[Federal Register: December 11, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 237)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 70269-70284]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr11de07-18]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AV02
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed
Designation of Critical Habitat for the Pecos Sunflower (Helianthus
paradoxus)
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of comment period and revisions to
proposal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the
reopening of the comment period on the proposed designation of critical
habitat for Helianthus paradoxus (Pecos sunflower) under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We also announce a revision to
proposed critical habitat Unit 4 and clarification of Unit 5, the
availability of a draft economic analysis and draft environmental
assessment, and an amended required determinations section of the
proposal. The draft economic analysis estimates costs associated with
conservation activities for H. paradoxus to be approximately $3.9 to
$4.4 million in undiscounted dollars over the next 20 years ($193,000
to $221,000 annualized). We are reopening the comment period to allow
all interested parties to comment simultaneously on the proposed rule,
our revisions to the proposed rule, the associated draft economic
analysis and environmental assessment, and the amended required
determinations section. You do not have to resend comments sent
earlier. We will incorporate them into the public record as part of
this comment period, and we will fully consider them when preparing our
final determination.
DATES: We will accept public comments until January 10, 2008.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing,
Attn: RIN 1018-AV02; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222; Arlington,
VA 22203.
We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We will post all comments on
http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any
personal information you provide us (see the Public Comments Solicited
section below for more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wally ``J'' Murphy, Field Supervisor,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New Mexico Ecological Services Field
Office, 2105 Osuna Rd NE., Albuquerque, NM 87113; telephone 505/346-
2525; facsimile 505/346-2542. If you use a telecommunications device
for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS)
at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Comments Solicited
We will accept written comments and information during this
reopened comment period on the original proposed critical habitat
designation for H. paradoxus published in the Federal Register on March
27, 2007 (72 FR 14328), the revisions to proposed critical habitat
described herein (see ``Changes to the Proposed Rule'' section), the
draft economic analysis and draft environmental assessment of the
proposed designation, and the amended required determinations provided
in this document. We will consider information and recommendations from
all interested parties. We are particularly interested in comments
concerning:
(1) The reasons why habitat should or should not be designated as
``critical habitat'' for H. paradoxus under section 4 of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), including whether the designation of critical
habitat is prudent.
(2) Specific information on the amount and distribution of H.
paradoxus habitat, including which areas occupied by the species at the
time of listing and that contain features essential for the
conservation of the species should be included in the designation and
why, and which areas that were not occupied by the species at the time
of listing are essential to the conservation of the species and why.
(3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
(4) Any foreseeable economic, national security, or other potential
impacts resulting from the proposed designation and, in particular, any
impacts on small entities, and the benefits of including or excluding
areas that exhibit these impacts.
(5) The existence of lands included in the proposed designation
that are covered under any conservation or management plans, which we
should consider for exclusion from the designation pursuant to section
4(b)(2) of the Act.
(6) Information on the benefits of including or excluding lands
managed by Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge from the final critical
habitat designation.
(7) Information on any direct or indirect impacts to the human
environment as a result of designating critical habitat for H.
paradoxus.
(8) Information on whether the draft economic analysis identifies
all local costs attributable to the proposed critical habitat
designation and information on any costs that have been inadvertently
overlooked.
(9) Whether the draft economic analysis correctly assesses the
effect on regional costs associated with any land use controls that may
derive from the designation of critical habitat.
(10) Whether the draft economic analysis or draft environmental
assessment makes appropriate
[[Page 70270]]
assumptions regarding current practices and likely regulatory changes
imposed as a result of the designation of critical habitat.
(11) Whether the draft economic analysis and draft environmental
assessment appropriately identify all costs and benefits that could
result from the designation.
(12) Information on whether there are any quantifiable economic
benefits that could result from the designation of critical habitat.
(13) Economic data on the incremental effects that would result
from designating any particular area as critical habitat, since it is
our intent to include the incremental costs attributed to the critical
habitat designation in the final economic analysis.
(14) 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 accommodating
public concerns and comments.
If you submitted comments or information during the initial comment
period from March 27, 2007, to May 29, 2007, on the proposed rule (72
FR 14328), please do not resubmit them. We will incorporate them into
the public record as part of this comment period, and we will fully
consider them in preparation of our final determination. Our final
determination concerning critical habitat will take into consideration
all written comments and any additional information we receive during
both comment periods. On the basis of public comment, we may, during
the development of our final determination, find that areas proposed
are not essential, are appropriate for exclusion under section 4(b)(2)
of the Act, or are not appropriate for exclusion.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule, our revisions to the proposed rule, the associated draft economic
analysis and draft environmental assessment of the proposed
designation, and the amended required determinations section by one of
the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not accept
comments you send by e-mail or fax. Please note that we may not
consider comments we receive after the date specified in the DATES
section in our final determination.
Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or
other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be
aware that we will post your entire comment--including your personal
identifying information--on http://www.regulations.gov. While you can
ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be
able to do so.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office, 2105
Osuna Rd NE., Albuquerque, NM 87113; telephone 505/346-2525.
You may obtain copies of the original proposed rule, the draft
economic analysis, and the draft environmental assessment by mail from
the New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office at the address listed
above or by visiting our Web site at http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/NewMexico/
.
Background
It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to
designation of critical habitat in this proposal. For more information
on H. paradoxus, refer to the final listing rule published in the
Federal Register on October 20, 1999 (64 FR 56582), the Pecos Sunflower
Recovery Plan posted at http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plans/2005/050915.pdf
, and the original proposed critical habitat designation
published on March 27, 2007 (72 FR 14328).
Helianthus paradoxus was listed as a threatened species on October
20, 1999 (64 FR 56582). At the time this plant was federally listed,
the Service determined that the designation of critical habitat was not
prudent because we believed publication of critical habitat maps would
increase the degree of threats to the species by vandalism and
commercial collection. On September 27, 2005, the Forest Guardians
filed suit against the Service for failure to designate critical
habitat for this species (Forest Guardians v. Hall 2005). On March 20,
2006, a settlement was reached that requires the Service to re-evaluate
our original prudency determination. The settlement stipulated that, if
prudent, a proposed rule would be submitted to the Federal Register for
publication on or before March 16, 2007, and a final rule by March 16,
2008.
