14328 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 58 / Tuesday, March 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 

designate critical habitat for the Pecos 

sunflower (Helianthus paradoxus) 

under the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended (Act). In total, 

approximately 1579.3 acres (ac) (639.1 

hectares (ha)) fall within the boundaries 

of the proposed critical habitat 

designation. Proposed critical habitat is 

located in Chaves, Cibola, Guadalupe, 

Socorro, and Valencia Counties, New 

Mexico, and in Pecos County, Texas. 

DATES: We will accept comments from 

all interested parties until May 29, 2007. 

We must receive requests for public 

hearings, in writing, at the address 

shown in the ADDRESSES section by May 

11, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment, 

you may submit your comments and 

materials concerning this proposal by 

any one of several methods: 

1. Submit written comments and 

information by mail or hand-delivery to 

Wally ‘‘J’’ Murphy, Field Supervisor, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New 

Mexico Ecological Services Field Office, 

2105 Osuna Rd NE, Albuquerque, NM 

87113. 

2. Send comments by electronic mail 

(e-mail) to: R2FWE_AL@fws.gov. 

Please see the Public Comments 

Solicited section below for file format 

and other information about electronic 

filing. 

3. Fax your comments to 505/346– 

2542. 

4. Go to the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 

Follow the instructions for submitting 

comments. 

Comments and materials received, as 

well as supporting documentation used 

in the preparation of this proposed rule, 

will be available for public inspection, 

by appointment, during normal business 

hours at the New Mexico Ecological 

Services Field Office, 2105 Osuna Rd 

NE, Albuquerque, NM 87113 (telephone 

505/346–2525). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Wally ‘‘J’’ Murphy, Field Supervisor, 

New Mexico Ecological Services Field 

Office, 2105 Osuna Rd NE, 

Albuquerque, NM 87113; telephone 

505/346–2525; facsimile 505/346–2542. 

Persons who use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD) may call the 

Federal Information Relay Service 

(FIRS) at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Comments Solicited 

We intend that any final action 

resulting from this proposal will be as 

accurate and as effective as possible. 

Therefore, comments or suggestions 

from the public, other concerned 

governmental agencies, the scientific 

community, industry, or any other 

interested party concerning this 

proposed rule are hereby solicited. 

Comments particularly are sought 

concerning: 

(1) The reasons any habitat should or 

should not be determined to be critical 

habitat as provided by section 4 of the 

Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), including 

whether the benefit of designation 

would outweigh any threats to the 

species caused by designation; 

(2) Specific information on the 

amount and distribution of Helianthus 

paradoxus habitat, what areas should be 

included in the designation that were 

occupied at the time of listing that 

contain features essential for the 

conservation of the species and why, 

and what areas that were not occupied 

at the 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; 

(5) 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; and 

(6) The existence of any conservation 

or management plans being 

implemented by public or private land 

management agencies or owners that we 

should consider for exclusion from the 

designation pursuant to section 4(b)(2) 

of the Act. Please include information 

on any benefits (educational, regulatory, 

etc.) of including or excluding lands 

from this proposed designation. 

If you wish to comment, you may 

submit your comments and materials 

concerning this proposal by any one of 

several methods (see ADDRESSES). Please 

include ‘‘Attn: Helianthus paradoxus’’ 

in your e-mail subject header and your 

name and return address in the body of 

your message. If you do not receive a 

confirmation from the system that we 

have received your message, contact us 

directly by calling our New Mexico 

Ecological Services Field Office at 505/ 

346–2525. Please note that the e-mail 

address R2FWE_AL@fws.gov will be 

closed out at the termination of the 

public comment period. 

Before including your address, phone 

number, e-mail address, or other 

personal identifying information in your 

comment, you should be aware that 

your entire comment—including your 

personal identifying information—may 

be made publicly available at any time. 

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. 

Role of Critical Habitat in Actual 

Practice of Administering and 

Implementing the Act 

Attention to and protection of habitat 

is paramount to successful conservation 

actions. The role that designation of 

critical habitat plays in protecting 

habitat of listed species, however, is 

often misunderstood. As discussed in 

more detail below in the discussion of 

exclusions under the Act’s section 

4(b)(2), there are significant limitations 

on the regulatory effect of designation 

under the Act’s section 7(a)(2). In brief, 

(1) designation provides additional 

protection to habitat only where there is 

a Federal nexus; (2) the protection is 

relevant only when, in the absence of 

designation, destruction or adverse 

modification of the critical habitat 

would take place (in other words, other 

statutory or regulatory protections, 

policies, or other factors relevant to 

agency decision-making would not 

prevent the destruction or adverse 

modification); and (3) designation of 

critical habitat triggers the prohibition 

of destruction or adverse modification 

of that habitat, but it does not require 

specific actions to restore or improve 

habitat. 

Currently, only 485 species, or 37 

percent of the 1,310 listed species in the 

United States under the jurisdiction of 

the Service, have designated critical 

habitat. We address the habitat needs of 

all 1,310 listed species through 

conservation mechanisms such as 

listing, section 7 consultations, the 

section 4 recovery planning process, the 

section 9 protective prohibitions of 

unauthorized take, section 6 funding to 

the States, the section 10 incidental take 

permit process, and cooperative, 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 58 / Tuesday, March 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 14329 

nonregulatory efforts with private 

landowners. The Service believes that 

these measures may make the difference 

between extinction and survival for 

many species. 

In considering exclusions of areas 

proposed for designation, we evaluated 

the benefits of designation in light of 

Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, 378 F.3d 1059 (9th 

Cir 2004) (hereinafter Gifford Pinchot). 

In that case, the Ninth Circuit 

invalidated the Service’s regulation 

defining ‘‘destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat.’’ In 

response, on December 9, 2004, the 

Director issued guidance to be 

considered in making section 7 adverse 

modification determinations. This 

proposed critical habitat designation 

does not use the invalidated regulation 

in our consideration of the benefits of 

including areas. The Service will 

carefully manage future consultations 

that analyze impacts to designated 

critical habitat, particularly those that 

appear to be resulting in an adverse 

modification determination. Such 

consultations will be reviewed by the 

Regional Office prior to finalizing to 

ensure that an adequate analysis has 

been conducted that is informed by the 

Director’s guidance. 

To the extent that designation of 

critical habitat provides protection, that 

protection can come at significant social 

and economic cost. In addition, the 

mere administrative process of 

designation of critical habitat is 

expensive, time-consuming, and 

controversial. The current statutory 

framework of critical habitat, combined 

with past judicial interpretations of the 

statute, make critical habitat the subject 

of excessive litigation. As a result, 

critical habitat designations are driven 

by litigation and courts rather than 

biology, and made at a time and under 

a timeframe that limits our ability to 

obtain and evaluate the scientific and 

other information required to make the 

designation most meaningful. 

In light of these circumstances, the 

Service believes that additional agency 

discretion would allow our focus to 

return to those actions that provide the 

greatest benefit to the species most in 

need of protection. 

Procedural and Resource Difficulties in 

Designating Critical Habitat 

We have been inundated with 

lawsuits for our failure to designate 

critical habitat, and we face a growing 

number of lawsuits challenging critical 

habitat determinations once they are 

made. These lawsuits have subjected the 

Service to an ever-increasing series of 

court orders and court-approved 

settlement agreements, compliance with 

which now consumes nearly the entire 

listing program budget. This leaves the 

Service with little ability to prioritize its 

activities to direct scarce listing 

resources to the listing program actions 

with the most biologically urgent 

species conservation needs. 

The consequence of the critical 

habitat litigation activity is that limited 

listing funds are used to defend active 

lawsuits, to respond to Notices of Intent 

(NOIs) to sue relative to critical habitat, 

and to comply with the growing number 

of adverse court orders. As a result, 

listing petition responses, the Service’s 

own proposals to list critically 

imperiled species, and final listing 

determinations on existing proposals are 

all significantly delayed. 

The accelerated schedules of courtordered designations have left the 

Service with limited ability to provide 

for public participation or to ensure a 

defect-free rulemaking process before 

making decisions on listing and critical 

habitat proposals, due to the risks 

associated with noncompliance with 

judicially imposed deadlines. This in 

turn fosters a second round of litigation 

in which those who fear adverse 

impacts from critical habitat 

designations challenge those 

designations. The cycle of litigation 

appears endless and is expensive, thus 

diverting resources from conservation 

actions that may provide relatively more 

benefit to imperiled species. 

The costs resulting from the 

designation include legal costs, the cost 

of preparation and publication of the 

designation, the cost of analysis of the 

economic effects and of requesting and 

responding to public comment, and in 

some cases the costs of compliance with 

the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4371 et seq.). These 

costs, which are not required for many 

other conservation actions, directly 

reduce the funds available for direct and 

tangible conservation actions. 

Background 

It is our intent to discuss only those 

topics directly relevant to designation of 

critical habitat in this proposal. For 

more information on Helianthus 

paradoxus, refer to the final listing rule 

published in the Federal Register on 

October 20, 1999 (64 FR 56582) and the 

Pecos Sunflower Recovery Plan posted 

at http://www.ecos.fws.gov/docs/ 

recovery_plans/2005/050915.pdf. 

Helianthus paradoxus is a member of 

the Asteraceae family, described by Dr. 

Charles Heiser in 1958 as Helianthus 

paradoxus (Heiser 1958, pp. 272–274). 

Genetic and morphological analyses 

have confirmed Helianthus paradoxus 

as a valid taxon (Rieseberg et al. 1990, 

pp. 1508–1509; Lexer et al. 2003, p. 

1999; Welch and Riesberg 2002, p. 477). 

A number of vernacular names for this 

plant, including Pecos sunflower, 

puzzle sunflower, and paradox 

sunflower, have appeared in printed 

literature, and all refer to Helianthus 

paradoxus. The Service has adopted 

‘Pecos sunflower’ as the standard 

common name for this species. 

H. paradoxus is a plant that grows on 

permanently wet, alkaline soils at spring 

seeps, wet meadows, stream courses, 

and pond margins. It is currently known 

from 12 populations in 5 widely spaced 

geographical areas in west-central and 

eastern New Mexico and adjacent TransPecos Texas. These populations are all 

dependent upon wetlands that result 

from an elevated water table. The 

number of H. paradoxus per site varies 

from fewer than 100 to over one million. 

Because H. paradoxus is an annual, the 

number of plants per site can fluctuate 

greatly from year to year with changes 

in precipitation and depth to 

groundwater or in response to other 

physical and biological changes. Stands 

of H. paradoxus can change location 

within the habitat as well (Sivinski 

1992, p. 125). If a wetland habitat dries 

out permanently, even a large 

population of H. paradoxus will 

disappear (Service 1999, p. 56582). 

Little is known about the historic 

distribution of H. paradoxus. The plant 

is associated with spring seeps and 

desert cienegas, and there is evidence 

these habitats were historically reduced 

or eliminated by aquifer depletion, or 

severely impacted by agricultural 

activities and encroachment by 

nonnative plants (Poole 1992, p. 2; 

Sivinski 1995, p. 11). H. paradoxus was 

known only from a single population 

near Fort Stockton, Pecos County, 

Texas, when it was proposed as a 

candidate species under the Act on 

December 15, 1980 (45 FR 82480). This 

is a large population of several hundred 

thousand to one million plants at The 

Nature Conservancy’s Diamond Y 

Spring Preserve and a smaller group of 

plants downstream at a nearby highway 

right-of-way. Between 1980 and 1994, 

field surveys for this plant found 

additional populations in New Mexico 

and Texas (Service 1999, p. 56582). 

During this period, H. paradoxus was 

discovered in a second Texas site at The 

Nature Conservancy’s Sandia Spring 

Preserve in the Balmorhea area of 

Reeves County, Texas. In addition, H. 

paradoxus was found at 11 spring seeps 

and cienegas in the Roswell/Dexter 

region of the Pecos River valley in 

Chaves County, New Mexico. Three of 

these wetlands support many thousands 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
14330 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 58 / Tuesday, March 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

of H. paradoxus, but the remainder are 

smaller, isolated occurrences. Springs 

and cienegas within and near the town 

of Santa Rosa in Guadalupe County, 

New Mexico, were found to have eight 

wetlands with H. paradoxus, one of 

which consisted of a few hundred 

thousand plants. Also discovered were 

two widely separated areas of spring 

seeps and cienegas in the Rio San Jose 

valley of western New Mexico, each 

supporting a medium-sized population 

of H. paradoxus. One occurs on the 

lower Rio San Jose in Valencia County 

and the other is in Cibola County in the 

vicinity of Grants. After the species was 

listed, two more populations were 

added to the total number of known 

populations: (1) A very large population 

near La Joya, in Socorro County, at the 

confluence of the Rio Grande and the 

Rio Puerco; and (2) a population on 

State lands in Chaves County in a 

marshy sink (Service 2005, p. 4). 

Previous Federal Actions 

H. 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. This proposed rule 

complies with the settlement agreement 

and with section 4(b)(2) of the Act. 

For more information on previous 

Federal actions concerning H. 

paradoxus, refer to the final listing rule 

published in the Federal Register on 

October 20, 1999 (64 FR 56582), and the 

Pecos Sunflower Recovery Plan, dated 

July 2005, prepared by the Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 

Critical Habitat 

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 

of the Act as—(i) 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 (I) essential to the conservation 

of the species and (II) that may require 

special management considerations or 

protection; and (ii) 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. 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 any 

endangered species or threatened 

species to the point at which the 

measures provided under 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 

prohibition against destruction or 

adverse modification of critical habitat 

with regard to actions carried out, 

funded, or authorized by a Federal 

agency. Section 7 of the Act requires 

consultation on Federal actions that are 

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 government 

or public access to private lands. 

Section 7 of the Act is a purely 

protective measure and does not require 

implementation of restoration, recovery, 

or enhancement measures. 

To be included in a critical habitat 

designation, the habitat within the area 

known at the time of listing to be 

occupied by the species must first have 

features that are essential to the 

conservation of the species. Critical 

habitat designations identify, to the 

extent known using the best scientific 

data available, habitat areas that provide 

essential life cycle needs of the species 

(areas on which are found the primary 

constituent elements (PCEs), as defined 

at 50 CFR 424.12(b)). 

Habitat known at the time of listing to 

be occupied may be included in critical 

habitat only if the essential features 

thereon may require special 

management or protection. Thus, we do 

not include areas where existing 

management is sufficient to conserve 

the species. (As discussed below, such 

areas may also be excluded from critical 

habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.) 

Accordingly, when the best available 

scientific data do not demonstrate that 

the conservation needs of the species 

require additional areas, we will not 

designate critical habitat in areas 

outside the geographical area known at 

the time of listing to be occupied by the 

species. However, an area currently 

occupied by the species but was not 

known at the time of listing to be 

occupied will likely, but not always, be 

essential to the conservation of the 

species and, therefore, typically may be 

included in the critical habitat 

designation. 

