasive species, and long-term drought.
Unit 8: Gray Mountain
Unit 8 is located in the vicinity of Gray Mountain in Coconino
County. The unit consists of two subunits totaling 1,656 ha (4,095 ac).
The unit includes private land, lands owned by the State, tribal lands,
and federally owned land managed by the BLM. Lands within this unit are
considered occupied at the time of listing. Occupancy at the Gray
Mountain unit was first documented in 1962, and consists of two very
small populations on both sides Highway 89 near the town of Gray
Mountain. This unit contains all of the primary constituent elements of
the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of
the Fickeisen plains cactus. Portions of the Gray Mountain subunit
occur on the Navajo Nation. We will coordinate with the Tribe and
examine what conservation actions, management plans, and commitments
and assurances for the Fickeisen plains cactus occur on these lands for
potential exclusion from the final designation of critical habitat
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
Subunit 8a: Mays Wash--Subunit 8a consists of 697 ha (1,724 ac)
near the near the town of Gray Mountain. The unit includes private
land, land owned by the State, and federally owned land managed by the
BLM. Lands in this subunit are considered occupied at the time of
listing. Occupancy at this site was documented in 1981 and 1984, when
31 plants were found (AGFD 2011b, entire). This subunit contains all of
the primary constituent elements of the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the Fickeisen plains cactus.
Subunit 8b: Gray Mountain--Subunit 8b consists of 960 ha (2,371 ac)
on near the near the town of Gray Mountain. This unit includes private
land, tribal land, and land owned by the State. Lands in this subunit
are considered occupied at the time of listing. Occupancy was last
documented in 2009 and three individuals were found (NNHP 2011a, p. 2).
This subunit contains all of the primary constituent elements of the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
Fickeisen plains cactus.
In all subunits of Unit 8, the features essential to the
conservation of the species may require special management
considerations to address threats from livestock grazing, nonnative,
invasive species, and long-term drought.
Unit 9: Cataract Canyon
Unit 9 is located along the Cataract Canyon drainage, a tributary
of the Colorado River, on the Coconino Plateau. The unit consists of
the Cataract Canyon population totaling 7,768 ha (19,196 ac) and
includes private land and land owned by State. The private parcels are
within a conservation easement and are referred to as the Cataract
Natural Reserve Land (TNC 2000, p. 22). Lands in this unit are
considered occupied at the time of listing. Occupancy of the Cataract
Canyon Unit by the Fickeisen plains cactus was documented between 2006
and 2011 (Goodwin 2006, pp. 5-7; Goodwin 2008, pp. 8-10; Goodwin 2011a,
pp. 18-20). There are 146 plants on private lands, and 161 plants on
State land. The unit contains all of the primary constituent elements
of the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of
the Fickeisen plains cactus.
The features essential to the conservation of the species may
require special management considerations to address threats from
nonnative, invasive species.

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

Section 7 Consultation

Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to ensure that any action they fund, authorize, or carry out
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered
species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of designated critical habitat of such species. In
addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to
confer with the Service on any agency action which is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed
under the Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of
proposed critical habitat.
Decisions by the 5th and 9th Circuit Courts of Appeals have
invalidated our regulatory definition of ``destruction or adverse
modification'' (50 CFR 402.02) (see Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, 378 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2004) and Sierra
Club v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al., 245 F.3d 434, 442 (5th
Cir. 2001)), and we do not rely on this regulatory definition when
analyzing whether an action is likely to destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat. Under the statutory provisions of the Act, we
determine destruction or adverse modification on the basis of whether,
with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the affected
critical habitat would continue to serve its intended conservation role
for the 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
or authorized, do not require section 7 consultation.
As a result of section 7 consultation, we document compliance with
the requirements of section 7(a)(2) through our issuance of:
(1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but
are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat;
or
(2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect, or
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,

[[Page 60562]]

(2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal
agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
(3) Are economically and technologically feasible, and
(4) Would, in the Director's opinion, avoid the likelihood of
jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species and/or avoid
the likelihood of destroying or adversely modifying critical habitat.
Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project
modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs
associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are
similarly variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate
consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where we have
listed a new species or subsequently designated critical habitat that
may be affected and the Federal agency has retained discretionary
involvement or control over the action (or the agency's discretionary
involvement or control is authorized by law). Consequently, Federal
agencies sometimes may need to request reinitiation of consultation
with us on actions for which formal consultation has been completed, if
those actions with discretionary involvement or control may affect
subsequently listed species or designated critical habitat.