On March 15, 2007, we determined that critical habitat for
Helianthus paradoxus was prudent and we subsequently published a
proposed rule (72 FR 14328) to designate critical habitat for H.
paradoxus on March 27, 2007. We proposed five units as critical habitat
in the original proposal, encompassing approximately 1,579.3 acres (ac)
(639.1 hectares (ha)). We now revise our original March 27, 2007,
proposed rule (72 FR 14328) to add areas to one of the units and
clarify the boundaries of another unit, as described in the ``Changes
to the Proposed Rule'' section. As a result of these additions and
revisions, the proposed critical habitat now encompasses 5,745.5 ac
(3,733.4 ha).
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as the specific
areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at the time
it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
species and that may require special management considerations or
protection, and specific areas outside the geographical area occupied
by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such
areas are essential for the conservation of the species. If the
proposed rule is made final, section 7 of the Act will prohibit
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat by any activity
funded, authorized, or carried out by any Federal agency. Federal
agencies proposing actions affecting areas designated as critical
habitat must consult with us on the effects of their proposed actions,
pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the Act.
Draft Economic Analysis
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate critical
habitat based upon the best scientific and commercial data available,
after taking into consideration the economic impact, impact on national
security, or any other relevant impact of specifying any particular
area as critical habitat. We have prepared a draft economic analysis
based on the March 27, 2007, proposed rule (72 FR 14328) and the
revised units described in this document.
The draft economic analysis considers the potential economic
effects of all actions related to the conservation of Helianthus
paradoxus, including costs associated with sections 4, 7, and 10 of the
Act, as well as those attributable to designating critical habitat. It
further considers the economic effects of protective measures taken as
a result of other Federal, State, and local laws that aid habitat
conservation for H. paradoxus in proposed critical habitat units. The
draft analysis considers both economic efficiency and distributional
effects. In the case of habitat conservation, efficiency effects
generally reflect lost economic opportunities associated with
restrictions on land use (opportunity costs). This analysis also
[[Page 70271]]
addresses how potential economic impacts are likely to be distributed,
including an assessment of any local or regional impacts of habitat
conservation and the potential effects of conservation activities on
small entities and the energy industry. This information can be used by
decision makers to assess whether the effects of the designation might
unduly burden a particular group or economic sector. Finally, this
draft analysis looks retrospectively at costs that have been incurred
since the date this species was listed as threatened (October 20, 1999;
64 FR 56582), and considers those costs that may occur in the 20 years
following designation of critical habitat (i.e., 2007 to 2026).
The draft economic analysis is intended to quantify the economic
impacts of all potential conservation efforts for Helianthus paradoxus;
some of these costs will likely be incurred regardless of whether
critical habitat is designated. This analysis estimated economic
impacts resulting from the implementation of H. paradoxus conservation
efforts in four categories: (a) Treatment of non-native species; (b)
wetland filling and development; (c) livestock management; and (d) road
maintenance. Over the 20-year period 2007 to 2026, the draft economic
analysis finds that costs associated with conservation activities
within these four categories are estimated at $3.9 to $4.4 million in
undiscounted dollars over the next 20 years ($193,000 to $221,000
annualized). The present value of these impacts is $3.3 million to $3.6
million ($186,000 to $213,000 annualized), using a discount rate of
three percent; or $2.5 million to $2.9 million ($205,000 to $225,000
annualized), using a discount rate of seven percent.
As stated earlier, we solicit data and comments from the public on
this draft economic analysis, as well as on all aspects of the
proposal. We may revise the proposal, or its supporting documents, to
incorporate or address new information received during the comment
period. In particular, we may exclude an area from critical habitat if
we determine that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the
benefits of including the area as critical habitat, provided such
exclusion will not result in the extinction of the species.
Changes to the Proposed Rule
We proposed five units as critical habitat for Helianthus
paradoxus. The original proposed critical habitat in our March 27,
2007, proposed rule (72 FR 14328), and the additional proposed areas of
critical habitat as described below, constitute our best assessment of
areas that meet the definition of critical habitat under section
3(5)(a) of the Act. In the proposed regulation section of this notice,
we provide maps and textual descriptions of the boundaries for Subunits
4a and 4b. These descriptions and maps are in addition to those
published in our March 27, 2007, proposed rule, and thus included in
the proposed critical habitat designation. We have also provided
clarification on our Unit 5 description below.
Subunits 4a and 4b are in close proximity with or connected to Unit
4 described in the original proposed rule. Below, we present brief
descriptions of the two subunits, the primary constituent elements
(PCEs) they contain, and reasons why they meet the definition of
critical habitat for Helianthus paradoxus. Within areas occupied by H.
paradoxus at the time of listing and containing sufficient PCEs to
support H. paradoxus's life processes, we previously identified the
Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge (portion of Subunit 4a) and the
associated Refuge Farm (Subunit 4b) as areas that do not require
special management or protections. As a result, these areas were not
originally proposed to be included in the critical habitat designation.
However, we have reconsidered our preliminary analysis of section
3(5)(a) of the Act and special management or protection needs of the
PCEs on these refuge lands, and are now proposing to include these
areas as critical habitat. However, we are considering their exclusion
from the final designation pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
In addition to the revision of proposed critical habitat, we have
provided a clarified unit description for Unit 5. In the Unit 5
description found in the preamble of the proposed rule (72 FR 14328),
we identified that Unit 5 contained a small group of plants downstream
of The Nature Conservancy's Diamond Y Spring Preserve at a nearby
highway right-of-way. This right-of-way site should not have been
included in the unit description, for this small area is not known to
be able to support sufficient numbers of plants to be considered stable
(Blue Earth Ecological Consultants, Inc., 2007b, p 3; Poole 2006, p.
3). While the Unit 5 description in the preamble of the proposed rule
was incorrect, the map and textual boundary description for Unit 5
found in the proposed regulation section did not include the right-of-
way site and thus is still accurate.
Below, we present brief descriptions of these three areas (Subunits
4a and 4b, and Unit 5), and reasons why they meet the definition of
critical habitat for Helianthus paradoxus (see ``Criteria Used To
Identify Critical Habitat'' in the March 27, 2007, proposed rule (72 FR
14328)).
Revised and New Unit Descriptions
Unit 4: Roswell/Dexter
Subunit 4a includes 3,572.2 ac (1,445.6 ha) of Bitter Lake National
Wildlife Refuge/City of Roswell land located in Chaves County, New
Mexico. This subunit is located approximately 5 miles (mi) (8
kilometers (km)) northeast of the city of Roswell.