The Service’s Policy on Information 

Standards Under the Endangered 

Species Act, published in the Federal 

Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271), 

and Section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106–

554; H.R. 5658) and the associated 

Information Quality Guidelines issued 

by the Service, provide criteria, 

establish procedures, and provide 

guidance to ensure that decisions made 

by the Service represent the best 

scientific data available. They require 

Service 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 determining which areas 

are critical habitat, a primary source of 

information is generally the listing 

package 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, or other 

unpublished materials and expert 

opinion or personal knowledge. All 

information is used in accordance with 

the provisions of Section 515 of the 

Treasury and General Government 

Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 

(Pub. L. 106–554; H.R. 5658) and the 

associated Information Quality 

Guidelines issued by the Service. 

Section 4 of the Act requires that we 

designate critical habitat on the basis of 

the best scientific and commercial data 

available. Habitat is often dynamic, and 

species may move from one area to 

another over time. Furthermore, we 

recognize that designation of critical 

habitat may not include all of the 

habitat areas that may eventually be 

determined to be necessary for the 

recovery of the species. For these 

reasons, critical habitat designations do 

not signal that habitat outside the 

designation is unimportant or may not 

be required for recovery. 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 58 / Tuesday, March 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 14331 

Areas that support populations, but 

are outside the critical habitat 

designation, will continue to be subject 

to conservation actions implemented 

under section 7(a)(1) of the Act and to 

the regulatory protections afforded by 

the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy standard, as 

determined on the basis of the best 

available information at the time of the 

action. Federally funded or permitted 

projects affecting listed species outside 

their designated critical habitat areas 

may still result in jeopardy findings in 

some cases. Similarly, critical habitat 

designations made on the basis of the 

best available information at the time of 

designation will not control the 

direction and substance of future 

recovery plans, habitat conservation 

plans, or other species conservation 

planning efforts if new information 

available to these planning efforts calls 

for a different outcome. 

Methods 

As required by section 4(b) of the Act, 

we used the best scientific and 

commercial data available in 

determining areas that contain the 

features that are essential to the 

conservation of H. paradoxus, areas that 

are essential to the conservation of H. 

paradoxus, or both. In designating 

critical habitat for this species, we 

reviewed the Final Pecos Sunflower 

Recovery Plan and listing packages for 

the species, articles in peer-reviewed 

journals, conservation plans developed 

by land managers, scientific status 

surveys and studies, biological 

assessments, and other unpublished 

materials, including expert opinion. We 

are proposing to designate habitat that 

we have determined contains the 

physical and biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species arranged in the quantity and 

spatial characteristics necessary for 

conservation (see ‘‘Criteria Used To 

Identify Critical Habitat’’ section below). 

We have also reviewed available 

information that pertains to the habitat 

requirements of this species. We 

reviewed information from 

knowledgeable biologists, including 

Hirsch 2006, Poole 2006, Sivinski 2007, 

and Ulibarri 2006, and reviewed 

recommendations contained in State 

resource reports. We also reviewed the 

available literature pertaining to habitat 

requirements, historical localities, and 

current localities of the species in peerreviewed articles such as Van Auken 

and Bush 1998. We used data in reports 

submitted during consultations under 

section 7 of the Act and in regional 

Geographic Information System (GIS) 

data layer coverages. Of particular 

importance, we reviewed databases, 

published literature, and field notes to 

determine the historical and current 

distribution of the species. Agency and 

researcher field notes and published 

literature contained additional 

information on surveys and species’

detections, such as in performance 

reports under section 6 of the Act 

prepared by botanists in New Mexico 

and Texas (Poole 1992, pp. 1–6; Sivinski 

1992, pp. 124–126; Sivinski 1995, pp. 

1–11). 

Primary Constituent Elements 

In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) 

of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 

424.12, in determining which areas to 

propose as critical habitat, we consider 

those physical and biological features 

(primary constituent elements (PCEs)) 

that are essential to the conservation of 

the species, and within areas occupied 

by the species at the time of listing, that 

may require special management 

considerations and 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, and rearing (or 

development) of offspring; and (5) 

habitats that are protected from 

disturbance or are representative of the 

historic, geographical, and ecological 

distributions of a species. 

The specific PCEs required for H. 

paradoxus are derived from the physical 

and biological features that are essential 

to the conservation of the species, as 

described below and in the Background 

section of this proposal. We determined 

the PCEs for H. paradoxus from studies 

of habitat requirements (see 

‘‘Background’’ and ‘‘Methods’’ sections 

above). 

Space for Individual and Population 

Growth, Including Sites for 

Germination, Pollination, Reproduction, 

and Seed Bank 

H. paradoxus is an annual species 

that must re-establish populations of 

adult plants each year from seed 

produced during previous years’

reproductive efforts. Habitats with 

suitable alkaline soils and perennially 

wet hydrologic conditions for all of the 

life functions of H. paradoxus are 

typically small areas around springs and 

ponds. Therefore, populations tend to 

grow in crowded patches of dozens or 

even thousands of individuals. Solitary 

individuals may be found around the 

periphery of the wetland, but dense, 

well-defined stands within suitable 

habitats are more typical. Aggregations 

of individuals may occur in different 

adjacent areas than the patches of dead 

stalks from the population of the 

previous year (Sivinski 1992, p. 125). 

This suggests seed dispersal or the 

presence of a persistent soil seed bank 

(Van Auken 2001). Patch densities and 

locations are determined by a 

combination of factors, including 

variations in seasonal soil moisture, 

salinity, oxygen, disturbance, and 

competing vegetation (Bush 2002, pp. 

1–2; Van Auken and Bush 1995, p. 15; 

Bush and Van Auken 1997, p. 417). 

Dense stands of H. paradoxus 

produce smaller, spindly plants, while 

more open stands have larger plants 

(Service 2005, p. 6). Likewise, 

experiments to remove competing 

vegetation, such as alkali sacaton 

(Sporobolus airoides) and saltgrass 

(Distichlis spicata), also produced larger 

H. paradoxus plants with more flowers 

per plant (Bush and Van Auken 1997, p. 

417). 

Pollination vectors for H. paradoxus 

have not been studied. However, most 

plants in the aster family with ray-like 

flowers, such as H. paradoxus, attract a 

variety of insect pollinators (Service 

2005, p. 7). Seed production is greatly 

enhanced in H. paradoxus by crosspollination between individual plants. 

An experiment that excluded 

pollinators from flower heads produced 

only 5 percent viable seed compared to 

84 percent viable seed produced by 

flower heads that were open to insect 

pollination (Van Auken and Bush 1997, 

p. 44). H. paradoxus blooms in the 

months of September and October. 

Flowering peaks the second week of 

September in the northern-most New 

Mexico populations. The peak flowering 

time for the southern-most population 

in West Texas is later in October. Seeds 

fill and mature during October and 

November and then require a 2- to 3- 

month after-ripening period before 

germination (Van Auken 2001, p. 157). 

A few seeds remain dormant for longer 

periods and appear to be insurance for 

species survival by remaining viable in 

the soil seed bank (Van Auken 2001). 

The duration of seed viability has not 

yet been studied. 

Areas That Provide the Basic 

Requirements for Growth (Such as 

Water, Light, and Minerals) 

H. paradoxus habitat attributes 

usually are present in desert wetland 

areas that contain permanently 

saturated soils in the root zone (Service 

2005, p. 6). These are most commonly 

desert springs and seeps that form wet 

meadows called ‘‘cienegas.’’

Nevertheless, H. paradoxus also can 

occur around the margins of lakes and 

creeks (Service 2005, p. 6). When H. 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
14332 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 58 / Tuesday, March 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

paradoxus grows around lakes or ponds, 

these areas are usually associated with 

natural cienega habitats. The soils of 

these desert wetlands and riparian areas 

are typically saline or alkaline because 

the waters are high in dissolved solids 

and elevated evaporation rates leave 

deposits of salts, including carbonates, 

at the soil’s surface. Studies by Van 

Auken and Bush (1995, pp. 14) showed 

that H. paradoxus grows in saline soils, 

but seeds germinate and establish best 

when precipitation and high water 

tables reduce salinity near the soil 

surface. Based on greenhouse and 

limited field studies, H. paradoxus 

requires salinity levels ranging from 10 

to 40 parts per thousand for optimal 

growth in competition with other salt 

marsh plant species (Van Auken and 

Bush 2006, p. 29). H. paradoxus can 

occur on the cienegas that contain 

alkaline, fine sand soils that may be dry 

at the surface during summer months, 

but are sub-irrigated in the root zone. 

Where saturated soils are shaded by 

taller vegetation, H. paradoxus may also 

not be present every year or in numbers 

greater than a few hundred plants. Like 

all sunflowers, this species requires 

open areas that are not shaded by taller 

vegetation for optimal growth. Solitary 

trees or shrubs are sometimes located 

within stands of H. paradoxus. Clusters 

of tall tress and shrubs will inhibit H. 

paradoxus’s growth by shading 

germinating seeds and seedlings 

(Service 2005, p. 6). 

Primary Constituent Elements for 

Helianthus Paradoxus 

Pursuant to the Act and its 

implementing regulations, we are 

required to identify the physical and 

biological features (PCEs) within the 

geographical area known to be occupied 

at the time of listing of H. paradoxus, 

that may require special management 

considerations or protections. 

Based on our current knowledge of 

the life history, biology, and ecology of 

the species and the requirements of the 

habitat to sustain the essential life 

history functions of the species, we have 

determined that H. paradoxus’s PCEs 

are the desert wetland or riparian 

habitat components that provide: 

(1) Silty clay or fine sand soils that 

contain high organic content, are saline 

or alkaline, are permanently saturated 

within the root zone (top 50 cm of the 

soil profile), and have salinity levels 

ranging from 10 to 40 parts per 

thousand; and 

(2) Low proportion (less than 10 

percent) of woody shrub or canopy 

cover directly around the plant. 

Critical habitat does not include 

manmade structures, such as buildings, 

aqueducts, runways, airports, roads, and 

other paved areas, and the land on 

which such structures are located 

within the boundaries of a final critical 

habitat designation that exist on the 

effective date of a final rule. 

This proposed designation is designed 

for the conservation of PCEs necessary 

to support the life history functions that 

are the basis for the proposal and the 

areas containing those PCEs. Because all 

of the species’ life history functions 

require all of the PCEs, all proposed 

critical habitat units contain all PCEs. 

Special Management Considerations or 

Protections 

When designating critical habitat, we 

assess whether the areas determined to 

be occupied at the time of listing and 

that contain the primary constituent 

elements may require special 

management considerations or 

protections. Threats to H. paradoxus 

include drying of wetlands from 

groundwater depletion, alteration of 

wetlands (e.g., wetland fills, draining, 

impoundment, and development), 

competition from nonnative plant 

species, overgrazing by livestock during 

H. paradoxus’s flowering season, 

impacts from recreational activities, 

mowing, and highway maintenance. 

We believe each area included in this 

proposal requires special management 

or protections as described in our unit 

descriptions below. 

The loss or alteration of wetland 

habitat continues to be the main threat 

to H. paradoxus. The scattered 

distribution of cienegas makes them 

aquatic islands of unique habitat in an 

arid-land matrix (Hendrickson and 

Minckley 1984, p. 169). There is 

evidence these habitats have been 

historically, and are presently being, 

reduced or eliminated by aquifer 

depletion, and severely impacted by 

agricultural activities and encroachment 

by exotic plants (Poole 1992, pp. 1–2; 

Sivinski 1995, p. 11). The lowering of 

water tables through aquifer 

withdrawals for irrigation and 

municipal use, diversion of water from 

wetlands for agriculture and 

recreational uses, and wetland filling for 

conversion to dry land uses destroy or 

degrade desert wetlands. 

In Grants, New Mexico, H. paradoxus 

has been observed to occur in close 

proximity to building sites that may 

have contained suitable wetland habitat 

prior to filling (Service 2005, p. 8). A 

cienega containing H. paradoxus near 

Dexter, New Mexico, was dried when a 

wellhead was placed on the spring and 

the water diverted for other uses 

(Service 2005, p. 8). Springs that have 

fed H. paradoxus habitats have been 

converted to swimming pools and 

fishing ponds in the towns of Roswell 

and Santa Rosa, New Mexico (Service 

2005, p. 8). Groundwater withdrawals 

for agriculture in Pecos and Reeves 

Counties in Texas have had an 

especially severe impact on desert 

springs (Service 2005, p. 8). Of the 61 

historical desert springs in these two 

counties, only 13 were still flowing in 

1980 (Brune 1981 in Poole 1992, p. 5). 

Beginning around 1946, groundwater 

levels fell as much as 400 ft (120 m) in 

Pecos County and 500 ft (150 m) in 

Reeves County. Groundwater pumping 

has lessened in recent years due to the 

higher cost of removing water from 

deeper aquifers, but rising water tables 

and resumption of spring flows are not 

expected (Poole 1992, p. 5). Texas water 

law provides no protection for the 

remaining springs that support H. 

paradoxus populations on The Nature 

Conservancy properties, which limits 

options for addressing this threat. 

Livestock will eat H. paradoxus when 

other green forage is scarce, and when 

the buds are developing and abundant 

(Service 1999, p. 56587). Cattle and 

horses tend to pull off the flower heads, 

which can reduce seed production 

(Bush and Van Auken 1997, p. 416). 

However, well-managed grazing during 

non-flowering months may have a 

beneficial effect on H. paradoxus 

populations by decreasing the density 

and biomass of potentially competing 

plant species in these habitats. This 

sunflower germinates earlier than most 

associated plants and grows vigorously 

on wet, bare, highly insolated soils 

(Service 2005, p. 9). Actions that remove 

shading grass cover, such as grazing, 

appear to enhance growth and 

reproduction of sunflower plants that 

are later protected from grazing while 

they are reproductively maturing. 

Therefore, properly managed livestock 

grazing is not incompatible with H. 

paradoxus conservation. Livestock 

grazing operations that are not managed 

to protect H. paradoxus occur in 

populations in the Grants and Roswell 

areas of New Mexico (Service 2005, p. 

9). 

The specific threats requiring special 

management or protections are 

described in the critical habitat unit 

descriptions below. 

Criteria Used To Identify Critical 

Habitat 

We are proposing to designate critical 

habitat in areas that were known at the 

time of listing to be occupied and that 

contain sufficient PCEs to support life 

history functions essential for the 

conservation of the species. Lands are 

proposed for designation based on 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 58 / Tuesday, March 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 14333 

sufficient PCEs being present to support 

the life history processes of the species. 

All lands contain all PCEs and support 

multiple life processes. We are also 

proposing critical habitat in areas that 

were not known at the time of listing to 

be occupied. However, we have 

determined that these areas are 

currently occupied and are essential to 

the conservation of the species. 