Application of the ``Adverse Modification'' Standard

The key factor related to the adverse modification determination is
whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the
affected critical habitat would continue to serve its intended
conservation role for the species. Activities that may destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat are those that alter the physical or
biological features to an extent that appreciably reduces the
conservation value of critical habitat for the acu[ntilde]a cactus or
for the Fickeisen plains cactus. As discussed above, the role of
critical habitat is to support life-history needs of the species and
provide for the conservation of the species.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and
describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical
habitat, activities involving a Federal action that may destroy or
adversely modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such
designation.
Activities that may affect critical habitat, when carried out,
funded, or authorized by a Federal agency, should result in
consultation for the acu[ntilde]a cactus or the Fickeisen plains
cactus. These activities include, but are not limited to, actions that
would adversely affect the composition and structure of soil within the
designated critical habitat for acu[ntilde]a cactus or the Fickeisen
plains cactus through land disturbances that result in soil compaction
or erosion, removal or degradation of native vegetation, or
fragmentation of the acu[ntilde]a cactus or the Fickeisen plains cactus
populations or their pollinators. Such activities within the designated
critical habitat for acu[ntilde]a cactus or the Fickeisen plains cactus
could include, but are not limited to, road and trail building;
construction of new border control facilities, towers or fences;
mining; ORV activity; cattle or burro grazing; and permitting actions
that would result in any of the above effects. These activities could
result in the loss of individuals or populations through reduction in
productivity, the depletion of seedbanks, or the destruction or
degradation of habitat for these cacti or their pollinators.

Exemptions

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

The Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a)
required each military installation that includes land and water
suitable for the conservation and management of natural resources to
complete an integrated natural resources management plan (INRMP) by
November 17, 2001. An INRMP integrates implementation of the military
mission of the installation with stewardship of the natural resources
found on the base. Each INRMP includes:
(1) An assessment of the ecological needs on the installation,
including the need to provide for the conservation of listed species;
(2) A statement of goals and priorities;
(3) A detailed description of management actions to be implemented
to provide for these ecological needs; and
(4) A monitoring and adaptive management plan.
Among other things, each INRMP must, to the extent appropriate and
applicable, provide for fish and wildlife management; fish and wildlife
habitat enhancement or modification; wetland protection, enhancement,
and restoration where necessary to support fish and wildlife; and
enforcement of applicable natural resource laws.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub.
L. 108-136) amended the Act to limit areas eligible for designation as
critical habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) now provides: ``The Secretary shall not
designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographic areas owned
or controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for its use,
that are subject to an integrated natural resources management plan
prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if the
Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit to
the species for which critical habitat is proposed for designation.''
Within the proposed critical habitat designation area, there are no
Department of Defense lands with a completed INRMP that includes the
acu[ntilde]a cactus. The BMGR has a completed INRMP that addresses
other endangered and threatened species, but it does not include
management actions specific to the acu[ntilde]a cactus or its habitat.
Therefore the BMGR lands are not exempt from the potential designation
of critical habitat for acu[ntilde]a cactus at this time. No Department
of Defense lands are being proposed for designated critical habitat for
the Fickeisen plains cactus.

Exclusions

Application of 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 that determination, the statute on its face, as well
as the legislative history, are clear that the Secretary has broad
discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and how much weight to give
to any factor.
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we may exclude an area from
designated critical habitat based on economic impacts, impacts on
national security, or any other relevant impacts. In considering
whether to exclude a particular area from the designation, we identify
the benefits of including the area in the designation, identify the
benefits of excluding the area from the designation, and evaluate
whether the benefits of exclusion outweigh the