One of the largest Helianthus paradoxus populations occurs on the
Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge in New Mexico on Federal lands
managed by the Service. Several hundred thousand to a few million
plants occur nearly continuously along the shores and small islands of
all the artificial lakes in the southern unit of the refuge. Also, a
few small patches of plants occur on the west side of Bitter Lake Playa
and adjacent springs on Lost River.
This area was occupied at the time of listing and has been visited
by species experts during four or more seasons. These experts found the
site occupied by Helianthus paradoxus on every visit (Ulibarri 2006a,
p. 1; Sivinski 2007a, p. 2; Blue Earth Ecological Consultants, Inc.
2007a, p. 3). This area is currently occupied by the species and
contains all of the PCEs essential to the conservation of the species.
As noted, the portion of this subunit within Bitter Lake National
Wildlife Refuge is proposed as critical habitat, but is being
considered for exclusion from the final designation. Please see
``Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act'' section below for
additional discussion.
Subunit 4b includes 686.2 ac (277.7 ha) of land within the Bitter
Lake National Wildlife Refuge Farm (Refuge Farm). This subunit is
located in Chaves County, New Mexico, approximately 5 mi (8 km) east of
Roswell on the west side of the Pecos River.
Subunit 4b consists of a few large patches with several thousand
plants on alkaline seeps behind the dikes on the western edge of the
Refuge Farm south of Highway 380. This land is owned and managed by the
Service as a grain farm and feeding area for migratory birds. The
eastern portion of the Refuge Farm is a marshy spring-seep area that
contains a large population of Helianthus paradoxus. The wet soils in
this population are not cultivated.
This Refuge Farm subunit was occupied at the time of listing and
has been visited by species experts during four or more seasons. The
experts found the site occupied by Helianthus
[[Page 70272]]
paradoxus on every visit (Ulibarri 2006b, p. 1; Sivinski 2007a, p. 2;
Blue Earth Ecological Consultants, Inc. 2007a, p. 3). This subunit is
currently occupied by the species and contains all of the PCEs
essential to the conservation of the species. As noted, the portion of
this subunit within Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge is proposed as
critical habitat, but is being considered for exclusion from the final
designation. Please see ``Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act''
section below for additional discussion.
Unit 5: West Texas
Unit 5 includes 239.7 ac (97.0 ha) located solely on Diamond Y
Spring in Pecos County, Texas. The unit is located approximately 12 mi
(20 km) north-northwest of Fort Stockton, Texas.
Unit 5 consists of several hundred thousand to one million plants
found on The Nature Conservancy's Diamond Y Spring Preserve and a
contiguous parcel of private land. This site was occupied by the
species at the time of its listing. This site has been visited by
species experts during four or more seasons and has been documented to
be occupied by Helianthus paradoxus on every visit (Poole 2006, p. 2).
This unit is currently occupied by the species (Blue Earth Ecological
Consultants, Inc. 2007b, p. 3) and contains all of the PCEs essential
to the conservation of the species.
The land within The Nature Conservancy's Diamond Y Spring Preserve
was purchased to protect Diamond Y Spring Preserve and other rare or
endangered aquatic species in the Diamond Y Spring system. This habitat
is managed for the conservation of such species (Service 2005, p. 12).
Diamond Y Spring Preserve has recently expanded from 1,500 to 4,000 ac
(607 to 1619 ha). However, Helianthus paradoxus on the Preserve is
threatened by water withdrawal occurring outside the Preserve. On the
adjacent private land, H. paradoxus is also threatened by water
withdrawal, plus wetland filling and development, and livestock grazing
during the growing and flowering season. As a result, special
management or protections may be required to minimize these threats. At
this time, we are not aware of any completed management plans that
address H. paradoxus in this area.
Table 1 shows the areas occupied by Helianthus paradoxus at the
time of listing, those areas that are currently occupied, and the
threats to the primary constituent elements that may require special
management or protections.
Table 1.--Threats and Occupancy in Areas Containing Features Essential to the Conservation of Helianthus
paradoxus
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Threats requiring special Occupied at the time
Geographic area/unit management or protections of listing Currently occupied
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 1. West-Central New Mexico
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subunit 1a. Rancho del Padre Spring Water withdrawal, wetland Yes.................. Yes.
Cienega. filling and development,
incompatible livestock
management.
Subunit 1b. Grants Salt Flat Wetland Wetland filling and Yes.................. Yes.
development, encroachment
by nonnative vegetation,
incompatible livestock
management.
Subunit 1c. Pueblo of Laguna........ Water withdrawal, Yes.................. Yes.
incompatible livestock
management, encroachment by
nonnative vegetation.
Unit 2. La Joya-La Joya State Encroachment by nonnative No................... Yes.
Wildlife Management Area. vegetation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 3. Santa Rosa
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subunit 3a. Blue Hole Cienega/Blue Encroachment by nonnative Yes.................. Yes.
Hole Fish Hatchery Ponds. vegetation; on City land,
wetland filling and
recreation use, mowing to
edges of ponds, dredging
ponds and filling of
wetlands.
Subunit 3b. Westside Spring......... Next to major road, water No................... Yes.
withdrawal, wetland filling
and development,
encroachment by nonnative
vegetation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 4. Roswell/Dexter
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subunit 4a. Bitter Lake National Water withdrawal; on City Yes.................. Yes.
Wildlife Refuge/City of Roswell land, wetland filling and
Land. development, incompatible
livestock management.
Subunit 4b. Bitter Lake National Water withdrawal............ Yes.................. Yes.
Wildlife Refuge Farm.
Subunit 4c. Oasis Dairy............. Water withdrawal, wetland Yes.................. Yes.
filling and development,
incompatible livestock
management.
Subunit 4d. Lea Lake at Bottomless Campgrounds and human Yes.................. Yes.
Lakes State Park. trampling, encroachment by
nonnative vegetation.
Subunit 4e. Dexter Cienega.......... Water withdrawal, wetland Yes.................. Yes.
filling and development,
incompatible livestock
management.
Unit 5. West Texas-Diamond Y Spring. Water withdrawal, wetland Yes.................. Yes.
filling and development,
incompatible livestock
management.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The approximate area encompassed within each proposed critical
habitat unit is shown in Table 2.
[[Page 70273]]
Table 2.--Critical Habitat Units Proposed for Helianthus Paradoxus and Areas Considered for Exclusion From the
Final designation
[Area estimates reflect all land within proposed critical habitat unit boundaries.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed critical Areas considered for
Geographic area/unit Land ownership habitat areas in acres exclusion in acres
(hectares) (hectares)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 1. West-Central New Mexico
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subunit 1a. Rancho del Padre Spring Private and Tribal..... 25.5 (10.3 )...........