Occupancy 

We consider an area to be currently 

occupied if H. paradoxus was found to 

be present by species experts within the 

last 2 years (Hirsch 2006, p. 1; Poole 

2006, p. 1; Ulibarri 2006, p. 1; Sivinski 

2007, p. 1). 

Stability 

In proposing to designate critical 

habitat, we considered the stability of 

the known populations, including size 

and status over time. According to 

population-level analysis conducted for 

H. paradoxus, approximately 1,600 or 

more individuals is a population target 

that gives a high probability of having 

a stable population over time (Poole 

2004; Sanderson 2006, p. 918). We 

consider the status of a population to be 

stable when it appears that (1) the 

number of new individuals in a 

population is equal to or greater than 

the number of individuals dying, and (2) 

the population occupies a similar or 

larger area over multiple survey periods. 

The survey and field data on which this 

proposed designation is based represent 

consistently observed populations 

during the last several years. Most of the 

sites included in this proposal were 

visited by species experts four or more 

times between 1992 and 2007; however, 

at a minimum each site was visited 

twice. 

By including stable populations, we 

are proposing to designate currently 

occupied habitat that provides for 

important life-history functions, such as 

seed dispersal and genetic exchange, 

and will contribute to the long-term 

conservation of the species. Locations 

that have populations that do not 

support at least 1,600 individuals are 

usually either dependent on an 

inconsistent water supply or rely on 

small, restricted, or modified habitats. 

We believe that, by proposing to 

designate large populations, the species 

will persist, the potential for successful 

pollination is high, and genetic 

exchange will be facilitated. 

Essential 

For areas not known to be occupied 

at the time of listing, the Service must 

demonstrate that these areas are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species in order to include them in a 

critical habitat designation. The H. 

paradoxus critical habitat units shown 

in Table 1 in New Mexico and west 

Texas are sufficiently distant (40 to 100 

miles (mi) (64 to 161 kilometers (km)) 

from one another to rule out frequent 

gene exchange by pollen vectors or seed 

dispersal. Therefore, we have 

determined that each of these 

populations, including any not known 

to be occupied at the time of listing, is 

essential to the conservation of the 

species because they ensure 

maintenance of the genetic diversity of 

H. paradoxus. The areas we are 

proposing for critical habitat 

designation include populations 

containing all of the known remaining 

genetic diversity within the species that 

are not currently under a management 

regime that would result in the 

conservation of H. paradoxus. These 

areas include representation of each 

major subbasin in the known historical 

range of the species (Service 2005, p. 4). 

In summary, this proposed critical 

habitat designation includes 

populations of H. paradoxus and 

habitats that possess the physical and 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species. We believe 

the proposal: (1) Maintains PCEs in 

areas where large populations of H. 

paradoxus are known to occur; (2) 

maintains the current distribution, thus 

preserving genetic variation throughout 

the range of H. paradoxus and 

minimizing the potential effects of local 

extinction; (3) minimizes fragmentation 

within populations by establishing 

contiguous occurrences and maintaining 

existing connectivity; (4) includes 

sufficient pollinators; and (5) protects 

the seed bank to ensure long-term 

persistence of the species. 

Mapping 

The proposed H. paradoxus critical 

habitat areas are grouped both spatially 

and by watershed into five larger units: 

West-Central New Mexico, La Joya, 

Santa Rosa, Roswell/Dexter, and West 

Texas. The boundaries of the proposed 

critical habitat designation for each 

subunit were mapped using global 

positioning system (GPS) along the 

outside boundary of the area of 

occupied habitat (Pittenger 2007). We 

attempted to encompass only areas that 

contain all of the PCEs in a year of 

average rainfall. The elevated water 

table that provides conditions favorable 

to H. paradoxus growth is influenced by 

both past and current precipitation. 

Groundwater level is often affected by 

precipitation in the entire watershed 

from many prior years as water slowly 

moves through the soil and geologic 

features into springs and wetlands. The 

groundwater provides a relatively 

reliable, stable water source 

permanently saturating soils adjacent to 

springs and wetlands. Winter storms 

and monsoons provide a more dynamic 

source of precipitation to H. paradoxus 

habitat. The suitable habitat expands 

and contracts horizontally and laterally 

from the groundwater-influenced areas 

depending on the amount of annual 

precipitation (Sivinski 1992, p. 125). 

Therefore, in very wet years, suitable H. 

paradoxus habitat may extend beyond 

the mapped boundaries for critical 

habitat and in very dry years may shrink 

to a smaller area than delineated. 

In a few of the subunits we include, 

narrow dirt roads within the mapped 

boundaries when these roads were 

present within the occupied habitat. 

Due to soil compaction from vehicle 

tracks, these roads do not provide the 

PCEs for H. paradoxus. They do, 

however, represent a small area (2 m (6 

ft) wide), and they are directly adjacent 

to occupied habitat, so we found it too 

difficult, due to mapping constraints, to 

exclude them from the maps of 

proposed critical habitat. To the best of 

our knowledge, no other areas were 

included within the mapped boundaries 

of proposed subunits that do not possess 

all of the PCEs. 

We were not able to obtain physical 

access to some private lands in order to 

map the boundaries of H. paradoxus 

habitat. We utilized U.S. Geological 

Survey 7.5 minute quadrangle maps to 

create maps that depict the habitat 

containing the PCEs. One of the features 

of 7.5 minute quadrangle maps is their 

accurate depiction of permanent water 

sources (e.g., springs and wetlands) 

associated with these populations. The 

depiction of the subunits are based on: 

(1) Map features, (2) limited visual 

observations, and (3) a knowledge of 

how spring/wetland habitats influence 

similar H. paradoxus populations in 

other geographic areas within the 

species’ range. 

With the exception of the narrow dirt 

roads discussed above, when 

determining proposed critical habitat 

boundaries, we made every effort to 

avoid including (within the boundaries 

of the map contained within this 

proposed rule) developed areas such as 

buildings, paved areas, and other 

structures that lack PCEs for H. 

paradoxus. The scale of the maps 

prepared under the parameters for 

publication within the Code of Federal 

Regulations may not reflect the 

exclusion of such developed areas. 

We are proposing to designate critical 

habitat in areas that we have determined 

were occupied at the time of listing, and 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
14334 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 58 / Tuesday, March 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

that contain sufficient PCEs to support 

life history functions essential for the 

conservation of the species. Lands are 

proposed for designation based on 

sufficient PCEs being present to support 

the life processes of the species. We are 

also proposing critical habitat in areas 

that were not known at the time of 

listing to be occupied. However, we 

have determined that these areas are 

currently occupied and are essential to 

the conservation of the species. 

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation 

We are proposing five (5) units as 

critical habitat for H. paradoxus. The 

critical habitat areas described below 

constitute our best assessment currently 

of areas known at the time of listing to 

be occupied, that contain the primary 

constituent elements and may require 

special management, and those 

additional areas that were not known to 

be occupied at the time of listing but 

were found to be essential to the 

conservation of H. paradoxus. Table 1 

shows the areas that were known at time 

of listing to be occupied, those areas 

that are currently occupied, and the 

threats requiring special management or 

protections. 

TABLE 1.—THREATS AND OCCUPANCY IN AREAS CONTAINING FEATURES

ESSENTIAL TO THE CONSERVATION OF H. Paradoxus 

Geographic area/unit Threats requiring special management 

or protections 

Known to be 

occupied at the 

time of listing 

Currently 

occupied 

Unit 1. West-Central New Mexico 

Subunit 1a. Rancho del Padre Spring Cienega ........ Water withdrawal, wetland filling and development, 

incompatible livestock management.

Yes ................... Yes. 

Subunit 1b. Grants Salt Flat Wetland ........................ Wetland filling and development, encroachment by 

nonnative vegetation,incompatible livestock management.

Yes ................... Yes. 

Subunit 1c. Pueblo of Laguna ................................... Water withdrawal, incompatible livestock management, encroachment by nonnative vegetation.Yes ................... Yes. 

Unit 2. La Joya 

La Joya State Wildlife Management Area ................. Encroachment by nonnative vegetation .................... No ..................... Yes. 

Unit 3. Santa Rosa 

Subunit 3a. Blue Hole Cienega / Blue Hole Fish 

Hatchery Ponds.

Encroachment by nonnative vegetation; on City 

land, wetland filling and recreation use, mowing 

to edges of ponds, dredging ponds and filling of 

wetlands.

Yes ................... Yes. 

Subunit 3b. Westside Spring ..................................... Next to major road, water withdrawal, wetland filling 

and development, encroachment by nonnative 

vegetation.

No ..................... Yes. 

Unit 4. Roswell/Dexter 

Subunit 4a. Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge/ 

City of Roswell Land.

Threats on Refuge lands have been addressed by 

CCP; on City land, water withdrawal, wetland filling and development, incompatible livestock management.

Yes ................... Yes. 

Subunit 4b. Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

Farm.

Threats have been addressed by CCP .................... Yes ................... Yes. 

Subunit 4c. Oasis Dairy ............................................. Water withdrawal, wetland filling and development, 

incompatible livestock management.

Yes ................... Yes. 

Subunit 4d. Lea Lake at Bottomless Lakes State 

Park.

Campgrounds and human trampling, encroachment 

by nonnative vegetation.

Yes ................... Yes. 

Subunit 4e. Dexter Cienega ...................................... Water withdrawal wetland filling and development, 

incompatible livestock management.

Yes ................... Yes. 

Unit 5. West Texas 

Diamond Y Spring ..................................................... Water withdrawal, wetland filling and development, 

incompatible livestock management.

Yes ................... Yes. 

The approximate area encompassed 

within each proposed critical habitat 

unit is shown in Table 2. 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 58 / Tuesday, March 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 14335 

TABLE 2.—CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS PROPOSED FOR H. Paradoxus 

[Area estimates reflect all land within proposed critical habitat unit boundaries.] 

Geographic area/unit Land ownership 

Acres (Hectares) for 

non-inclusion and 

proposed exclusion 

Proposed critical 

habitat acres 

(hectares) 

Unit 1. West-Central New Mexico 

Subunit 1a. Rancho del Padre Spring Cienega Private and Tribal ............................................. .................................... 25.5 (10.3) 

Subunit 1b. Grants Salt Flat Wetland ............... Private .............................................................. .................................... 62.5 (25.3) 

Subunit 1c. Pueblo of Laguna .......................... Tribal ................................................................. undefined ................... undefined 

Unit 2. La Joya 

La Joya State Wildlife Management Area ........ State of New Mexico ........................................ .................................... 854.3 (345.7) 

Unit 3. Santa Rosa 

Subunit 3a. Blue Hole Cienega/Blue Hole Fish 

Hatchery Ponds.

State of New Mexico and City of Roswell ....... .................................... 133.9 (54.2) 

Subunit 3b. Westside Spring ............................ Private .............................................................. .................................... 6.4 (2.6) 

Unit 4. Roswell/Dexter 

Subunit 4a. Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge/City of Roswell Land.U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and City of 

Roswell.

3,480 (1408.3) ........... 92.2 (37.3) 

Subunit 4b. Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge Farm.U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ......................... 686.2 (277.7) ............. 0 (0) 

Subunit 4c. Oasis Dairy .................................... Private .............................................................. .................................... 103.9 (42.0) 

Subunit 4d. Lea Lake at Bottomless Lakes 

State Park.

State of New Mexico ........................................ .................................... 19.5 (7.9) 

Subunit 4e. Dexter Cienega ............................. Private .............................................................. .................................... 41.4 (16.8) 

Unit 5. West Texas 

Diamond Y Spring ............................................ Private .............................................................. .................................... 239.7 (97.0) 

Total Acres (Hectares) .............................. ........................................................................... 4,166.2 (3094.3) ........ 1,579.3 (639.1) 

Below, we present brief descriptions 

of all subunits, and reasons why they do 

or do not meet the definition of critical 

habitat for H. paradoxus (see ‘‘Criteria 

Used to Identify Critical Habitat’’

section above). 

Unit 1: West-Central New Mexico 

Subunit 1a is located at Rancho del 

Padre Spring Cienega. This subunit is 

25.5 ac (10.3 ha) in Cibola County, New 

Mexico. The subunit consists of an area 

of Rancho del Padre Spring Cienega 

from the spring on the south side of I–

40 then northeast approximately 0.5 mi 

(0.8 km) to the Rio San Jose. 

This population consists of large 

patches of several thousand plants on 

areas owned by two private landowners 

(22.6 ac (9.1 ha)) and the Pueblo of 

Acoma (2.9 ac (1.2 ha). This site was 

known to be occupied at the time of 

listing and has been visited or observed 

from a public right-of-way by species 

experts during four or more seasons. 

These experts have found the site 

occupied by H. paradoxus on every visit 

(Sivinski 2007a, p. 3). This unit is 

currently occupied, contains all of the 

PCEs, and is threatened by water 

withdrawal, wetland filling and 

development, and livestock grazing 

during H. paradoxus’s growing and 

flowering season. Therefore, special 

management or protections may be 

required to minimize these threats. At 

this time, we are not aware of any 

management plans that address H. 

paradoxus in this area. 

In January 2007, we found that the 

Pueblo of Acoma owned the land that 

contained part of this population. 

Although we are not aware of any 

management plans that address H. 

paradoxus in this area, if the Pueblo or 

other landowners request, we will 

provide technical assistance on 

management of the species and the 

development of a management plan. We 

will consult with the Pueblo and other 

landowners during the proposal period 

to evaluate whether these lands should 

be considered for exclusion in the final 

designation. As such, we may consider 

excluding this area, including lands 

owned by the Pueblo of Acoma, from 

the final critical habitat designation 

pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act 

(see ‘‘Application of Section 4(b)(2) of 

the Act’’ section below for additional 

information). 

Subunit 1b is located at Grants Salt 

Flat Wetland. This subunit is 62.5 ac 

(25.3 ha) in Cibola County, New Mexico. 

The subunit consists of an area of wet 

alkaline playa between railroad tracks 

and I–40 and west of Hwy 122 (Road 

from Interstate to downtown Grants). 

Playas are nearly level areas at the 

bottom of undrained desert basins that 

are sometimes covered in water. 

This population consists of large 

patches of several thousand plants 

mostly on private property. This site 

was known to be occupied at the time 

of listing and has been visited or 

observed from a public right-of-way by 

species experts during four or more 

seasons. These experts have found the 

site occupied by H. paradoxus on every 

visit (Sivinski 2007). This unit is 

currently occupied, contains all of the 

PCEs, and is threatened by wetland 

filling and development, encroachment 

by nonnative vegetation, and livestock 

management not compatible with H. 

paradoxus physiology. Therefore, 

special management or protections may 

be required to minimize these threats. 

At this time, we are not aware of any 

management plans that address H. 

paradoxus in this area. 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
14336 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 58 / Tuesday, March 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

Subunit 1c is located at the Pueblo of 

Laguna. This subunit’s acreage is 

undefined in Valencia County, New 

Mexico. The subunit consists of an area 

along the Rio San Jose, South Garcia, 

New Mexico. 