[[Page 60563]]

benefits of inclusion. If the analysis indicates that the benefits of
exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion, the Secretary may
exercise his discretion to exclude the area only if such exclusion
would not result in the extinction of the species.
Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider the economic impacts
of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. In order to
consider economic impacts, we are preparing an analysis of the economic
impacts of the proposed critical habitat designation and related
factors.
We will announce the availability of the draft economic analysis as
soon as it is completed. At that time, copies of the draft economic
analysis will be available for downloading from the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov, or by contacting the Arizona Ecological Services
Field Office directly (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). During the
development of a final designation, we will consider economic impacts
based on information in our economic analysis, public comments, and
other new information, and areas may be excluded from the final
critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act and our
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19.
Exclusions Based on National Security Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider whether there are
lands where a national security impact might exist. Department of
Defense lands that are included in this proposed rule include the BMGR,
as discussed above in Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act.
Additionally, there are specific areas included in this proposed rule
that are not owned or managed by the Department of Defense, but on
which the CBP operates along the U.S.-Mexico border. CBP is tasked with
maintaining national security interests along the nation's
international borders. In order to achieve and maintain effective
control of the United States border, CBP, through its component, the
USBP, requires continuing and regular access to certain portions of the
area proposed for designation as critical habitat. Because CBP's border
security mission has an important link to national security, CBP may
identify impacts to national security that may result from designating
critical habitat. We do not have information currently indicating that
lands within the proposed designation of critical habitat for the
acu[ntilde]a cactus will have an impact on national security. However,
we may consider excluding certain lands in the final rule if we receive
specific, reasonable justification for that basis of a national
security concern that would result from the incremental regulatory
burden of critical habitat during the comment period.
We have also determined that lands within the proposed designation
of critical habitat for the Fickeisen plains cactus are not owned or
managed by the Department of Defense, and, therefore, we anticipate no
impact on national security. Consequently, the Secretary does not
propose to exert his discretion to exclude any areas from the final
designation based on impacts on national security. However, should BMGR
or another entity identify potential impacts to national security that
may result from incremental regulatory burden of critical habitat on
lands owned and managed by the BMGR, or on the lands within the
critical habitat footprint for the acu[ntilde]a cactus we may consider
excluding those lands in the final critical habitat designation under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR
424.19.
Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant
impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts on national
security. We consider a number of factors, including whether the
landowners have developed any HCPs or other management plans for the
area, or whether there are conservation partnerships that would be
encouraged by designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat. In
addition, we look at any Tribal issues, 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.
The Secretary is not considering exerting his discretion to exclude
any particular areas from final critical habitat for either of these
species at this time under section 4(b)(2) of the Act based on
partnerships, management, or protection afforded by cooperative
management efforts. In this proposed rule, we are seeking input from
the public as to whether or not the Secretary should exclude specific
areas covered under a conservation plan, agreements based on
conservation partnerships, or other such areas under management that
benefit the acu[ntilde]a cactus and the Fickeisen plains cactus from
the final revised critical habitat designation. In addition, there are
Tribal lands included in the proposed designation of critical habitat
for the acu[ntilde]a cactus and the Fickeisen plains cactus. Using the
criteria found in the Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat
section for both species, we have determined that tribal lands that are
occupied by the acu[ntilde]a cactus and the Fickeisen plains cactus
contain the features essential for the conservation of both species, as
well as tribal lands unoccupied by the acu[ntilde]a cactus are
essential for the conservation of the species. We will seek government-
to-government consultation with these tribes throughout the public
comment period and during development of the final designations of
critical habitat for the acu[ntilde]a cactus and Fickeisen plains
cactus. We will consider these areas for exclusion from the final
critical habitat designation to the extent consistent with the
requirements of 4(b)(2) of the Act. The Navajo Nation and the Tohono
O'odham Nation are the main tribes affected by this proposed rule.
(Please see the Information Requested section of this proposed revised
rule for instructions on how to submit comments).

Peer Review

In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek the expert
opinions of at least three appropriate and independent specialists
regarding this proposed rule. The purpose of peer review is to ensure
that our listing determination and critical habitat designation are
based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We have
invited these peer reviewers to comment during the public comment
period on our proposed listing designations of critical habitat for
these two species.
We will consider all comments and information we receive during the
comment period on this proposed rule during our preparation of a final
determination. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from this
proposal.

Public Hearings

Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for one or more public hearings
on this proposal, if requested. Requests must be received within 45
days after the date of publication of this proposed rule in the Federal
Register. Such requests must be sent to the address shown in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. We will schedule public hearings
on this proposal, if any are requested, and announce the dates, times,
and places of those hearings, as well as how to obtain reasonable
accommodations, in the Federal Register and local newspapers at least
15 days before the hearing.