Cienega.
Subunit 1b. Grants Salt Flat Wetland. Private................ 62.5 (25.3 )...........
Subunit 1c. Pueblo of Laguna......... Tribal................. Undefined \1\.......... Undefined.\1\
Unit 2. La Joya-La Joya State State of New Mexico.... 854.3 (345.7)..........
Wildlife Management Area.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 3. Santa Rosa
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subunit 3a. Blue Hole Cienega/Blue State of New Mexico and 133.9 (54.2)...........
Hole Fish Hatchery Ponds. City of Roswell.
Subunit 3b. Westside Spring.......... Private................ 6.4 (2.6)..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 4. Roswell/Dexter
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subunit 4a. Bitter Lake National U.S. Fish and Wildlife 3,572.2 (1,445.6)...... 3,480 (1408.3).
Wildlife Refuge/ City of Roswell Service and City of
Land. Roswell.
Subunit 4b. Bitter Lake National U.S. Fish and Wildlife 686.2 (277.7).......... 686.2 (277.7).
Wildlife Refuge Farm. Service.
Subunit 4c. Oasis Dairy.............. Private................ 103.9 (42.0)...........
Subunit 4d. Lea Lake at Bottomless State of New Mexico.... 19.5 (7.9).............
Lakes State Park.
Subunit 4e. Dexter Cienega........... Private................ 41.4 (16.8)............
Unit 5. West Texas-Diamond Y Spring.. Private................ 239.7 (97.0)...........
Total Acres (Hectares)........... ....................... 5,745.5 (3,733.4)...... 4,166.2 (3094.3).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This subunit consists of areas along the Rio San Jose located on the Pueblo of Laguna. Due to the
sensitivity of tribal lands, the acreage for this subunit is undetermined at this time. However, on the basis
of our partnership with the Pueblo, and in anticipation of completion of the Pecos Sunflower Draft Management
Plan, Pueblo of Laguna, this subunit is being considered for exclusion from the final critical habitat
designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act--Bitter Lake National
Wildlife Refuge
Under section 4(b)(2), in considering whether to exclude a
particular area from designation, we must identify the benefits of
including the area in the designation, identify the benefits of
excluding the area from the designation, and determine whether the
benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion. If exclusion
is contemplated, then we must determine whether excluding the area
would result in the extinction of the species. In the original proposed
rule, we addressed a number of general issues that are relevant to the
exclusions under section 4(b)(2) of the Act that we are considering (72
FR 14328). In addition, we have conducted a draft economic analysis and
draft environmental assessment analyzing the potential impacts of the
proposed critical habitat designation and related factors, which are
available for public review and comment. Based on public comment on
these documents and the proposed designation, additional areas may be
excluded from final critical habitat by the Secretary under the
provisions of section 4(b)(2) of the Act. This is provided for in the
Act and in our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19.
We have determined that areas managed by Bitter Lake National
Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) meet the definition of critical habitat for
Helianthus paradoxus. The Refuge has developed and completed a
Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) that provides the framework for
protection and management of all trust resources, including federally
listed species and sensitive natural habitats. We believe that there is
minimal benefit from designating critical habitat for H. paradoxus
within Refuge lands because these lands are protected areas for
wildlife, and are currently managed for the conservation of wildlife,
including threatened and endangered species, specifically H. paradoxus.
Below we provide a description of the management being provided by the
Refuge for the conservation of H. paradoxus within areas proposed for
designation as critical habitat.
The Refuge was established on October 8, 1937, by Executive Order
7724 ``as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other
wildlife.'' The Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. 460k et seq.)
identifies the refuge as being suitable for incidental fish and
wildlife-oriented recreational development, the protection of natural
resources, and the conservation of endangered species or threatened
species. The Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131-1136) directs the
Service to ``maintain wilderness as a naturally functioning ecosystem''
on portions of the Refuge. While the Refuge was originally established
to save wetlands vital to the perpetuation of migratory birds, the
isolated gypsum springs, seeps, and associated wetlands protected by
the Refuge have been recognized as providing the last known habitats in
the world for several unique species. Management emphasis of the Refuge
is placed on the protection and enhancement of habitat for endangered
species and Federal candidate species, maintenance and improvement of
wintering crane and waterfowl habitat, and monitoring and maintenance
of natural ecosystem values.
The Refuge sits at a juncture between the Roswell Artesian
Groundwater Basin and the Pecos River. These two systems and their
interactions account for the diversity of water resources on the
Refuge, including sinkholes, springs, wetlands, oxbow lakes, and
riverine
[[Page 70274]]
habitats. The federally reserved water right for Bitter Lake National
Wildlife Refuge has been signed by the State of New Mexico but awaits
final approval by the Federal government, a procedural process. The
Refuge is currently in negotiations with the New Mexico Office of the
State Engineer, a State agency responsible for administering New
Mexico's water resources, to quantify these reserved rights. This water
right allows for an in-stream flow in Bitter Creek and allows the
Refuge to manage impounded springs for the benefit of many species,
including Helianthus paradoxus. This water right protects against the
threat of a future water user purchasing a Pecos River Basin water
right and moving the use to a location that would be detrimental to the
Refuge's ability to manage for the conservation of H. paradoxus. While
the water right does not specifically protect water for the purposes of
H. paradoxus conservation, it combines with management under the
Refuge's CCP (discussed below) to remove the threat of water withdrawal
on Refuge lands.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Pub.
L. 105-57) (Refuge Improvement Act) establishes a conservation mission
for refuges, gives policy direction to the Secretary of the Interior
and refuge managers, and contains other provisions such as the
requirement to integrate scientific principles into the management of
the refuges. According to section 7(e)(1)(E) of the Refuge Improvement
Act, all lands of the Refuge System are to be managed in accordance
with an approved CCP that will guide management decisions and set forth
strategies for achieving refuge purposes. In general, the purpose of
the CCP is to provide long-range guidance for the management of
National Wildlife Refuges. The Refuge Improvement Act requires all
refuges to have a CCP and provides the following legislative mandates
to guide the development of the CCP: (1) Wildlife has first priority in
the management of refuges; (2) wildlife-dependent recreation, including
hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography,
environmental education, and environmental interpretation, are the
priority public uses of the refuge system, and shall be allowed when
compatible with the refuge purpose; and (3) other uses have lower
priority in the refuge system and are only allowed if not in conflict
with any of the priority uses and determined appropriate and compatible
with the refuge purpose.