At this site, H. paradoxus plants are 

located in patches at springs along the 

Rio San Jose. Each patch consists of 

several hundred to several thousand 

plants, and a few scattered plants grow 

along the river (Sivinski 1995, p. 4). The 

entire site belongs to the Pueblo of 

Laguna. This site was known to be 

occupied at the time of listing, is 

currently occupied, contains all of the 

PCEs, and is threatened by water 

withdrawal, encroachment by nonnative 

vegetation, and livestock grazing during 

the H. paradoxus’s growing and 

flowering season. The Pueblo is 

developing a management plan for H. 

paradoxus. On the basis of this plan and 

our partnership with the Pueblo of 

Laguna, we anticipate excluding this 

area from the final critical habitat 

designation pursuant to section 4(b)(2) 

of the Act (see ‘‘Application of Section 

4(b)(2) of the Act’’ section below for 

additional information). 

Unit 2: La Joya 

Unit 2 is located in the La Joya State 

Wildlife Management Area. This unit is 

854.3 ac (345.7 ha) in Socorro County, 

New Mexico. This population is located 

about 7 mi (11 km) south of Bernardo 

within Socorro County near the 

confluence of the Rio Grande and the 

Rio Puerco. The La Joya population is 

bounded to the west by I–25 and to the 

east by the Unit 7 Drain. The north 

boundary is adjacent to River Mile 126 

of the Rio Grande and the south 

boundary is adjacent to River Mile 123. 

One of the largest populations of H. 

paradoxus occurs on the Rio Grande at 

La Joya. This Rio Grande population 

consists of 100,000 to 1,000,000 plants 

and occurs on the La Joya State 

Waterfowl Management Area (Service 

2005, p. 4). It is within the La Joya Unit 

of the Ladd S. Gordon Waterfowl 

Complex. This property is owned by the 

New Mexico State Game Commission. It 

is managed by the New Mexico 

Department of Game and Fish for 

migratory waterfowl habitat, which is 

compatible with preservation of 

wetlands for H. paradoxus. 

This area was not known to be 

occupied at the time of listing. It was 

discovered in 2004. This site has been 

found to be occupied every year since 

then by one of the largest populations of 

H. paradoxus in the range of the species 

(Hirsch 2006, p. 1). This unit is 

currently occupied by a stable 

population (Blue Earth Ecological 

Consultants, Inc. 2007c, p. 3), contains 

all of the PCEs, and is threatened by 

encroachment of nonnative vegetation. 

We have determined this site to be 

essential to the conservation of the 

species because it is currently occupied 

by a stable, very large population of H. 

paradoxus, and is sufficiently distant 

(over 40 mi (64 km)) from other 

populations to serve as an additional 

locality that contributes to the 

conservation of genetic variation. This 

population may prevent extirpation of 

the species resulting from encroachment 

of nonnative species, degradation of 

habitat, or a catastrophic event because 

it is the sole representative located in an 

area distinct from any other population 

in the range of the species. As such, it 

may contain genetic variation not found 

anywhere else in the range of the 

species. Because the water source for 

this population is very stable, this 

population can be expected to persist in 

very large numbers every year. 

Unit 3: Santa Rosa 

Subunit 3a is located at Blue Hole 

Cienega/Blue Hole Fish Hatchery Ponds. 

This subunit is 127.6 ac (51.6 ha) in 

Guadalupe County, New Mexico. The 

Blue Hole Fish Hatchery Ponds 

population of H. paradoxus is part of 

the same population as and nearly 

contiguous with the Blue Hole Cienega 

in Santa Rosa, New Mexico. The Blue 

Hole Fish Hatchery Ponds is 

immediately north of Blue Hole Road 

and the Blue Hole Cienega is 

immediately south. 

This subunit was known to be 

occupied at the time of listing and has 

been visited by species experts during 

four or more seasons. These experts 

found the subunit to be occupied by H. 

paradoxus on every visit (Sivinski 

2007a, p. 2). This subunit is currently 

occupied (Blue Earth Ecological 

Consultants, Inc. 2006, p.1), contains all 

of the PCEs, and is threatened by 

encroachment by nonnative vegetation, 

wetland filling, and park maintenance 

activities. Therefore, special 

management or protections may be 

required to minimize these threats. At 

this time, we are not aware of any 

management plans that address H. 

paradoxus in this area. 

The part of this population at Blue 

Hole Cienega consists of 100,000 to 

1,000,000 plants and is the largest 

population of H. paradoxus in the upper 

Pecos River basin. A non-traditional 

section 6 grant was awarded to the State 

of New Mexico in 2004 for acquisition 

of the Blue Hole Cienega, which was 

finalized in July 2005. At this site, 

shallow ground water seeps to the 

surface to create cienega communities. 

This subunit is currently occupied, 

contains all of the PCEs, and is 

threatened by encroachment by 

nonnative vegetation. Therefore, special 

management or protections may be 

required to minimize these threats. At 

this time, we are not aware of any 

management plans that address H. 

paradoxus in this area. 

The part of this population at the Blue 

Hole Fish Hatchery Ponds is owned and 

administered by the City of Santa Rosa 

and consists of approximately 1,000 

plants. This site is maintained as a 

recreational area. Park maintenance staff 

have voluntarily stopped mowing and 

cutting the sunflower during the months 

of August and September. An 

information kiosk on endangered 

wetland plants is being planned for the 

bike/foot path along the creek at Blue 

Hole Park. 

This subunit was confirmed to be 

occupied in 2006 (Blue Earth Ecological 

Consultants, Inc. 2006, p. 4), contains 

all of the PCEs, and is threatened by 

encroachment from nonnative 

vegetation, wetland filling, and park 

maintenance activities. Therefore, 

special management or protections may 

be required to minimize these threats. 

The City of Santa Rosa is willing to 

participate in the development of a 

conservation plan. We will work with 

the City in this effort to develop and 

implement a plan to conserve this 

population. 

Subunit 3b is located at Westside 

Spring. This subunit is 6.4 ac (2.6 ha) in 

Santa Rosa, Guadalupe County, New 

Mexico. The subunit consists of an area 

along an unnamed spring on west side 

of Pecos River, located to the west of 

River Road and 1 mi (1.6 km) east of 

Highway 54. 

This area was not known to be 

occupied at the time of listing. It was 

discovered in 2005, and contained 

thousands of plants. This site was found 

to be occupied again in 2006 by a 

species expert observing from a public 

right-of-way (Sivinski 2007). This 

subunit is currently occupied by a stable 

population, contains all of the PCEs, 

and is threatened by proximity to a 

major road, water withdrawal, wetland 

filling and development, and 

encroachment of nonnative vegetation. 

Therefore, special management or 

protections may be required to 

minimize these threats. At this time, we 

are not aware of any management plans 

that address H. paradoxus in this area. 

We have determined this site to be 

essential to the conservation of the 

species because it is currently occupied 

by a stable, large population of H. 

paradoxus, and is one of only two 

stable, large populations in Unit 3. This 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 58 / Tuesday, March 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 14337 

subunit is sufficiently distant (over 40 

mi (64 km)) from other populations to 

serve as an additional locality that 

contributes to the conservation of 

genetic variation. This population may 

prevent extirpation of the species 

resulting from encroachment of 

nonnative species, degradation of 

habitat, or a catastrophic event that 

could occur to the other subunit in Unit 

3. It may also contain genetic variation 

specific to this Unit. Because the water 

source for this population is very stable, 

this population can be expected to 

persist in large numbers every year. 

Unit 4: Roswell/Dexter 

Subunit 4a is located at Bitter Lake 

National Wildlife Refuge/ City of 

Roswell Land. The subunit is 3,572.2 ac 

(1,445.6 ha) in Chaves County, New 

Mexico. This subunit is located 

approximately 5 mi (8 km) northeast of 

Roswell. 

One of the largest H. 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 known to be 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 H. 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 and contains all of 

the PCEs. However, this area is covered 

by a final Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan (CCP) that manages H. paradoxus 

in a manner that provides a 

conservation benefit to the species; 

therefore, we believe this area does not 

require special management or 

protections. As this area does not meet 

the definition of critical habitat, the 

portion of this subunit within Bitter 

Lake National Wildlife Refuge has not 

been included in this critical habitat 

proposal. Please see ‘‘Application of 

Section 3(5)(a) of the Act’’ below for 

additional discussion. 

Approximately 92.2 ac (37.3 ha) of 

land adjacent to the southwest boundary 

of Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

is owned by the City of Roswell. There 

are a few thousand H. paradoxus on this 

land. It is located on a large alkaline 

cienega adjoining the Bitter Lake 

National Wildlife Refuge population. 

This site was known to be occupied at 

the time of listing and has been visited 

by species experts during at least two 

seasons. These experts have found it 

occupied by H. paradoxus on both visits 

(Sivinski 2007a, p. 2). This unit is 

currently occupied (Blue Earth 

Ecological Consultants, Inc. 2007c, p. 3), 

contains all of the PCEs, and is 

threatened by water withdrawal, 

wetland filling and development, and 

livestock grazing during H. paradoxus’s 

growing and flowering season. 

Therefore, special management or 

protections may be required to 

minimize these threats. At this time, we 

are not aware of any management plans 

that address H. paradoxus in this 

portion of the subunit. 

Subunit 4b is located at Bitter Lake 

National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) Farm. 

This subunit is 686.2 ac (277.7 ha) in 

Chaves County, New Mexico. The 

subunit is located approximately 5 mi (8 

km) east of Roswell on the west side of 

the Pecos River. 

This area 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 H. 

paradoxus. The wet soils in this 

population are not cultivated. 

This site was known to be 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 H. 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 and contains all of 

the PCEs. However, this area is covered 

by a final CCP that manages H. 

paradoxus in a manner that provides a 

conservation benefit to the species; 

therefore, we believe this area does not 

require special management or 

protections. As this area does not meet 

the definition of critical habitat, it has 

not been included in the critical habitat 

proposal. Please see ‘‘Application of 

Section 3(5)(a) of the Act’’ below for 

additional discussion. 

Subunit 4c is located at the Oasis 

Dairy. This subunit is 103.9 ac (42.0 ha) 

Chaves County, New Mexico. The 

subunit is located on the east side of 

Roswell, west side of Pecos River 

Valley, approximately 4.5 mi (7.2 km) 

southeast of the Hwy 380 bridge, and 

beside an unnamed spring 

approximately 0.6 mi (1 km) west of the 

Pecos River and 5.5 mi (8.9 km) south 

of Highway 380. 

This site contains a very large, dense 

patch of several thousand H. paradoxus 

in a low alkaline sink area 

approximately 0.5 mi (0.8 km) west of 

the Pecos River on private land. It also 

contains a large patch with many 

thousands of H. paradoxus in a low area 

below a spring, also on private land. 

This site was known to be occupied at 

the time of listing and has been visited 

by species experts during at least three 

seasons. These experts found the site 

occupied by H. paradoxus on every visit 

(Sivinski 2007a, p. 3). This subunit is 

currently occupied, contains all of the 

PCEs, and is threatened by livestock 

grazing during H. paradoxus’s growing 

and flowering season, water withdrawal, 

and wetland filling and development. 

Therefore, special management or 

protections may be required to 

minimize these threats. At this time, we 

are not aware of any management plans 

that address H. paradoxus in this area. 

Subunit 4d is located at Lea Lake at 

Bottomless Lakes State Park. This 

subunit is 19.5 ac (7.9 ha) in Chaves 

County, New Mexico. It includes the 

wet margins of Lea Lake. 

This site contains a few thousand 

plants on the riparian margins of Lea 

Lake. This land belongs to the State of 

New Mexico and is managed by the 

New Mexico Parks and Recreation 

Division. Lea Lake is used as a picnic 

area and campground for the State Park. 

This site was known to be 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 H. paradoxus on every visit 

(Sivinski 2007a, p. 3). This subunit is 

currently occupied (Sivinski 2007a, p. 3; 

Blue Earth Ecological Consultants, Inc. 

2007a, p. 3), contains all of the PCEs, 

and is threatened by encroachment of 

nonnative vegetation, and recreational 

and park maintenance activities. 

Therefore, special management or 

protections may be required to 

minimize these threats. At this time, we 

are not aware of any management plans 

that address H. paradoxus in this area. 

Subunit 4e is located at Dexter 

Cienega. This subunit is 41.4 ac (16.8 

ha) in Chaves County, New Mexico. The 

subunit is located in a small valley west 

of the Pecos River, east of the Hagerman 

Irrigation Canal, and 2.9 mi (4.7 km) 

north of Dexter. 

This site consists of several thousand 

plants on private land along a wide, 

boggy drainage bottom. This site was 

known to be occupied at the time of 

listing based upon observations from a 

public right-of-way by species experts 

during at least three seasons (Sivinski 

2007a, p. 2). This subunit is currently 

occupied, contains all of the PCEs, and 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
14338 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 58 / Tuesday, March 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

is threatened by water withdrawal, 

wetland filling and development, and 

livestock grazing during H. paradoxus’s 

growing and flowering season. 

Therefore, special management or 

protections may be required to 

minimize these threats. At this time, we 

are not aware of any management plans 

that address H. paradoxus in this area. 

Unit 5: West Texas 

This unit is located at Diamond Y 

Spring. It is 239.7 ac (97.0 ha) in Pecos 

County, Texas. This unit is located 

approximately 12 mi (20 km) northnorthwest of Fort Stockton, Texas. 

The Nature Conservancy owns a very 

large area of habitat for H. paradoxus 

that contains 100,000 to 1,000,000 

plants within its Diamond Y Spring 

Preserve near Fort Stockton, Pecos 

County, Texas. This is the type locality, 

or location from which the species was 

first described. It consists of a large 

population with several hundred 

thousand to one million plants at The 

Nature Conservancy’s Diamond Y 

Spring Preserve, and a small group of 

plants downstream at a nearby highway 

right-of-way, and another small group of 

plants on adjacent private land. This 

site was known to be 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 H. paradoxus on every visit 

(Poole 2006, p. 2). This unit is currently 

occupied (Blue Earth Ecological 

Consultants, Inc. 2007b, p. 3) and 

contains all of the PCEs. On The Nature 

Conservancy land, H. paradoxus is 

threatened by water withdrawal. The 

Nature Conservancy land was 

purchased to protect this plant and 

other rare or endangered aquatic species 

in the Diamond Y Spring system. This 

habitat is managed for conservation of 

these species (Service 2005, p. 12). 

Diamond Y Spring Preserve recently 

expanded from 1,500 to 4,000 acres. On 

the private land, H. paradoxus has the 

same threat as above, plus wetland 

filling and development, and livestock 

grazing during H. paradoxus’s growing 

and flowering season. Therefore, 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 3 below provides approximate 

area of lands containing features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species, lands not included in proposed 

critical habitat, lands considered for 

exclusion from the final critical habitat 

rule, and reasons why we are not 

including those lands in proposed 

critical habitat or considering those 

lands for exclusion from the final 

critical habitat rule. 