[[Page 60564]]

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review--Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

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

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

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) as
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996 (5 U.S.C 801 et seq.), whenever an agency must 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 (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.
At this time, we lack the available economic information necessary
to provide an adequate factual basis for the required RFA finding.
Therefore, we defer the RFA finding until completion of the draft
economic analysis prepared under section 4(b)(2) of the Act and
Executive Order 12866. This draft economic analysis will provide the
required factual basis for the RFA finding. Upon completion of the
draft economic analysis, we will announce availability of the draft
economic analysis of the proposed designation in the Federal Register
and reopen the public comment period for the proposed designation. We
will include with this announcement, as appropriate, an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis or a certification that the rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities accompanied by the factual basis for that determination. The
proposed critical habitat areas include Federal, State, military,
Tribal, and private lands, some of which are used for mining and
recreation (such as hiking, camping, horseback riding, and hunting). We
have concluded that deferring the RFA finding until completion of the
draft economic analysis is necessary to meet the purposes and
requirements of the RFA. Deferring the RFA finding in this manner will
ensure that we make a sufficiently informed determination based on
adequate economic information and provide the necessary opportunity for
public comment.

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. Because there are no energy facilities within the
footprint of the proposed critical habitat boundaries, and we are
unaware of energy projects currently proposed within the boundaries, we
do not expect the designation of this proposed critical habitat to
significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore,
this action is not a significant energy action, and no Statement of
Energy Effects is required. However, we will further evaluate this
issue as we conduct our economic analysis, and review and revise this
assessment as warranted.

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

In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
et seq.), we make the following findings:
(1) This rule would not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal
governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.''
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments'' with two
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State,
local, and Tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance''
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's
responsibility to provide funding,'' and the State, local, or Tribal
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families
with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps;
Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants;
Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family
Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal
private sector mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an
enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of
Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a
voluntary Federal program.''
The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally
binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties.
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive
Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require
approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be
indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally
binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the
extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they
receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid
program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would
critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs
listed above onto State governments.
(2) We do not believe that this rule would significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. The lands being proposed for
critical habitat designation are predominantly owned by the Bureau

[[Page 60565]]

of Land Management, the Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Military, the
U.S. Forest Service, the National Park Service, the State of Arizona,
and the Tohono O'odham and Navajo Nations. None of these government
entities fit the definition of ``small governmental jurisdiction.''
Therefore, a Small Government Agency Plan is not required. However, we
will further evaluate this issue as we conduct our economic analysis,
and review and revise this assessment if appropriate.

Takings--Executive Order 12630

In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (Government Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights),
we have analyzed the potential takings implications of designating
critical habitat for the acu[ntilde]a cactus and the Fickeisen plains
cactus in a takings implications assessment. Critical habitat
designation does not affect landowner actions that do not require
Federal funding or permits, nor does it preclude development of habitat
conservation programs or issuance of incidental take permits to permit
actions that do require Federal funding or permits to go forward. The
takings implications assessment concludes that this designation of
critical habitat for the acu[ntilde]a cactus and the Fickeisen plains
cactus does not pose significant takings implications for lands within
or affected by the designation. However, we have not yet completed the
economic analysis for this proposed rule. Once the economic analysis is
available, we will review and revise this preliminary assessment as
warranted, and prepare a takings implication assessment.

Federalism--Executive Order 13132

In accordance with Executive Order 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 in Arizona. The designation of critical habitat in areas
currently occupied by the acu[ntilde]a cactus or the Fickeisen plains
cactus may impose nominal additional regulatory restrictions to those
currently in place and, therefore, may have little incremental impact
on State and local governments and their activities. The designation
may have some benefit to these governments because the areas that
contain the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species are more clearly defined, and the elements
of the features of the habitat necessary to the conservation of the
species are specifically identified. This information does not alter
where and what federally sponsored activities may occur. However, it
may assist local governments in long-range planning (rather than having
them wait for case-by-case section 7 consultations to occur).
Where State and local governments require approval or authorization
from a Federal agency for actions that may affect critical habitat,
consultation under section 7(a)(2) would be required. While non-Federal
entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that
otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for
an action, may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical
habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency.

Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988

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

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

This rule does not contain any new collections of information that
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This rule will not impose recordkeeping or
reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals,
businesses, or organizations. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and
a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

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

We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental
impact statements, as defined under the authority of NEPA (42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.), need not be prepared in connection with listing a
species as an endangered or a threatened species under the Act. We
published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the
Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
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 NEPA in connection with designating
critical habitat under the Act. We published a notice outlining our
reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25,
1983 (48 FR 49244). This position was upheld by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495
(9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)).

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 the ADDRESSES section. 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.

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

[[Page 60566]]

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.
There are Tribal lands included in the proposed designation of
critical habitat for the acu[ntilde]a cactus and the Fickeisen plains
cactus. Using the criteria found in the Criteria Used To Identify
Critical Habitat section for both species, we have determined that
tribal lands that are occupied by the acu[ntilde]a cactus and the
Fickeisen plains cactus contain the features essential for the
conservation of both species, as well as tribal lands unoccupied by the
acu[ntilde]a cactus are essential for the conservation of the species.
We will seek government-to-government consultation with these tribes
throughout the public comment period and during development of the
final designations of critical habitat for the acu[ntilde]a cactus and
Fickeisen plains cactus. We will consider these areas for exclusion
from the final critical habitat designation to the extent consistent
with the requirements of 4(b)(2) of the Act. The Navajo Nation and the
Tohono O'odham Nation are the main tribes affected by this proposed
rule. We recently sent a notification letter to the Navajo Nation and
the Tohono O'odham Nation describing the exclusion process under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act, and we have engaged in conversations with
the Tribes about the proposal to the extent possible without disclosing
pre-decisional information. In addition, we have engaged in informal
conservations with representatives of the Navajo Nation and the Tohono
O'odham Nation during the listing process and so the tribes has been
made aware that the Service is working on critical habitat proposals
for the two species. We will schedule a meeting with the Navajo Nation
and Tohono O'odham Nation and any other interested tribes shortly after
publication of this proposed rule so that we can give them as much time
as possible to comment. We will also send letters to all other tribes
with interest in the general geographical areas of the acu[ntilde]a
cactus and Fickeisen plains cactus range, including the following: Ak
Chin Indian Community; Chemehuevi Indian Tribe; Cocopah Tribe; Colorado
River Indian Tribes; Havasupai Tribe; Hopi Tribe; Kaibab Band of Paiute
Indians; Pascua Yaqui Tribe; Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community;
San Carlos Apache Tribe; White Mountain Apache Tribe; Yavapai-Apache
Nation; Yavapai-Prescott Tribe; and Pueblo of Zuni Tribe.

References Cited

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

Authors

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

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

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--[AMENDED]

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

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.

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

Sec. 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants.

* * * * *
(h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species
-------------------------------------------------------- Historic range Family Status When listed Critical Special
Scientific name Common name habitat rules
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flowering Plants

* * * * * * *
Echinomastus erectocentrus var. Acu[ntilde]a cactus. U.S.A. (AZ), Mexico Cactaceae.......... E 17.96(a) NA
acunensis.

* * * * * * *
Pediocactus peeblesianus var. Fickeisen plains U.S.A. (AZ)........ Cactaceae.......... E 17.96(a) NA
fickeiseniae. cactus.

* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Sec. 17.96 Critical habitat--plants.

(a) Flowering plants.
* * * * *
Family Cactaceae: Echinomastus erectocentrus var. acunensis
(acu[ntilde]a cactus)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Maricopa, Pima, and
Pinal Counties, Arizona, on the maps below.
(2) Within these areas, the primary constituent elements of the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
acu[ntilde]a cactus consist of:
(i) Native vegetation within the Paloverde-Cacti-Mixed Scrub Series
of the Arizona Upland Subdivision of the Sonoran Desert-scrub at
elevations between 365 to 1,150 m (1,198 to 3,773 ft). This vegetation
must contain predominantly native plant species that:
a. Provide protection to the acu[ntilde]a cactus. Examples of such
plants are creosote bush, ironwood, and palo verde;