The CCP must also be revised if the Secretary determines that
conditions that affect the refuge or planning unit have changed
significantly. In other words, a CCP must be followed once it is
approved, and regularly updated in response to environmental changes or
new scientific information.
The Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge has a final CCP that was
approved in September 1998. The CCP serves as a management tool to be
used by the Refuge staff and its partners in the preservation and
restoration of the ecosystem's natural resources. The plan is intended
to guide management decisions for 15 years, and sets forth strategies
for achieving Refuge goals and objectives within that timeframe. In
2013, the plan will not expire, but will undergo review, and any needed
revisions will be incorporated at that time. Key goals of the CCP
related to Helianthus paradoxus include the following:
(1) To restore, enhance, and protect the natural diversity on the
Refuge including threatened and endangered species by:
(a) Appropriate management of habitat and wildlife resources on
Refuge lands and
(b) Strengthening existing and establishing new cooperative efforts
with public and private stakeholders and partners; and
(2) To restore and maintain selected portions of a hydrological
system that more closely mimics the natural processes along the reach
of the Pecos River adjacent to the Refuge by:
(a) Restoration of the river channel, as well as restoration of
threatened, endangered, and special concern species, and
(b) Control of exotic species and management of trust
responsibilities for maintenance of plant and animal communities and to
satisfy traditional recreational demands (Service 1998, pp. 5, 46-52).
Specific objectives related to these goals include: (1) The
restoration of populations of aquatic species designated as endangered,
threatened, or of special concern to a sustainable level (Helianthus
paradoxus is specifically mentioned in this goal); and (2) following
existing recovery plan objectives to monitor and study threatened or
endangered species, their habitat requirements, exotic species
encroachment, and human-induced impacts to prevent further decline and
loss (Service 1998, pp. 49-52).
In summary, we believe that the Refuge lands are being adequately
protected and managed for the conservation of Helianthus paradoxus and
that current management provides a conservation benefit to this species
and its PCEs. Furthermore, we believe that there is minimal benefit
from designating critical habitat for H. paradoxus on Refuge lands
because, as explained in detail above, these lands are already managed
for the conservation of the species. On the basis of this management,
we intend to consider lands within the Bitter Lake National Wildlife
Refuge and the associated Refuge Farm containing populations of H.
paradoxus for exclusion from the final critical habitat designation
pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act. We will complete a full
analysis of the benefits of excluding and the benefits of including
these lands prior to making a final decision.
Required Determinations--Amended
In our March 27, 2007, proposed rule (72 FR 14328), we indicated
that we would defer our determination of compliance with several
statutes and Executive Orders until the information concerning
potential economic impacts of the designation and potential effects on
landowners and stakeholders was available in the draft economic
analysis. Those data are now available for our use in making these
determinations. In this notice we are affirming the information
contained in the proposed rule concerning Executive Order (E.O.) 13132,
E.O. 12988, the Paperwork Reduction Act, and the President's memorandum
of April 29, 1994, ``Government-to-Government Relations with Native
American Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951). Based on the information
made available to us in the draft economic analysis, we are amending
our Required Determinations, as provided below, concerning E.O. 12866
and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, E.O. 13211, E.O. 12630, and the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
Regulatory Planning and Review
In accordance with E.O. 12866, this document is a significant rule
because it may raise novel legal and policy issues. Based on our draft
economic analysis of the proposed designation of critical habitat for
Helianthus paradoxus, costs related to conservation activities for H.
paradoxus pursuant to sections 4, 7, and 10 of the Act are estimated at
$3.9 to $4.4 million in undiscounted dollars over the next 20 years
($193,000 to $221,000 annualized). The present value of these impacts
is $3.3 million to $3.6 million ($186,000 to $213,000 annualized),
using a discount rate of three percent; or $2.5 million to $2.9 million
($205,000 to $225,000 annualized), using a discount rate of seven
percent. Therefore, based on our draft economic analysis, we have
determined that the proposed
[[Page 70275]]
designation of critical habitat for H. paradoxus would not result in an
annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or affect the
economy in a material way. Due to the timeline for publication in the
Federal Register, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not
formally reviewed the proposed rule or accompanying economic analysis.
Further, E.O. 12866 directs Federal agencies promulgating
regulations to evaluate regulatory alternatives (Office of Management
and Budget, Circular A-4, September 17, 2003). Pursuant to Circular A-
4, once it has been determined that the Federal regulatory action is
appropriate, the agency will need to consider alternative regulatory
approaches. Since the determination of critical habitat is a statutory
requirement pursuant to the Act, we must then evaluate alternative
regulatory approaches, where feasible, when promulgating a designation
of critical habitat.
In developing our designations of critical habitat, we consider
economic impacts, impacts to national security, and other relevant
impacts pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Based on the discretion
allowable under this provision, we may exclude any particular area from
the designation of critical habitat providing that the benefits of such
exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying the area as critical
habitat and that such exclusion would not result in the extinction of
the species. We believe that the evaluation of the inclusion or
exclusion of particular areas, or combination thereof, in a designation
constitutes our regulatory alternative analysis.
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) (5 U.S.C. 802(2)), whenever an agency is required to publish a
notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare
and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis
that describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions).
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of
an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. In our proposed rule,
we withheld our determination of whether this designation would result
in a significant effect as defined under SBREFA until we completed our
draft economic analysis of the proposed designation so that we would
have the factual basis for our determination.
According to the Small Business Administration (SBA), small
entities include small organizations, such as independent nonprofit
organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions, including school
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000
residents, as well as small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small
businesses include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than
500 employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees,
retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual
sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5
million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than
$11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with
annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic
impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the
types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this
designation as well as types of project modifications that may result.
In general, the term significant economic impact is meant to apply to a
typical small business firm's business operations.
To determine if the proposed Helianthus paradoxus critical habitat
designation would affect a substantial number of small entities, we
considered the number of small entities affected within particular
types of economic activities (e.g., residential and commercial
development and agriculture). We considered each industry or category
individually to determine if certification is appropriate. In
estimating the numbers of small entities potentially affected, we also
considered whether their activities have any Federal involvement; some
kinds of activities are unlikely to have any Federal involvement and so
will not be affected by the designation of critical habitat.
Designation of critical habitat only affects activities conducted,
funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies; non-Federal
activities are not affected by the designation.