TABLE 3.—NON-INCLUSIONS AND PROPOSED EXCLUSIONS BY SUBUNIT

Subunit/geographical area Reason for non-inclusion or 

proposed exclusion 

Acres 

(hectares) 

Proposed exclusion 

acres 

(hectares) 

Subunit 1c. Pueblo of Laguna .......................... Section 4(b)(2) of the Act ................................. Undefined .................. Undefined 

Subunit 4a. Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge.Section 3(5)(a) of the Act ................................. 3,480.0 (1,408.3) ....... 3,480.0 (1,408.3) 

Subunit 4b. Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge Farm.Section 3(5) (a) of the Act ................................ 686.2 (277.7) ............. 686.2 (277.7) 

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation 

Section 7 Consultation 

Section 7 of the Act requires Federal 

agencies, including the Service, to 

ensure that actions they fund, authorize, 

or carry out are not likely to destroy or 

adversely modify critical habitat. In our 

regulations at 50 CFR 402.02, we define 

destruction or adverse modification as 

‘‘a direct or indirect alteration that 

appreciably diminishes the value of 

critical habitat for both the survival and 

recovery of a listed species. Such 

alterations include, but are not limited 

to, alterations adversely modifying any 

of those physical or biological features 

that were the basis for determining the 

habitat to be critical.’’ However, recent 

decisions by the 5th and 9th Circuit 

Court of Appeals have invalidated this 

definition (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, 442F (5th Cir 2001)). 

Pursuant to current national policy and 

the statutory provisions of the Act, 

destruction or adverse modification is 

determined on the basis of whether, 

with implementation of the proposed 

Federal action, the affected critical 

habitat would remain functional (or 

retain the current ability for the primary 

constituent elements to be functionally 

established) to serve the intended 

conservation role for the species. 

Section 7(a) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies, including the Service, 

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 

proposed or 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 us on 

any action that is likely to jeopardize 

the continued existence of a proposed 

species or result in destruction or 

adverse modification of proposed 

critical habitat. This is a procedural 

requirement only. However, once a 

proposed species becomes listed, or 

proposed critical habitat is designated 

as final, the full prohibitions of section 

7(a)(2) apply to any Federal action. The 

primary utility of the conference 

procedures is to maximize the 

opportunity for a Federal agency to 

adequately consider proposed species 

and critical habitat and avoid potential 

delays in implementing their proposed 

action because of the section 7(a)(2) 

compliance process, should those 

species be listed or the critical habitat 

designated. 

Under conference procedures, the 

Service may provide advisory 

conservation recommendations to assist 

the agency in eliminating conflicts that 

may be caused by the proposed action. 

The Service may conduct either 

informal or formal conferences. Informal 

conferences are typically used if the 

proposed action is not likely to have any 

adverse effects to the proposed species 

or proposed critical habitat. Formal 

conferences are typically used when the 

Federal agency or the Service believes 

the proposed action is likely to cause 

adverse effects to proposed species or 

critical habitat, inclusive of those that 

may cause jeopardy or adverse 

modification. 

The results of an informal conference 

are typically transmitted in a conference 

report, while the results of a formal 

conference are typically transmitted in a 

conference opinion. Conference 

opinions on proposed critical habitat are 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 58 / Tuesday, March 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 14339 

typically prepared according to 50 CFR 

402.14, as if the proposed critical 

habitat were designated. We may adopt 

the conference opinion as the biological 

opinion when the critical habitat is 

designated, if no substantial new 

information or changes in the action 

alter the content of the opinion (see 50 

CFR 402.10(d)). As noted above, any 

conservation recommendations in a 

conference report or opinion are strictly 

advisory. 

If a species is listed or critical habitat 

is designated, 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 such a species or 

to destroy or adversely modify its 

critical habitat. 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. As a result of this 

consultation, compliance with the 

requirements of section 7(a)(2) will be 

documented through the Service’s 

issuance of: (1) A concurrence letter for 

Federal actions that may affect, but are 

not likely to adversely affect, listed 

species or critical habitat; or (2) a 

biological opinion for Federal actions 

that may affect, and are likely to 

adversely affect, listed species or critical 

habitat. 

When we issue a biological opinion 

concluding that a project is likely to 

result in jeopardy to a listed species or 

the destruction or adverse modification 

of critical habitat, we also provide 

reasonable and prudent alternatives to 

the project, if any are identifiable. 

‘‘Reasonable and prudent alternatives’’

are defined at 50 CFR 402.02 as 

alternative actions identified during 

consultation that can be implemented in 

a manner consistent with the intended 

purpose of the action, that are consistent 

with the scope of the Federal agency’s 

legal authority and jurisdiction, that are 

economically and technologically 

feasible, and that the Director believes 

would avoid jeopardy to the listed 

species or destruction or adverse 

modification of 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 a new 

species is listed or critical habitat is 

subsequently designated that may be 

affected and the Federal agency has 

retained discretionary involvement or 

control over the action or such 

discretionary involvement or control is 

authorized by law. Consequently, some 

Federal agencies may request 

reinitiation of consultation with us on 

actions for which formal consultation 

has been completed, if those actions 

may affect subsequently listed species 

or designated critical habitat or 

adversely modify or destroy proposed 

critical habitat. 

Federal activities that may affect H. 

paradoxus or its designated critical 

habitat will require section 7 

consultation under the Act. Activities 

on State, Tribal, local or private lands 

requiring a Federal permit (such as a 

permit from the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers under section 404 of the 

Clean Water Act or a permit under 

section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act from the 

Service) or involving some other Federal 

action (such as funding from the Federal 

Highway Administration, Federal 

Aviation Administration, or the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency) will 

also be subject to the section 7 

consultation process. Federal actions 

not affecting listed species or critical 

habitat, and actions on State, Tribal, 

local or private lands that are not 

federally funded, authorized, or 

permitted, do not require section 7 

consultations. 

Application of the Jeopardy and 

Adverse Modification Standards for 

Actions Involving Effects to Helianthus 

paradoxus and Its Critical Habitat 

Jeopardy Standard 

The Service has applied an analytical 

framework for H. paradoxus jeopardy 

analyses that relies heavily on the 

importance of core area populations to 

the survival and recovery of H. 

paradoxus. The section 7(a)(2) analysis 

is focused not only on these populations 

but also on the habitat conditions 

necessary to support them. 

The jeopardy analysis usually 

expresses the survival and recovery 

needs of H. paradoxus in a qualitative 

fashion without making distinctions 

between what is necessary for survival 

and what is necessary for recovery. 

Generally, if a proposed Federal action 

is incompatible with the viability of the 

affected core area population(s), 

inclusive of associated habitat 

conditions, a jeopardy finding is 

warranted because of the relationship of 

each core area population to the 

survival and recovery of the species as 

a whole. 

Adverse Modification Standard 

For the reasons described in the 

Director’s December 9, 2004 

memorandum, the key factor related to 

the adverse modification determination 

is whether, with implementation of the 

proposed Federal action, the affected 

critical habitat would remain functional 

(or retain the current ability for the 

primary constituent elements to be 

functionally established) to serve the 

intended conservation role for the 

species. Generally, the conservation role 

of H. paradoxus critical habitat units is 

to support viable core area populations. 

Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us 

to briefly evaluate and describe in any 

proposed or final regulation that 

designates critical habitat those 

activities involving a Federal action that 

may destroy or adversely modify such 

habitat, or that may be affected by such 

designation. Activities that may destroy 

or adversely modify critical habitat may 

also jeopardize the continued existence 

of the species. 

Activities that may destroy or 

adversely modify critical habitat are 

those that alter the PCEs to an extent 

that the conservation value of critical 

habitat for the species is appreciably 

reduced. Activities that, when carried 

out, funded, or authorized by a Federal 

agency, may affect critical habitat and 

therefore should result in consultation 

for H. paradoxus include, but are not 

limited to: 

(1) Projects that physically alter 

permanently saturated saline or alkaline 

soils (e.g., salt deposits or crusts 

present) or result in the loss and 

degradation of H. paradoxus habitat. 

Such activities could include, but are 

not limited to, drying of wetlands from 

groundwater depletion, alteration of 

wetlands (e.g., wetland fills, draining, 

impoundment wetland filling and 

development), livestock management 

not compatible with H. paradoxus’s 

physiology, clearing, introducing or 

encouraging the spread of nonnative 

plants, and recreational use (such as the 

use of off-road vehicles); 

(2) Removing, thinning, or destroying 

H. paradoxus plants. This may occur 

through plowing, grading, wetland 

filling and development, road building, 

burning, mechanical weed control, 

herbicide application, and activities 

associated with firefighting (e.g., staging 

areas, surface disturbance); and 

(3) Activities that appreciably 

diminish habitat value or quality 

through indirect effects (e.g., 

encroachment of nonnative plants or 

animals, or fragmentation). 

We consider all of the units proposed 

as critical habitat, as well as those that 

have been proposed for exclusion or not 

included due to special management, to 

contain features essential to the 

conservation of H. paradoxus. All units 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
14340 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 58 / Tuesday, March 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

are within the geographic range of the 

species, all except two were known at 

the time of listing to be occupied by the 

species (based on observations made 

within the last 14 seasons (Ulibarri 

2006; Kargas 2007; Sivinski 2007)), and 

are likely to be used by H. paradoxus. 

Federal agencies already consult with us 

on activities in areas currently occupied 

by H. paradoxus, or if the species may 

be affected by the action, to ensure that 

their actions do not jeopardize the 

continued existence of H. paradoxus. 

Application of Section 3(5)(A) of the Act 

Section 3(5)(A) of the Act defines 

critical habitat as the specific areas 

within the geographic area occupied by 

the species on which are found those 

physical and biological features (i) 

essential to the conservation of the 

species, and (ii) which may require 

special management considerations or 

protection. Therefore, areas known at 

the time of listing to be occupied by the 

species that do not contain the features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species are not, by definition, critical 

habitat. Similarly, areas known at the 

time of listing to be occupied by the 

species that require no special 

management or protection also are not, 

by definition, critical habitat. 

There are multiple ways to provide 

management for species habitat. 

Statutory and regulatory frameworks 

that exist at a local level can provide 

such protection and management, as can 

lack of pressure for change, such as 

areas too remote for anthropogenic 

disturbance. Finally, State, local, or 

private management plans, as well as 

management under Federal agencies’

jurisdictions, can provide protection 

and management to avoid the need for 

designation of critical habitat. When we 

consider a plan to determine its 

adequacy in protecting habitat, we 

consider whether the plan, as a whole, 

will provide the same level of protection 

that designation of critical habitat 

would provide. The plan need not lead 

to exactly the same result as a 

designation in every individual 

application, as long as the protection it 

provides is equivalent overall. In 

making this determination, we examine 

whether the plan provides management, 

protection, or enhancement of the PCEs 

that is at least equivalent to that 

provided by a critical habitat 

designation, and whether there is a 

reasonable expectation that the 

management, protection, or 

enhancement actions will continue into 

the foreseeable future. Each review is 

particular to the species and the plan, 

and some plans may be adequate for 

some species and inadequate for others. 

Within the areas known to be 

occupied by H. paradoxus at the time of 

listing and containing sufficient PCEs to 

support H. paradoxus’s life processes, 

we have 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. Our preliminary analysis of 

section 3(5)(a) of the Act and special 

management on these Refuge lands 

follows. 

Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge: 

Lands within the Service’s Bitter Lake 

National Wildlife Refuge and the Refuge 

Farm are considered to be occupied and 

contain the necessary features that are 

essential for the conservation of H. 

paradoxus. Below, we provide general 

background information on the Refuge 

and CCP, followed by an analysis 

pursuant to section 3(5)(a) of the Act of 

the current management provisions on 

the Refuge. 

The Bitter Lake National Wildlife 

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 wildlifeoriented 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 

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 H. 

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) wildlifedependent 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. 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 58 / Tuesday, March 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 14341 

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 after the plan is 

made final, 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 H. 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 

managment 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 (H. 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 H. paradoxus and that 

special management consideration or 

protections are not required. Therefore, 

we have determined that the Refuge 

lands do not meet the definition of 

critical habitat under section 3(5)(a) of 

the Act, and we are not proposing to 

designate critical habitat for H. 

paradoxus within Bitter Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge or the Refuge farm. 

Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that 

critical habitat shall be designated, and 

revised, 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 Congressional record is clear that 

the Secretary is afforded broad 

discretion regarding which factor(s) to 

use and how much weight to give to any 

factor. 

Under section 4(b)(2), in considering 

whether to exclude a particular area 

from the 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 an exclusion is 

contemplated, then we must determine 

whether excluding the area would result 

in the extinction of the species. In the 

following sections, we address a number 

of general issues that are relevant to the 

exclusions we are considering. In 

addition, the Service is conducting an 

economic analysis of the impacts of the 

proposed critical habitat designation 

and related factors, which will be 

available for public review and 

comment. Based on public comment on 

that document, the proposed 

designation itself, and the information 

in the final economic analysis, 

additional areas beyond those identified 

in this assessment 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. 

Benefits of Designating Critical Habitat 

Educational Benefits 

A benefit of including lands in critical 

habitat is that the designation of critical 

habitat serves to educate landowners, 

State and local governments, and the 

public regarding the potential 

conservation value of an area. This 

helps focus and promote conservation 

efforts by other parties by clearly 

delineating areas of high conservation 

value for H. paradoxus. In general, the 

educational benefit of a critical habitat 

designation always exists, although in 

some cases it may be redundant with 

other educational effects. For example, 

Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) have 

significant public input and may largely 

duplicate the educational benefit of a 

critical habitat designation. This benefit 

is closely related to a second, more 

indirect benefit: that the designation of 

critical habitat would inform State 

agencies and local governments about 

areas that could be conserved under 

State laws or local ordinances. 

Conservation Partnerships on NonFederal Lands 

Most federally listed species in the 

United States will not recover without 

the cooperation of non-Federal 

landowners. More than 60 percent of the 

United States is privately owned 

(National Wilderness Institute 1995), 

and at least 80 percent of endangered or 

threatened species occur either partially 

or solely on private lands (Crouse et al. 

2002). Stein et al. (1995) found that only 

about 12 percent of listed species were 

found almost exclusively on Federal 

lands (90 to 100 percent of their known 

occurrences restricted to Federal lands) 

and that 50 percent of federally listed 

species are not known to occur on 

Federal lands at all. 

Given the distribution of listed 

species with respect to land ownership, 

conservation of listed species in many 

parts of the United States is dependent 

upon working partnerships with a wide 

variety of entities and the voluntary 

cooperation of many non-Federal 

landowners (Wilcove and Chen 1998; 

Crouse et al. 2002; James 2002). 