[[Page 60567]]

b. Provide for pollinator habitat with a radius of 900 m (2,953 ft)
around each individual, reproducing acu[ntilde]a cactus;
c. Allow for seed dispersal through the presence of bare soils
immediately adjacent to and within 10 m (32.8 ft) of individual,
reproducing acu[ntilde]a cactus.
(ii) Soils overlying rhyolite, andesite, tuff, granite,
granodiorite, diorite, or Cornelia quartz monzonite bedrock that are in
valley bottoms, on small knolls, or on ridgetops, and are generally on
slopes of less than 30 percent.
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the
land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on
the effective date of this rule.
(4) Critical habitat map units. Digital data layers defining map
units were created using geology, topography, elevation, vegetation
community, mean annual precipitation from the 1971 to 2000 period of
record, and acu[ntilde]a cactus herbarium and site visit records from
1952 to the present; these were mapped using Universal Transverse
Mercator (UTM) 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, (https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/), (https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-RX-ES-2012-0061 and at the field
office responsible for this designation. You may obtain field office
location information by contacting one of the Service regional offices,
the addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR 2.2.
(5) Index map follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03OC12.004

(6) Unit 1: Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Pima County, AZ.
Map of Unit 1 follows:

[[Page 60568]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03OC12.005

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

[[Page 60569]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03OC12.006

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

[[Page 60570]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03OC12.007

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

[[Page 60571]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03OC12.008

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
(11) Unit 6: Box O Wash Unit, Pinal County, AZ. Map of Unit 6 is
provided at paragraph (10) of this entry.
Family Cactaceae: Pediocactus peeblesianus var. fickeiseniae (Fickeisen
plains cactus)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Mohave and Coconino
Counties, Arizona, on the maps below.
(2) Within these areas, the primary constituent elements of the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
Fickeisen plains cactus consist of:
(i) Soils in northern Arizona on the Colorado Plateau that are:
a. Formed from alluvium, colluvium, or Aeolian deposits;
b. Derived from limestone of the Harrisburg member of the Kaibab
Formation and Toroweap Formation;
c. Underlain with Coconino Sandstone, and sandstone and mudstone of
the Moenkopi Formation;
d. At an elevation of 1,310 to 1,813 m (4,200 to 5,950 ft);
e. Are gravelly-loam, fine-textured, well drained, and shallow;

[[Page 60572]]

f. On terraces, benches, tops of mesas and plateaus, toe-slope of
hills with a 0 to 20 percent slope;
g. Supportive of biological soil crusts;
h. Within the Plains and Great Basin grassland and Great Basin
desert scrub vegetation communities;
(ii) Native vegetation in areas that have natural, generally intact
surface and subsurface features that provide habitat and suitable
nesting substrate for the cactus' pollinators and space for seed
dispersal and germination; and
(iii) Provide for pollinator habitat with a radius of 1,000 m
(3,280 ft) around each individual, reproducing Fickeisen plains cactus.
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the
land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on
the effective date of this rule.
(4) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining map units were
created using a base of U.S. Geological Survey 7.5' quadrangle maps.
Critical habitat units were then mapped using Universal Transverse
Mercator (UTM) zone 11, North American Datum (NAD) 1983 coordinates.
(5) Note: Index map follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 60573]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03OC12.009

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

[[Page 60574]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03OC12.010

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

[[Page 60575]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03OC12.011

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

[[Page 60576]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03OC12.012

(10) Unit 5: House Rock Valley Unit, Coconino County, AZ. Maps of
Unit 5 and 6 follows:

[[Page 60577]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03OC12.013

(11) Unit 6: Tiger Wash Unit, Coconino County, AZ. Map of Unit 6 is
provided at paragraph (10) of this entry.
(12) Unit 7: Little Colorado River Overlook Unit, Coconino County,
AZ. Map of Units 7 and 8 follows:

[[Page 60578]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03OC12.014

(13) Unit 8: Gray Mountain Unit, Coconino County, AZ. Map of Unit 8
is provided at paragraph (12) of this entry.
(14) Unit 9: Cataract Canyon Unit, Coconino County, AZ. Map of Unit
9 follows:

[[Page 60579]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03OC12.015

* * * * *

Dated: September 17, 2012.
Michael J. Bean,
Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and
Parks.
[FR Doc. 2012-23853 Filed 10-2-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.