In the draft economic analysis of the proposed critical habitat
designation, we evaluated the potential economic effects on small
business entities resulting from conservation actions related to the
listing of Helianthus paradoxus and proposed designation of its
critical habitat. This analysis estimated prospective economic impacts
due to the implementation of H. paradoxus conservation efforts in four
categories: (a) Treatment of non-native species; (b) wetland filling
and development; (c) livestock management; and (d) road maintenance. We
determined from our analysis that the economic impacts of the
designation on small entities are expected to be borne primarily by
modifications to wetland filling and development activities. We assumed
that if owners of parcels containing designated critical habitat face
land use restrictions that preclude development on some or all of the
parcel, the value of the properties will be reduced, essentially
eliminating the option that those areas be developed. This draft
economic analysis assumes that, in a high-end scenario, the entirety of
forecast impacts would be borne by one small developer. The one small
developer estimated to be affected represents approximately 20 percent
of total small developers in the region. The total potential impact
resulting from land use restrictions on development activities is
forecast to be, at most, $290,000 over 20 years, or approximately
$20,000 annually. Assuming the annual revenues of an average small
developer in Cibola County are $400,000, the total potential impact
resulting from the proposed designation would amount to approximately
5.0 percent of typical annual sales of one entity. Consequently, we
certify that the designation of critical habitat for H. paradoxus will
not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small business entities. Please see the ``Economic Analysis'' section
above and the draft economic analysis itself for a more detailed
discussion of potential economic impacts.
Executive Order 13211--Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
On May 18, 2001, the President issued E.O. 13211 on regulations
that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, or use. E.O.
13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when
undertaking certain actions. This proposed designation of critical
habitat for Helianthus paradoxus is considered a significant regulatory
action under Executive Order 12866 because it raises novel legal and
policy issues. OMB has provided guidance for implementing this
Executive Order that outlines nine outcomes that may constitute ``a
significant adverse effect'' when compared without the regulatory
action under consideration. The draft economic analysis finds that none
of these criteria are relevant to this analysis. Thus, based on
information in
[[Page 70276]]
the draft economic analysis, energy-related impacts associated with H.
paradoxus conservation activities within proposed critical habitat are
not expected. As such, the proposed designation of critical habitat is
not expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or
use and a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C.
1501), the Service makes the following findings:
(a) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal
governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.''
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments,'' with
two exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of federal assistance.'' It
also excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary
Federal program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing
Federal program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually
to State, local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,''
if the provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of
assistance'' or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal
Government's responsibility to provide funding'' and the State, local,
or tribal governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the
time of enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to
Families with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food
Stamps; Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State
Grants; Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living;
Family Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement.
``Federal private sector mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would
impose an enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a
condition of Federal assistance; or (ii) a duty arising from
participation in a voluntary Federal program.''
The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally
binding duty on non-Federal government entities or private parties.
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat under section 7. Non-Federal entities that receive Federal
funding, assistance, permits, or otherwise require approval or
authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly
impacted by the designation of critical habitat. However, 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.
(b) We do not believe that this rule will significantly or uniquely
affect small governments because it will not produce a Federal mandate
of $100 million or greater in any year; that is, it is not a
``significant regulatory action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act. The proposed designation of critical habitat imposes no
obligations on State or local governments. By definition, Federal
agencies are not considered small entities, although the activities
they fund or permit may be proposed or carried out by small entities.
As such, a Small Government Agency Plan is not required.
Executive Order 12630--Takings
In accordance with E.O. 12630 (``Government Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property
Rights''), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of
proposing critical habitat for Helianthus paradoxus. 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. We
conclude that this designation of critical habitat for H. paradoxus
does not pose significant takings implications.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
It is our position that, outside the Jurisdiction of the Tenth
Federal Circuit, we do not need to prepare environmental analyses as
defined by NEPA in connection with designating critical habitat under
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. We published a notice
outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on
October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This assertion was upheld by the Ninth
Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. Ore. 1995),
cert. denied 516 U. S. 1042 (1996)). However, when the range of the
species includes States within the Tenth Circuit, such as that of H.
paradoxus, under the Tenth Circuit ruling in Catron County Board of
Commissioners v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 75 F.3d 1429 (10th
Cir. 1996), we conduct an environmental assessment under NEPA for the
proposed critical habitat designation. The draft environmental
assessment for this proposal is now available (http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/NewMexico/
). We solicit data and comments from the public
on this draft document (See FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section).
References Cited
To obtain a complete list of all references we cited in this
rulemaking, contact the Field Supervisor, New Mexico Ecological
Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section).
Author(s)
The primary authors of this package are staff of the New Mexico
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 further amend part 17, subchapter B of
chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as proposed to
be amended at 72 FR 14328, March 27, 2009, 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. Critical habitat for Helianthus paradoxus (Pecos sunflower) in
Sec. 17.96(a), which was proposed to be added on March 27, 2007, at 72
FR 14346, is proposed to be amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (5), including the text and the map;
b. Revising the text in paragraphs (6)(iii) and (v);
c. Revising the text in paragraph (7)(ii);
d. Revising the text in paragraphs (8)(ii) and (iv);
[[Page 70277]]
e. Revising the text in paragraph (9)(i) and the text and map in
paragraph (9)(ii);
f. Redesignating paragraphs (9)(iii) through (9)(viii) as
paragraphs (9)(v) through (9)(x);
g. Adding new paragraphs (9)(iii) and (iv), including a map;
h. Revising the text in newly designated paragraphs (9)(vi),
(viii), and (x); and
i. Revising the text in paragraph (10)(ii) as follows:
Sec. 17.96 Critical habitat--plants.
(a) Flowering plants.