Building partnerships and promoting 

voluntary cooperation of landowners is 

essential to understanding the status of 

species on non-Federal lands and is 

necessary to implement recovery actions 

such as reintroducing listed species, 

habitat restoration, and habitat 

protection. 

Many non-Federal landowners derive 

satisfaction in contributing to 

endangered species’ recovery. The 

Service promotes these private-sector 

efforts through the Department of the 

Interior’s Cooperative Conservation 

philosophy. This philosophy is evident 

in Service programs such as HCPs, Safe 

Harbor Agreements, Candidate 

Conservation Agreements, Candidate 

Conservation Agreements with 

Assurances, and conservation challenge 

cost-share. Many private landowners, 

however, are wary of the possible 

consequences of encouraging 

endangered species to their property, 

and there is mounting evidence that 

some regulatory actions by the Federal 

government, while well-intentioned and 

required by law, can (under certain 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
14342 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 58 / Tuesday, March 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

circumstances) have unintended 

negative consequences for the 

conservation of species on private lands 

(Wilcove et al. 1996; Bean 2002; Conner 

and Mathews 2002; James 2002; Koch 

2002; Brook et al. 2003). Many 

landowners fear a decline in their 

property value due to real or perceived 

restrictions on land-use options where 

threatened or endangered species are 

found. Consequently, harboring 

endangered species is viewed by many 

landowners as a liability, resulting in 

anti-conservation incentives because 

maintaining habitats that harbor 

endangered species represents a risk to 

future economic opportunities (Main et 

al. 1999; Brook et al. 2003). 

The Department of the Interior’s 

Cooperative Conservation philosophy is 

the foundation for developing the tools 

of conservation. These tools include 

conservation grants, funding for 

Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, 

the Coastal Program, and cooperativeconservation challenge cost-share 

grants. Our Private Stewardship Grant 

program and Landowner Incentive 

Program provide assistance to private 

landowners in their voluntary efforts to 

protect threatened, imperiled, and 

endangered species, including the 

development and implementation of 

Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs). 

Conservation agreements with nonFederal landowners (HCPs, contractual 

conservation agreements, easements, 

and stakeholder-negotiated State 

regulations) enhance species 

conservation by extending species 

protections beyond those available 

through section 7 consultations. In the 

past decade, we have encouraged nonFederal landowners to enter into 

conservation agreements, based on a 

view that we can achieve greater species 

conservation on non-Federal land 

through such partnerships than we can 

through coercive methods. We invite 

discussion with all landowners within 

the proposed critical habitat that have 

an interest in developing conservation 

strategies that we would evaluate to 

determine if they provide a greater 

benefit to H. paradoxus than could be 

achieved through the final designation 

of critical habitat. 

The purpose of designating critical 

habitat is to contribute to the 

conservation of threatened and 

endangered species and the ecosystems 

upon which they depend. The outcome 

of the designation, triggering regulatory 

requirements for actions funded, 

authorized, or carried out by Federal 

agencies under section 7 of the Act, can 

sometimes be counterproductive to its 

intended purpose on non-Federal lands. 

According to some researchers, the 

designation of critical habitat on private 

lands significantly reduces the 

likelihood that landowners will support 

and carry out conservation actions 

(Main et al. 1999; Bean 2002; Brook et 

al. 2003). The magnitude of this 

negative outcome is greatly amplified in 

situations where active management 

measures (such as reintroduction, fire 

management, control of invasive 

species) are necessary for species 

conservation (Bean 2002). The Service 

believes that the judicious use of 

excluding specific areas of non-federally 

owned lands from critical habitat 

designations can contribute to species 

recovery and provide a superior level of 

conservation than critical habitat alone. 

General Principles of Section 7 

Consultations Used in the 4(b)(2) 

Balancing Process 

The most direct, and potentially 

largest, regulatory benefit of critical 

habitat is that federally authorized, 

funded, or carried out activities require 

consultation under section 7 of the Act 

to ensure that they are not likely to 

destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat. There are two limitations to this 

regulatory effect. First, it only applies 

where there is a Federal nexus—if there 

is no Federal nexus, designation itself 

does not restrict actions that destroy or 

adversely modify critical habitat. 

Second, it only limits destruction or 

adverse modification. By its nature, the 

prohibition on adverse modification is 

designed to ensure those areas that 

contain the physical and biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species or unoccupied areas that are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species are not eroded. Critical habitat 

designation alone, however, does not 

require specific steps toward recovery. 

Once consultation under section 7 of 

the Act is triggered, the process may 

conclude informally when the Service 

concurs in writing that the proposed 

Federal action is not likely to adversely 

affect the listed species or its critical 

habitat. However, if the Service 

determines through informal 

consultation that adverse impacts are 

likely to occur, then formal consultation 

would be initiated. Formal consultation 

concludes with a biological opinion 

issued by the Service on whether the 

proposed Federal action is likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of a 

listed species or result in destruction or 

adverse modification of critical habitat, 

with separate analyses being made 

under both the jeopardy and the adverse 

modification standards. For critical 

habitat, a biological opinion that 

concludes in a determination of no 

destruction or adverse modification may 

contain discretionary conservation 

recommendations to minimize adverse 

effects to primary constituent elements, 

but it would not contain any mandatory 

reasonable and prudent measures or 

terms and conditions. Mandatory 

measures and terms and conditions to 

implement such measures are only 

specified when the proposed action 

would result in the incidental take of a 

listed animal. Reasonable and prudent 

alternatives to the proposed Federal 

action would only be suggested when 

the biological opinion results in a 

jeopardy or adverse modification 

conclusion. 

We also note that for 30 years prior to 

the Ninth Circuit Court’s decision in 

Gifford Pinchot, the Service combined 

the jeopardy standard with the standard 

for destruction or adverse modification 

of critical habitat when evaluating 

Federal actions that affect currentlyoccupied critical habitat. The Court 

ruled that the two standards are distinct 

and that adverse modification 

evaluations require consideration of 

impacts on the recovery of species. 

Thus, under the Gifford Pinchot 

decision, critical habitat designations 

may provide greater benefits to the 

recovery of a species. However, we 

believe the conservation achieved 

through implementing habitat 

conservation plans (HCPs) or other 

habitat management plans is typically 

greater than would be achieved through 

multiple site-by-site, project-by-project, 

section 7 consultations involving 

consideration of critical habitat. 

Management plans commit resources to 

implement long-term management and 

protection to particular habitat for at 

least one and possibly other listed or 

sensitive species. Section 7 

consultations only commit Federal 

agencies to prevent adverse 

modification to critical habitat caused 

by the particular project, and agencies 

do not have to commit to provide 

conservation or long-term benefits to 

areas not affected by the proposed 

project. Thus, any HCP or management 

plan that considers enhancement or 

recovery as the management standard 

will often provide as much or more 

benefit than a consultation for critical 

habitat designation conducted under the 

standards required by the Ninth Circuit 

in the Gifford Pinchot decision. 

The information provided in this 

section applies to all the discussions 

below that discuss the benefits of 

inclusion and exclusion of critical 

habitat in that it provides the framework 

for the consultation process. 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 58 / Tuesday, March 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 14343 

Benefits of Excluding Lands With 

Approved Management Plans From 

Critical Habitat 

The benefits of excluding lands with 

approved management plans from 

critical habitat designation include 

relieving landowners, communities, and 

counties of any additional regulatory 

burden that might be imposed by a 

critical habitat designation. Most 

conservation plans take many years to 

develop and, upon completion, are 

consistent with the recovery objectives 

for listed species that are covered within 

the plan area. Many conservation plans 

also provide conservation benefits to 

unlisted sensitive species. Imposing an 

additional regulatory review as a result 

of the designation of critical habitat may 

undermine these conservation efforts 

and partnerships designed to 

proactively protect species to ensure 

that listing under the Act will not be 

necessary. Designation of critical habitat 

within the boundaries of management 

plans that provide conservation 

measures for a species could be viewed 

as a disincentive to those entities 

currently developing these plans or 

contemplating them in the future, 

because one of the incentives for 

undertaking conservation is greater ease 

of permitting where listed species are 

affected. Addition of a new regulatory 

requirement would remove a significant 

incentive for undertaking the time and 

expense of management planning. In 

fact, designating critical habitat in areas 

covered by a pending conservation plan 

could result in the loss of some species’

benefits if participants abandon the 

planning process, in part because of the 

strength of the perceived additional 

regulatory compliance that such 

designation would entail. The time and 

cost of regulatory compliance for a 

critical habitat designation do not have 

to be quantified for them to be perceived 

as additional Federal regulatory burden 

sufficient to discourage continued 

participation in plans targeting listed 

species’ conservation. 

A related benefit of excluding lands 

within management plans from critical 

habitat designation is the unhindered, 

continued ability to seek new 

partnerships with future plan 

participants including States, counties, 

local jurisdictions, conservation 

organizations, and private landowners, 

which together can implement 

conservation actions that we would be 

unable to accomplish otherwise. If lands 

within approved management plan 

areas are designated as critical habitat, 

it would likely have a negative effect on 

our ability to establish new partnerships 

to develop these plans, particularly 

plans that address landscape-level 

conservation of species and habitats. By 

preemptively excluding these lands, we 

preserve our current partnerships and 

encourage additional conservation 

actions in the future. 

Relationship of Critical Habitat to Tribal 

Lands 

In accordance with the Secretarial 

Order 3206, ‘‘American Indian Tribal 

Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust 

Responsibilities, and the Endangered 

Species Act’’ (June 5, 1997); the 

President’s memorandum of April 29, 

1994, ‘‘Government-to-Government 

Relations with Native American Tribal 

Governments’’ (59 FR 22951); Executive 

Order 13175; and the relevant provision 

of the Departmental Manual of the 

Department of the Interior (512 DM 2), 

we believe that fish, wildlife, and other 

natural resources on tribal lands are 

better managed under tribal authorities, 

policies, and programs than through 

Federal regulation wherever possible 

and practicable. Based on this 

philosophy, we believe that, in many 

cases, designation of tribal lands as 

critical habitat provides very little 

additional benefit to threatened and 

endangered species. Conversely, such 

designation is often viewed by tribes as 

an unwanted intrusion into tribal self 

governance, thus compromising the 

government-to-government relationship 

essential to achieving our mutual goals 

of managing for healthy ecosystems 

upon which the viability of threatened 

and endangered species populations 

depend. 

In our critical habitat designations, we 

use the provision outlined in section 

4(b)(2) of the Act to evaluate those 

specific areas that contain the features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species to determine which areas to 

propose and subsequently finalize (i.e., 

designate) as critical habitat. On the 

basis of our preliminary evaluation, 

discussed in detail below, we are 

proposing to exclude certain lands from 

the final designation of critical habitat 

for H. paradoxus. In the development of 

our final designation, we will 

incorporate or address any new 

information received during the public 

comment periods, and from our 

evaluation of the potential economic 

and or other relevant impacts of this 

proposal. As such, we may revise this 

proposal to address new information 

and/or exclude additional areas that 

may warrant exclusion pursuant to 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act. 

Pueblo of Acoma 

The Pueblo of Acoma has lands 

containing features essential to the 

conservation of H. paradoxus. In 

making our decision on the final critical 

habitat designation with regard to these 

lands, we will be considering several 

factors, including our relationship with 

the Pueblo and whether a management 

plan has been developed for the 

conservation of H. paradoxus on their 

lands. Currently, we are not aware of a 

management plan for H. paradoxus. As 

noted above, if the Pueblo requests, we 

will provide technical assistance on 

management of the species and the 

development of a management plan. We 

also note that lands of the Pueblo of 

Acoma could be considered for 

exclusion in the final determination or 

designation under section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act and that any exclusions made in the 

final determination or designation will 

be the result of an analysis of any new 

information received. 

Pueblo of Laguna 

The Pueblo of Laguna has lands 

containing features essential to the 

conservation of H. paradoxus. In 

making our final decision with regard to 

Pueblo lands, we will consider several 

factors, including our relationship with 

the Pueblo and whether a management 

plan has been developed for the 

conservation of H. paradoxus on their 

lands. On August 2, 2004, in a letter to 

the New Mexico Ecological Services 

Field Office from Pueblo of Laguna 

Governor Johnson, we learned that the 

Pueblo has developed a draft 

management plan for H. paradoxus and 

has been managing Pueblo land 

consistent with the protection and 

recovery of the sunflower. We received 

the Pecos Sunflower (Helianthus 

paradoxus) Draft Management Plan, 

Pueblo of Laguna, 2007, for review on 

February 8, 2007, and we are working 

with the Pueblo on finalizing the 

management plan for their lands. On the 

basis of our partnership with the 

Pueblo, and in anticipation of 

completion of a management plan, the 

populations of H. paradoxus associated 

with spring habitats along the Rio San 

Jose belonging to the Pueblo of Laguna 

may be excluded from final critical 

habitat designation pursuant to section 

4(b)(2) of the Act (see ‘‘Relationship of 

Critical Habitat to Tribal Lands’’ section 

below for additional information). 

Economic Analysis 

An analysis of the economic impacts 

of proposing critical habitat for H. 

paradoxus is being prepared. We will 

announce the availability of the draft 

economic analysis as soon as it is 

completed, at which time we will seek 

public review and comment. At that 

time, copies of the draft economic 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
14344 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 58 / Tuesday, March 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

analysis will be available for 

downloading from the Internet at 

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/ 

newmexico/ or by contacting the New 

Mexico Ecological Services Field Office 

directly (see ADDRESSES). 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our joint policy 

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 such review is to ensure that 

our critical habitat designation is based 

on scientifically sound data, 

assumptions, and analyses. We will 

send copies of this proposed rule to 

these peer reviewers immediately 

following publication in the Federal 

Register. We will invite these peer 

reviewers to comment during the public 

comment period on the specific 

assumptions and conclusions regarding 

the proposed designation of critical 

habitat. 

We will consider all comments and 

information received during the 

comment period on this proposed rule 

during preparation of a final 

determination. Accordingly, the final 

decision may differ from this proposal. 

Public Hearings 

The Act provides for one or more 

public hearings on this proposal, if 

requested. Requests for public hearings 

must be made in writing at least 15 days 

prior to the close of the public comment 

period (see DATES). We will schedule 

public hearings on this proposal, if any 

are requested, and announce the dates, 

times, and places of those hearings in 

the Federal Register and local 

newspapers at least 15 days prior to the 

first hearing. 

Clarity of the Rule 

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review) requires each 

agency to write regulations and notices 

that are easy to understand. We invite 

your comments on how to make this 

proposed rule easier to understand, 

including answers to questions such as 

the following: (1) Are the requirements 

in the proposed rule clearly stated? (2) 

Does the proposed rule contain 

technical jargon that interferes with the 

clarity? (3) Does the format of the 

proposed rule (grouping and order of 

the sections, use of headings, 

paragraphing, and so forth) aid or 

reduce its clarity? (4) Is the description 

of the notice in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of the preamble 

helpful in understanding the proposed 

rule? (5) What else could we do to make 

this proposed rule easier to understand? 

Send a copy of any comments on how 

we could make this proposed rule easier 

to understand to: Office of Regulatory 

Affairs, Department of the Interior, 

Room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20240. You may e-mail 

your comments to this address: 

Exsec@ios.doi.gov. 

Required Determinations 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12866, this document is a significant 

rule in that it may raise novel legal and 

policy issues, but it is not anticipated to 

have an annual effect on the economy 

of $100 million or more or affect the 

economy in a material way. Due to the 

tight timeline for publication in the 

Federal Register, the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) has not 

formally reviewed this rule. We are 

preparing a draft economic analysis of 

this proposed action, which will be 

available for public comment, to 

determine the economic consequences 

of designating the specific area as 

critical habitat. This economic analysis 

also will be used to determine 

compliance with Executive Order 

12866, Regulatory Flexibility Act, Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act, Executive Order 12630, 

Executive Order 13211, and Executive 

Order 12875. 

Further, Executive Order 12866 

directs Federal agencies promulgating 

regulations to evaluate regulatory 

alternatives (OMB, Circular A–4, 

September 17, 2003). Pursuant to 

Circular A–4, once it has been 

determined that the Federal regulatory 

action is appropriate, then the agency 

will need to consider alternative 

regulatory approaches. Since the 

determination of critical habitat is a 

statutory requirement under the Act (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), 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. As such, we believe that the 

evaluation of the inclusion or exclusion 

of particular areas, or combination 

thereof, in a designation constitutes our 

regulatory alternative analysis. 

When it is completed, the draft 

economic analysis will be made 

available through an announcement in 

the Federal Register and in local 

newspapers. At that time, we will seek 

public review and comment on the draft 

economic analysis. The draft economic 

analysis will also be available on our 

Web site at http://www.fws.gov/ 

southwest/es/newmexico/ or by 

contacting the New Mexico Ecological 

Services Field Office directly (see 

ADDRESSES). 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.) 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996), 

whenever an agency is required to 

publish a notice of rulemaking for any 

proposed or final rule, it must prepare 

and make available for public comment 

a regulatory flexibility analysis that 

describes the effects of the rule on small 

entities (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 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) to 

require Federal agencies to provide a 

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, the Service lacks the 

available economic information 

necessary to provide an adequate factual 

basis for the required RFA finding. 

Therefore, the RFA finding is deferred 

until completion of the draft economic 

analysis prepared under section 4(b)(2) 

of the Act and E.O. 12866. This draft 

economic analysis will provide the 

required factual basis for the RFA 

finding. Upon completion of the draft 

economic analysis, the Service will 

publish a notice of availability of the 

draft economic analysis of the proposed 

designation and reopen the public 

comment period for the proposed 

designations. The Service will include 

with the notice of availability, 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 Service has 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 58 / Tuesday, March 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 14345 

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 the Service 

makes a sufficiently informed 

determination based on adequate 

economic information and provides the 

necessary opportunity for public 

comment. 

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; AFDC 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 on to State 

governments. 

(b) We recognize that some areas 

within the proposed critical habitat 

designation are within the City of Santa 

Rosa. As we conduct our draft economic 

analysis, we will complete a 

comprehensive assessment of the effect 

of designating critical habitat on these 

small governmental jurisdictions. 

Executive Order 13211 

On May 18, 2001, the President issued 

an Executive Order (E.O. 13211; Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use) on regulations that 

significantly affect energy supply, 

distribution, and use. Executive Order 

13211 requires agencies to prepare 

Statements of Energy Effects when 

undertaking certain actions. Although 

this proposed rule to designate critical 

habitat for H. paradoxus is a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866 in that it may raise novel legal 

and policy issues, it is not expected 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. 

Takings 

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 H. paradoxus in a takings 

implications assessment. The takings 

implications assessment concludes that 

this designation of critical habitat for H. 

paradoxus does not pose significant 

takings implications. However, we will 

further evaluate this issue as we 

conduct our economic analysis and 

review and revise this assessment as 

warranted. 

Federalism 

In accordance with Executive Order 

13132 (Federalism), the rule does not 

have significant Federalism effects. A 

Federalism assessment 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 New Mexico and Texas. The 

designation of critical habitat in areas 

currently occupied by H. paradoxus 

imposes no additional restrictions to 

those currently in place and, therefore, 

has little incremental impact on State 

and local governments and their 

activities. The designation may have 

some benefit to these governments in 

that the areas that contain the features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species are more clearly defined, and 

the primary constituent elements of the 

habitat necessary to the conservation of 

the species are specifically identified. 

While making this definition and 

identification does not alter where and 

what federally sponsored activities may 

occur, it may assist these local 

governments in long-range planning 

(rather than waiting for case-by-case 

section 7 consultations to occur). 

Civil Justice Reform 

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 meets the requirements of 

sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. 

We propose designating critical habitat 

in accordance with the provisions of the 

Endangered Species Act. This proposed 

rule uses standard property descriptions 

and identifies the primary constituent 

elements within the designated areas to 

assist the public in understanding the 

habitat needs of H. paradoxus. 

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. 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. 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
14346 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 58 / Tuesday, March 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

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 will undertake a 

NEPA analysis for critical habitat 

designation and notify the public of the 

availability of the draft environmental 

assessment for this proposal when it is 

completed. 

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, and the Department of 

Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we 

readily acknowledge our responsibility 

to communicate meaningfully with 

recognized Federal Tribes on a 

government-to-government basis. In 

accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 

of June 5, 1997, ‘‘American Indian 

Tribal Rights, Federal—Tribal Trust 

Responsibilities, and the Endangered 

Species Act,’’ we readily acknowledge 

our responsibilities to work directly 

with tribes in developing programs for 

healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that 

tribal lands are not subject to the same 

controls as Federal public lands, to 

remain sensitive to Indian culture, and 

to make information available to tribes. 

If requested by the Pueblo of Acoma, we 

will provide technical assistance on 

management of the species and the 

development of a management plan. We 

will also continue to work with the 

Pueblo of Laguna on the development of 

a final management plan for their lands. 

We note that lands of the Pueblos of 

Acoma and Laguna may be considered 

for exclusion in the final designation or 

determination pursuant to section 

4(b)(2) of the Act and that any 

exclusions made in the final designation 

or determination will be the result of an 

analysis of any new information 

received. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

in this rulemaking is available upon 

request from the Field Supervisor, New 

Mexico Ecological Services Field Office 

(see ADDRESSES). 

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 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. In § 17.12(h), revise the entry for 

‘‘Helianthus paradoxus’’ under 

‘‘FLOWERING PLANTS’’ in the List of 

Threatened and Endangered Plants to 

read as follows: 

§ 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

Species 

Historic range Family Status When 

listed 

Critical 

habitat 

Special 

rules Scientific name Common name 

FLOWERING PLANTS 

* * * * * * * 

Helianthus paradoxus .... Pecos (=puzzle, 

=paradox) sunflower.

U.S.A. (NM, TX) .... Asteraceae ....... T ............ 667 17.96(a) NA 

* * * * * * * 

3. In § 17.96(a), add an entry for 

‘‘Helianthus paradoxus (Pecos 

sunflower)’’ in alphabetical order under 

Family Asteraceae to read as follows: 

§ 17.96 Critical habitat—plants. 

(a) Flowering plants. 

* * * * * 

Family Asteraceae: Helianthus 

paradoxus (Pecos sunflower) 

(1) Critical habitat units are depicted 

for Chaves, Cibola, Guadalupe, Socorro, 

and Valencia Counties, New Mexico, 

and for Pecos County, Texas, on the 

maps below. 

(2) Within critical habitat units, the 

primary constituent elements of critical 

habitat for the Helianthus paradoxus are 

the desert wetland or riparian habitat 

components that provide: 

(i) Silty clay or fine sand soils that 

contain high organic content, are saline 

or alkaline, are permanently saturated 

within the root zone (top 50 cm (19.7 in) 

of the soil profile), and have salinity 

levels ranging from 10 to 40 parts per 

thousand; and 

(ii) A low proportion (less than 10 

percent) of woody shrub or canopy 

cover directly around the plant. 

(3) Critical habitat does not include 

manmade structures, such as buildings, 

aqueducts, airports, and roads, and the 

land on which such structures are 

located, existing on the effective date of 

this rule and not containing one or more 

of the primary constituent elements. 

(4) Critical habitat map units. Data 

layers defining map units were created 

on a base of USGS 1:24,0000 maps, and 

critical habitat units were then mapped 

using Universal Transverse Mercator 

(UTM) coordinates. 

(5) Note: Index map of Pecos 

sunflower critical habitat units (map 1) 

follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 58 / Tuesday, March 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 14347 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2EP27MR07.000</GPH>
14348 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 58 / Tuesday, March 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

(6) Unit 1: West-Central New Mexico, 

Cibola and Valencia Counties, New 

Mexico. 

(i) Subunit 1a for Helianthus 

paradoxus, Rancho del Padre Spring 

Cienega, Cibola County, New Mexico. 

From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle Grants 

SE, lands bounded by the following 

UTM NAD83 coordinates (meters E, 

meters N): 243145, 3889604; 243025, 

3889705; 243053, 3889708; 243097, 

3889700; 243141, 3889702; 243201, 

3889703; 243246, 3889703; 243286, 

3889703; 243342, 3889708; 243377, 

3889712; 243402, 3889704; 243441, 

3889707; 243441, 3889707; 243472, 

3889710; 243490, 3889709; 243518, 

3889707; 243577, 3889698; 243626, 

3889686; 243657, 3889669; 243683, 

3889642; 243706, 3889616; 243729, 

3889590; 243765, 3889564; 243794, 

3889545; 243826, 3889535; 243863, 

3889518; 243888, 3889519; 243932, 

3889513; 243966, 3889506; 243991, 

3889508; 244056, 3889504; 244120, 

3889510; 244157, 3889513; 244196, 

3889517; 244242, 3889530; 244282, 

3889546; 244325, 3889560; 244359, 

3889575; 244388, 3889592; 244423, 

3889592; 244410, 3889576; 244393, 

3889566; 244362, 3889539; 244322, 

3889506; 244278, 3889486; 244244, 

3889470; 244209, 3889467; 244155, 

3889466; 244126, 3889461; 244088, 

3889450; 244057, 3889453; 244019, 

3889457; 243982, 3889456; 243923, 

3889459; 243879, 3889459; 243824, 

3889470; 243779, 3889490; 243752, 

3889510; 243726, 3889522; 243689, 

3889537; 243653, 3889566; 243604, 

3889594; 243573, 3889612; 243515, 

3889637; 243471, 3889643; 243427, 

3889641; 243376, 3889630; 243325, 

3889625; 243265, 3889619; 243224, 

3889611; 243169, 3889606; thence 

returning to 243145, 3889604. 

(ii) Subunit 1b for Helianthus 

paradoxus, Grants Salt Flat Wetlands, 

Cibola County, New Mexico. From 

USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle Grants, lands 

bounded by the following UTM NAD83 

coordinates (meters E, meters N): 

241567, 3891788; 241548, 3891788; 

241521, 3891788; 241509, 3891801; 

241493, 3891806; 241482, 3891812; 

241460, 3891822; 241448, 3891840; 

241440, 3891865; 241445, 3891886; 

241449, 3891910; 241445, 3891930; 

241456, 3891947; 241463, 3891957; 

241484, 3891960; 241499, 3891965; 

241517, 3891962; 241531, 3891941; 

241534, 3891918; 241543, 3891893; 

241551, 3891866; 241560, 3891846; 

241568, 3891825; 241582, 3891801; 

241602, 3891789; 241636, 3891777; 

241670, 3891770; 241691, 3891774; 

241714, 3891774; 241733, 3891785; 

241751, 3891795; 241751, 3891785; 

241762, 3891765; 241775, 3891750; 

241798, 3891741; 241812, 3891747; 

241825, 3891755; 241850, 3891755; 

241876, 3891751; 241901, 3891738; 

241917, 3891731; 241934, 3891717; 

241942, 3891694; 241952, 3891679; 

241959, 3891662; 241979, 3891648; 

242003, 3891648; 242025, 3891648; 

242045, 3891648; 242071, 3891659; 

242100, 3891656; 242122, 3891641; 

242135, 3891629; 242168, 3891604; 

242175, 3891585; 242186, 3891578; 

242196, 3891570; 242215, 3891570; 

242234, 3891570; 242252, 3891554; 

242288, 3891527; 242295, 3891507; 

242295, 3891482; 242288, 3891465; 

242283, 3891452; 242239, 3891452; 

242191, 3891452; 242178, 3891441; 

242171, 3891432; 242169, 3891409; 

242172, 3891391; 242172, 3891378; 

242171, 3891358; 242169, 3891344; 

242165, 3891323; 242155, 3891303; 

242154, 3891285; 242142, 3891252; 

242141, 3891232; 242128, 3891205; 

242114, 3891194; 242097, 3891188; 

242080, 3891180; 242062, 3891179; 

242052, 3891190; 242040, 3891204; 

242023, 3891225; 241999, 3891240; 

241984, 3891255; 241975, 3891262; 

241971, 3891278; 241972, 3891293; 

241964, 3891308; 241944, 3891322; 

241911, 3891325; 241879, 3891325; 

241836, 3891326; 241811, 3891335; 

241785, 3891350; 241768, 3891359; 

241755, 3891360; 241728, 3891356; 

241706, 3891357; 241680, 3891357; 

241666, 3891373; 241662, 3891403; 

241664, 3891455; 241666, 3891502; 

241666, 3891544; 241657, 3891574; 

241650, 3891611; 241612, 3891644; 

241567, 3891688; thence returning to 

241567, 3891788. 

(iii) Note: Map of Subunits 1a and 1b 

for Helianthus paradoxus (Map 2) 

follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 58 / Tuesday, March 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 14349 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2EP27MR07.001</GPH>
14350 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 58 / Tuesday, March 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

(iv) Subunit 1c for Helianthus 

paradoxus, Pueblo of Laguna, Valencia 

County, New Mexico. From USGS 

1:24,000 quadrangles Correo and South 

Garcia, springs along the Rio San Jose 

south of Interstate 40, and the areas 

immediately surrounding these springs. 

(v) Note: Map of Subunit 1b (WestCentral New Mexico—Pueblo of Laguna 

Subunit) of Helianthus paradoxus 

critical habitat (Map 3) follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2EP27MR07.002</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 58 / Tuesday, March 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 14351 

(7) Unit 2: La Joya, Socorro County, 

New Mexico. 

(i) Unit 2 for Helianthus paradoxus, 

La Joya State Wildlife Management 

Area, Socorro County, New Mexico. 