* * * * *
Family Asteraceae: Helianthus paradoxus (Pecos sunflower)
* * * * *
(5) Note: Index map for Helianthus paradoxus (Pecos sunflower)
critical habitat units follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 70278]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11DE07.000
[[Page 70279]]
(6) * * *
(iii) Note: Map of subunits 1a and 1b for Helianthus paradoxus
(Pecos sunflower) critical habitat follows:
* * * * *
(v) Note: Map of subunit 1c for Helianthus paradoxus (Pecos
sunflower) critical habitat follows:
* * * * *
(7) * * *
(ii) Note: Map of unit 2 for Helianthus paradoxus (Pecos sunflower)
critical habitat follows:
* * * * *
(8) * * *
(ii) Note: Map of subunit 3a for Helianthus paradoxus (Pecos
sunflower) critical habitat follows:
* * * * *
(iv) Note: Map of subunit 3b for Helianthus paradoxus (Pecos
sunflower) critical habitat follows:
* * * * *
(9) * * *
(i) Subunit 4a for Helianthus paradoxus, Bitter Lake National
Wildlife Refuge/City of Roswell Land, Chaves County, New Mexico. From
USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle Bitter Lake, lands bounded by the following
UTM NAD83 coordinates (meters E, meters N): 553362, 3705257; 553381,
3705283; 553418, 3705283; 553444, 3705255; 553427, 3705221; 553405,
3705160; 553392, 3705130; 553383, 3705102; 553383, 3705076; 553392,
3705037; 553442, 3705004; 553457, 3704987; 553465, 3704961; 553437,
3704931; 553429, 3704909; 553407, 3704896; 553357, 3704881; 553329,
3704836; 553316, 3704760; 553316, 3704643; 553342, 3704529; 553349,
3704455; 553347, 3704404; 553334, 3704362; 553342, 3704308; 553370,
3704265; 553418, 3704241; 553470, 3704235; 553528, 3704291; 553621,
3704345; 553686, 3704358; 553805, 3704429; 553841, 3704466; 553887,
3704557; 553947, 3704609; 553982, 3704710; 554021, 3704786; 554079,
3704838; 554168, 3704829; 554224, 3704775; 554280, 3704790; 554334,
3704868; 554351, 3704926; 554410, 3705025; 554492, 3705034; 554589,
3705001; 554658, 3704947; 554775, 3704878; 554900, 3704854; 554943,
3704785; 554974, 3704688; 555032, 3704604; 555062, 3704547; 555121,
3704483; 555242, 3704500; 555354, 3704431; 555376, 3704347; 555417,
3704164; 555455, 3704115; 555557, 3704108; 555687, 3704087; 555819,
3704076; 555873, 3704071; 556022, 3704067; 556134, 3704058; 556067,
3703922; 555998, 3703765; 555998, 3703596; 556082, 3703488; 556177,
3703418; 556255, 3703455; 556311, 3703524; 556385, 3703591; 556529,
3703530; 556618, 3703340; 556713, 3703182; 556726, 3703059; 556657,
3703014; 556557, 3703066; 556447, 3703094; 556333, 3703022; 556313,
3702910; 556357, 3702620; 556411, 3702491; 556417, 3702298; 556462,
3702212; 556560, 3702177; 556683, 3702246; 556793, 3702298; 557145,
3702303; 557402, 3702296; 557569, 3702205; 557731, 3702134; 557867,
3702053; 557891, 3701921; 557804, 3701807; 557739, 3701670; 557659,
3701502; 557541, 3701350; 557344, 3701250; 557227, 3701203; 557109,
3701136; 557083, 3701006; 557204, 3700872; 557115, 3700872; 556711,
3700874; 556778, 3700069; 556370, 3700063; 556331, 3699254; 555939,
3699246; 555907, 3698435; 555918, 3697997; 555924, 3697540; 555935,
3697100; 555937, 3696816; 555704, 3696812; 555235, 3696803; 554632,
3696803; 554336, 3696805; 554338, 3697211; 553934, 3697207; 553930,
3697605; 553988, 3697664; 554012, 3697698; 554053, 3697715; 554075,
3697746; 554066, 3697806; 554060, 3697828; 554075, 3697908; 554075,
3698003; 554090, 3698141; 554109, 3698215; 554120, 3698308; 554055,
3698447; 554010, 3698587; 553999, 3698673; 554001, 3698719; 554045,
3698771; 554092, 3698816; 554157, 3698851; 554194, 3698881; 554233,
3698942; 554256, 3698968; 554293, 3698994; 554371, 3699029; 554390,
3699052; 554427, 3699115; 554453, 3699147; 554505, 3699202; 554535,
3699258; 554580, 3699323; 554617, 3699364; 554678, 3699411; 554706,
3699446; 554729, 3699498; 554755, 3699558; 554781, 3699619; 554816,
3699654; 554844, 3699678; 554900, 3699704; 554935, 3699719; 554967,
3699738; 554984, 3699779; 554989, 3699851; 554995, 3699885; 555004,
3699928; 555034, 3699952; 555060, 3699982; 555073, 3700019; 555092,
3700052; 555103, 3700073; 555118, 3700101; 555127, 3700127; 555157,
3700147; 555179, 3700144; 555205, 3700151; 555222, 3700160; 555235,
3700185; 555244, 3700224; 555248, 3700248; 555207, 3700268; 555172,
3700277; 555157, 3700284; 555166, 3700318; 555203, 3700340; 555218,
3700381; 555185, 3700409; 555162, 3700422; 555183, 3700459; 555196,
3700500; 555175, 3700515; 555175, 3700545; 555203, 3700556; 555207,
3700584; 555242, 3700614; 555248, 3700655; 555270, 3700690; 555283,
3700733; 555287, 3700778; 555287, 3700815; 555287, 3700862; 555296,
3700940; 555319, 3700979; 555343, 3701035; 555373, 3701069; 555369,
3701118; 555363, 3701142; 555380, 3701188; 555417, 3701173; 555438,
3701196; 555434, 3701231; 555440, 3701272; 555449, 3701296; 555492,
3701317; 555514, 3701348; 555525, 3701384; 555516, 3701460; 555499,
3701477; 555494, 3701490; 555529, 3701523; 555592, 3701574; 555605,
3701596; 555618, 3701644; 555641, 3701692; 555639, 3701754; 555600,
3701798; 555581, 3701830; 555622, 3701865; 555598, 3701908; 555628,
3701925; 555618, 3701958; 555644, 3701970; 555620, 3702057; 555568,
3702074; 555592, 3702107; 555598, 3702126; 555551, 3702128; 555553,
3702150; 555570, 3702167; 555564, 3702191; 555555, 3702215; 555527,
3702219; 555514, 3702254; 555535, 3702267; 555551, 3702273; 555535,
3702310; 555492, 3702411; 555449, 3702446; 555434, 3702487; 555427,
3702544; 555389, 3702611; 555369, 3702650; 555358, 3702693; 555358,
3702743; 555360, 3702791; 555350, 3702838; 555313, 3702873; 555233,
3702907; 555134, 3702973; 555030, 3703038; 554969, 3703100; 554911,
3703159; 554853, 3703191; 554840, 3703226; 554827, 3703273; 554775,
3703342; 554725, 3703392; 554704, 3703472; 554663, 3703500; 554580,
3703528; 554550, 3703494; 554526, 3703448; 554550, 3703414; 554550,
3703377; 554535, 3703323; 554498, 3703271; 554436, 3703260; 554282,
3703332; 554222, 3703377; 554163, 3703396; 554036, 3703489; 553995,
3703520; 553958, 3703517; 553945, 3703545; 553945, 3703612; 553870,
3703705; 553807, 3703727; 553787, 3703744; 553766, 3703736; 553744,
3703736; 553736, 3703775; 553714, 3703792; 553593, 3703837; 553545,
3703878; 553440, 3704013; 553368, 3704067; 553301, 3704125; 553260,
3704173; 553249, 3704246; 553208, 3704287; 553208, 3704332; 553221,
3704365; 553217, 3704432; 553193, 3704469; 553182, 3704551; 553165,
3704637; 553165, 3704758; 553176, 3704802; 553180, 3704902; 553193,
3704988; 553236, 3705027; 553271, 3705042; 553303, 3705083; 553321,
3705144; 553338, 3705213; thence returning to 553362, 3705257.
553930, 3697605; 553934, 3697207; 554338, 3697211; 554336, 3696806;
554330, 3696733; 554330, 3696665; 554327, 3696605; 554268, 3696635;
554205, 3696666; 554127, 3696699; 554092, 3696768; 554089, 3696787;
554084, 3696811; 554048, 3696856; 554021, 3696861; 553990, 3696861;
553957, 3696849; 553925, 3696849; 553881, 3696851; 553847, 3696860;
553809, 3696885; 553793, 3696903; 553765, 3696930; 553751, 3696954;
553740, 3696972; 553738, 3696995; 553733, 3697019; 553718, 3697038;
[[Page 70280]]
553716, 3697053; 553710, 3697067; 553702, 3697088; 553691, 3697115;
553689, 3697128; 553684, 3697150; 553673, 3697170; 553652, 3697201;
553624, 3697231; 553617, 3697248; 553614, 3697266; 553601, 3697291;
553600, 3697304; 553580, 3697324; 553571, 3697335; 553567, 3697359;
553567, 3697381; 553569, 3697402; 553577, 3697416; 553587, 3697427;
553601, 3697453; 553627, 3697474; 553647, 3697485; 553663, 3697495;
553689, 3697518; 553709, 3697535; 553731, 3697546; 553765, 3697552;
553808, 3697556; 553866, 3697558; 553895, 3697563; 553916, 3697574;
553923, 3697590; thence returning to 553930, 3697605.
(ii) Note: Map of subunit 4a for Helianthus paradoxus (Pecos
sunflower) critical habitat follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 70281]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11DE07.001
[[Page 70282]]
(iii) Subunit 4b for Helianthus paradoxus, Bitter Lake National
Wildlife Refuge Farm, Chaves County, New Mexico. From USGS 1:24,000
quadrangles Bottomless Lakes and South Spring, lands bounded by the
following UTM NAD83 coordinates (meters E, meters N): 555093, 3693168;
555018, 3693338; 555018, 3693440; 555053, 3693558; 554996, 3693646;
554948, 3693704; 554930, 3693796; 554886, 3694091; 555317, 3694170;
555203, 3694254; 555137, 3694364; 555137, 3694447; 555159, 3694535;
555129, 3694614; 554983, 3694672; 554890, 3694698; 554899, 3694810;
554897, 3694841; 554894, 3694878; 554885, 3694912; 554882, 3694940;
554868, 3695008; 554856, 3695090; 554839, 3695191; 554971, 3695198;
555042, 3695216; 555087, 3695235; 555104, 3695208; 555159, 3695215;
555176, 3695212; 555225, 3695291; 555339, 3695326; 555511, 3695287;
555515, 3695190; 555559, 3695133; 555599, 3695031; 555599, 3694930;
555581, 3694820; 555599, 3694732; 555643, 3694648; 555669, 3694556;
555652, 3694468; 555616, 3694402; 555573, 3694345; 555515, 3694288;
555462, 3694235; 555405, 3694164; 555339, 3694072; 555247, 3693901;
555247, 3693818; 555282, 3693712; 555278, 3693624; 555229, 3693457;
555216, 3693382; 555229, 3693303; 555295, 3693241; 555361, 3693219;
555441, 3693250; 555529, 3693228; 555630, 3693188; 555718, 3693118;
555771, 3693027; 555907, 3692714; 555889, 3692626; 555859, 3692547;
555709, 3692613; 555476, 3692530; 555301, 3692484; 555040, 3692613;
554657, 3692591; 554428, 3692763; 554336, 3693027; 554243, 3693128;
554133, 3693338; 554001, 3693444; 553861, 3693563; 553733, 3693721;
553667, 3693888; 553597, 3694029; 553597, 3694122; 553619, 3694219;
553619, 3694293; 553715, 3694377; 553887, 3694351; 554023, 3694355;
554142, 3694434; 554191, 3694491; 554164, 3694601; 554120, 3694681;
554142, 3694747; 554067, 3694777; 554032, 3694817; 554081, 3694881;
554230, 3694835; 554283, 3694672; 554375, 3694601; 554380, 3694456;
554296, 3694315; 554402, 3694126; 554547, 3694029; 554520, 3693841;
554555, 3693720; 554604, 3693624; 554666, 3693541; 554710, 3693396;
554780, 3693272; 554882, 3693167; 554930, 3693118; thence returning to
555093, 3693168.
(iv) Note: Map of subunit 4b for Helianthus paradoxus (Pecos
sunflower) critical habitat follows:
[[Page 70283]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11DE07.002
[[Page 70284]]
* * * * *
(vi) Note: Map of subunit 4c for Helianthus paradoxus (Pecos
sunflower) critical habitat follows:
* * * * *
(viii) Note: Map of subunit 4d for Helianthus paradoxus (Pecos
sunflower) critical habitat follows:
* * * * *
(x) Note: Map of subunit 4e for Helianthus paradoxus (Pecos
sunflower) critical habitat follows:
* * * * *
(10) * * *
(ii) Note: Map of unit 5 for Helianthus paradoxus (Pecos sunflower)
critical habitat follows:
* * * * *
Dated: November 30, 2007.
Mitchell Butler,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 07-5973 Filed 12-10-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C