From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle La 

Joya, lands bounded by the following 

UTM NAD83 coordinates (meters E, 

meters N): 327938, 3803771; 328008, 

3803841; 328017, 3803889; 327974, 

3803950; 327921, 3803981; 327906, 

3804024; 327900, 3804069; 327929, 

3804128; 327953, 3804169; 328019, 

3804191; 328076, 3804209; 328129, 

3804211; 328192, 3804189; 328237, 

3804185; 328306, 3804204; 328353, 

3804256; 328416, 3804317; 328493, 

3804315; 328575, 3804293; 328654, 

3804268; 328744, 3804240; 328809, 

3804227; 328891, 3804221; 328978, 

3804221; 329007, 3804221; 329002, 

3804151; 329007, 3804081; 328943, 

3803853; 328884, 3803635; 328854, 

3803517; 328795, 3803310; 328756, 

3803178; 328739, 3803098; 328730, 

3803069; 328716, 3803028; 328698, 

3802962; 328686, 3802913; 328669, 

3802848; 328662, 3802791; 328654, 

3802744; 328651, 3802687; 328649, 

3802547; 328649, 3802336; 328619, 

3802307; 328559, 3802294; 328514, 

3802292; 328352, 3802301; 328237, 

3802318; 328166, 3802369; 328126, 

3802370; 328104, 3802335; 328123, 

3802292; 328137, 3802262; 328123, 

3802215; 328115, 3802167; 328112, 

3802126; 328115, 3802093; 328142, 

3802036; 328156, 3802004; 328126, 

3801971; 328025, 3801950; 327961, 

3801941; 327897, 3801940; 327881, 

3801959; 327845, 3802076; 327843, 

3802138; 327847, 3802172; 327830, 

3802196; 327824, 3802226; 327817, 

3802269; 327815, 3802305; 327847, 

3802363; 327849, 3802406; 327847, 

3802448; 327864, 3802483; 327875, 

3802517; 327871, 3802547; 327854, 

3802572; 327813, 3802589; 327785, 

3802607; 327788, 3802637; 327815, 

3802687; 327828, 3802722; 327822, 

3802771; 327805, 3802818; 327773, 

3802833; 327740, 3802854; 327738, 

3802884; 327751, 3802923; 327762, 

3802967; 327766, 3803012; 327796, 

3803064; 327820, 3803117; 327858, 

3803158; 327895, 3803209; 327914, 

3803265; 327928, 3803309; 327929, 

3803359; 327958, 3803460; 327978, 

3803524; 327995, 3803612; 328003, 

3803685; 327976, 3803721; 327948, 

3803730; thence returning to 327938, 

3803771. 

327683, 3800456; 327686, 3800538; 

327717, 3800591; 327740, 3800627; 

327757, 3800689; 327762, 3800723; 

327743, 3800777; 327726, 3800820; 

327722, 3800890; 327715, 3800947; 

327735, 3800983; 327791, 3801036; 

327872, 3801083; 327917, 3801107; 

327973, 3801164; 328021, 3801220; 

328071, 3801278; 328114, 3801381; 

328117, 3801417; 328133, 3801417; 

328183, 3801359; 328186, 3801340; 

328201, 3801308; 328230, 3801280; 

328255, 3801276; 328283, 3801262; 

328307, 3801232; 328329, 3801131; 

328320, 3801039; 328302, 3800977; 

328267, 3800885; 328272, 3800815; 

328285, 3800744; 328311, 3800674; 

328351, 3800590; 328403, 3800529; 

328483, 3800459; 328531, 3800401; 

328606, 3800340; 328658, 3800252; 

328663, 3800195; 328654, 3800120; 

328619, 3800010; 328597, 3799947; 

328579, 3799881; 328553, 3799819; 

328504, 3799779; 328465, 3799718; 

328456, 3799643; 328417, 3799555; 

328408, 3799459; 328381, 3799358; 

328359, 3799278; 328368, 3799217; 

328359, 3799151; 328355, 3799094; 

328430, 3798975; 328474, 3798923; 

328509, 3798788; 328527, 3798757; 

328553, 3798727; 328544, 3798661; 

328553, 3798625; 328579, 3798590; 

328592, 3798559; 328588, 3798502; 

328588, 3798463; 328557, 3798401; 

328544, 3798349; 328579, 3798274; 

328645, 3798212; 328649, 3798169; 

328641, 3798120; 328623, 3798063; 

328623, 3798001; 328610, 3797918; 

328610, 3797865; 328623, 3797761; 

328658, 3797664; 328654, 3797616; 

328582, 3797604; 328520, 3797699; 

328497, 3797746; 328491, 3797783; 

328485, 3797841; 328477, 3797877; 

328462, 3797893; 328464, 3797913; 

328469, 3797944; 328466, 3797990; 

328470, 3798038; 328483, 3798093; 

328496, 3798128; 328503, 3798162; 

328513, 3798192; 328509, 3798209; 

328496, 3798209; 328474, 3798249; 

328456, 3798271; 328452, 3798324; 

328440, 3798362; 328447, 3798381; 

328456, 3798420; 328483, 3798456; 

328500, 3798486; 328501, 3798520; 

328493, 3798536; 328464, 3798536; 

328445, 3798539; 328443, 3798562; 

328431, 3798594; 328419, 3798630; 

328413, 3798658; 328405, 3798677; 

328402, 3798701; 328399, 3798716; 

328392, 3798725; 328370, 3798733; 

328360, 3798733; 328342, 3798748; 

328322, 3798765; 328309, 3798775; 

328308, 3798793; 328308, 3798821; 

328302, 3798837; 328301, 3798861; 

328306, 3798879; 328303, 3798898; 

328293, 3798911; 328279, 3798917; 

328262, 3798938; 328240, 3798967; 

328215, 3798987; 328186, 3799000; 

328164, 3799007; 328158, 3799014; 

328161, 3799027; 328174, 3799051; 

328188, 3799082; 328195, 3799097; 

328194, 3799114; 328182, 3799123; 

328168, 3799127; 328149, 3799122; 

328140, 3799117; 328127, 3799112; 

328122, 3799116; 328117, 3799139; 

328096, 3799178; 328038, 3799245; 

328002, 3799293; 327989, 3799302; 

327972, 3799331; 327962, 3799355; 

327956, 3799383; 327945, 3799400; 

327931, 3799414; 327916, 3799417; 

327906, 3799418; 327898, 3799427; 

327883, 3799430; 327867, 3799434; 

327854, 3799454; 327851, 3799475; 

327852, 3799498; 327850, 3799528; 

327839, 3799553; 327833, 3799563; 

327810, 3799598; 327803, 3799622; 

327797, 3799653; 327794, 3799688; 

327790, 3799711; 327783, 3799722; 

327768, 3799731; 327761, 3799737; 

327755, 3799745; 327759, 3799761; 

327752, 3799774; 327730, 3799811; 

327712, 3799844; 327694, 3799873; 

327685, 3799893; 327678, 3799936; 

327664, 3799973; 327658, 3800004; 

327663, 3800029; 327674, 3800049; 

327685, 3800106; 327693, 3800146; 

327717, 3800188; 327737, 3800226; 

327758, 3800262; 327761, 3800294; 

327748, 3800325; 327697, 3800375; 

327674, 3800398; 327671, 3800427; 

thence returning to 327683, 3800456. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit 2 for Helianthus 

paradoxus (Map 4) follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
14352 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 58 / Tuesday, March 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2EP27MR07.003</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 58 / Tuesday, March 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 14353 

(8) Unit 3: Santa Rosa, Guadalupe 

County, New Mexico. 

(i) Subunit 3a for Helianthus 

paradoxus, Blue Hole Cienega / Blue 

Hole Fish Hatchery Ponds, Guadalupe 

County, New Mexico. From USGS 

1:24,000 quadrangle Santa Rosa, lands 

bounded by the following UTM NAD83 

coordinates (meters E, meters N): 

529408, 3865628; 529431, 3865639; 

529449, 3865654; 529468, 3865681; 

529481, 3865715; 529491, 3865773; 

529491, 3865792; 529478, 3865810; 

529467, 3865832; 529465, 3865863; 

529472, 3865903; 529484, 3865943; 

529494, 3866006; 529507, 3866073; 

529505, 3866104; 529497, 3866123; 

529484, 3866171; 529479, 3866207; 

529483, 3866245; 529489, 3866310; 

529489, 3866366; 529640, 3866364; 

529771, 3866366; 529910, 3866363; 

529980, 3866361; 529991, 3866355; 

529996, 3866347; 529991, 3866329; 

529988, 3866289; 529980, 3866217; 

529967, 3866125; 529959, 3866012; 

529957, 3865985; 529887, 3865918; 

529859, 3865879; 529876, 3865756; 

529962, 3865656; 530041, 3865519; 

530099, 3865390; 530105, 3865209; 

530091, 3865144; 529784, 3865313; 

529705, 3865355; 529593, 3865417; 

529522, 3865456; 529550, 3865504; 

529505, 3865533; 529524, 3865564; 

thence returning to 529408, 3865628. 

529555, 3866753; 529618, 3866754; 

529654, 3866751; 529702, 3866748; 

529706, 3866687; 529712, 3866651; 

529713, 3866618; 529717, 3866581; 

529717, 3866559; 529652, 3866555; 

529640, 3866558; 529638, 3866609; 

529634, 3866613; 529590, 3866609; 

529556, 3866611; 529556, 3866639; 

529555, 3866683; thence returning to 

529555, 3866753. 

(ii) Note: Map of Subunit 3a for 

Helianthus paradoxus (Map 5) follows: 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
14354 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 58 / Tuesday, March 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2EP27MR07.004</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 58 / Tuesday, March 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 14355 

(iii) Subunit 3b for Helianthus 

paradoxus, Westside Spring, Guadalupe 

County, New Mexico. From USGS 

1:24,000 quadrangle Santa Rosa, lands 

bounded by the following UTM NAD83 

coordinates (meters E, meters N): 

527977, 3864746; 527990, 3864762; 

527999, 3864783; 528009, 3864801; 

528033, 3864823; 528054, 3864837; 

528079, 3864848; 528103, 3864852; 

528121, 3864843; 528125, 3864832; 

528125, 3864813; 528123, 3864796; 

528118, 3864780; 528108, 3864756; 

528095, 3864734; 528072, 3864717; 

528047, 3864697; 528018, 3864676; 

527987, 3864654; 527961, 3864633; 

527932, 3864613; 527906, 3864594; 

527886, 3864575; 527866, 3864561; 

527850, 3864551; 527836, 3864552; 

527838, 3864566; 527852, 3864585; 

527869, 3864606; 527886, 3864626; 

527903, 3864648; 527921, 3864672; 

527938, 3864694; 527957, 3864716; 

527961, 3864722; 527975, 3864743; 

thence returning to 527977, 3864746. 

(iv) Note: Map of Subunit 3b for 

Helianthus paradoxus (Map 6) follows: 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
14356 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 58 / Tuesday, March 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2EP27MR07.005</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 58 / Tuesday, March 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 14357 

(9) Unit 4: Roswell/Dexter, Chaves 

County, New Mexico. 

(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): 

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; 

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 (Map 7) follows: 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
14358 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 58 / Tuesday, March 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2EP27MR07.006</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 58 / Tuesday, March 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 14359 

(iii) Subunit 4c for Helianthus 

paradoxus, Oasis Dairy Subunit, 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): 559225, 3688383; 

559265, 3688370; 559292, 3688339; 

559312, 3688333; 559335, 3688294; 

559348, 3688262; 559355, 3688228; 

559377, 3688207; 559420, 3688160; 

559431, 3688128; 559436, 3688078; 

559458, 3688030; 559492, 3687977; 

559523, 3687927; 559548, 3687893; 

559579, 3687870; 559595, 3687851; 

559617, 3687819; 559638, 3687777; 

559649, 3687709; 559647, 3687656; 

559636, 3687605; 559608, 3687555; 

559584, 3687497; 559559, 3687483; 

559533, 3687486; 559506, 3687488; 

559486, 3687523; 559475, 3687573; 

559474, 3687634; 559481, 3687686; 

559480, 3687729; 559469, 3687782; 

559446, 3687826; 559433, 3687871; 

559412, 3687924; 559385, 3687977; 

559365, 3688014; 559345, 3688040; 

559325, 3688077; 559305, 3688122; 

559282, 3688159; 559238, 3688182; 

559204, 3688219; 559184, 3688267; 

559184, 3688314; 559199, 3688359; 

thence returning to 559225, 3688383. 

558767, 3686447; 558771, 3686449; 

558790, 3686451; 558823, 3686444; 

558852, 3686446; 558879, 3686451; 

558899, 3686458; 558917, 3686464; 

558932, 3686466; 558952, 3686459; 

558963, 3686453; 558977, 3686433; 

558986, 3686422; 558997, 3686411; 

559012, 3686407; 559030, 3686392; 

559038, 3686377; 559038, 3686361; 

559035, 3686343; 559031, 3686291; 

559031, 3686253; 559026, 3686238; 

559014, 3686223; 558985, 3686205; 

558960, 3686191; 558934, 3686182; 

558915, 3686177; 558884, 3686164; 

558866, 3686152; 558839, 3686137; 

558817, 3686127; 558804, 3686124; 

558795, 3686123; 558772, 3686135; 

558745, 3686144; 558722, 3686150; 

558700, 3686157; 558678, 3686161; 

558650, 3686157; 558621, 3686154; 

558589, 3686153; 558561, 3686152; 

558534, 3686153; 558498, 3686144; 

558467, 3686137; 558439, 3686122; 

558415, 3686108; 558398, 3686086; 

558385, 3686058; 558380, 3686024; 

558387, 3685985; 558396, 3685944; 

558404, 3685914; 558408, 3685894; 

558404, 3685879; 558387, 3685862; 

558363, 3685843; 558338, 3685818; 

558318, 3685805; 558305, 3685787; 

558290, 3685762; 558284, 3685734; 

558286, 3685712; 558292, 3685684; 

558294, 3685662; 558288, 3685634; 

558286, 3685609; 558276, 3685584; 

558262, 3685566; 558253, 3685552; 

558232, 3685540; 558208, 3685531; 

558183, 3685532; 558148, 3685542; 

558126, 3685553; 558099, 3685568; 

558086, 3685583; 558073, 3685608; 

558071, 3685633; 558079, 3685654; 

558095, 3685671; 558115, 3685672; 

558132, 3685672; 558150, 3685666; 

558163, 3685655; 558192, 3685654; 

558209, 3685658; 558221, 3685671; 

558221, 3685689; 558221, 3685714; 

558220, 3685738; 558211, 3685759; 

558209, 3685781; 558207, 3685799; 

558218, 3685819; 558232, 3685829; 

558250, 3685836; 558262, 3685843; 

558270, 3685859; 558275, 3685880; 

558273, 3685888; 558255, 3685909; 

558253, 3685931; 558252, 3685946; 

558256, 3685956; 558259, 3685975; 

558260, 3685989; 558258, 3686009; 

558256, 3686024; 558250, 3686035; 

558240, 3686046; 558233, 3686056; 

558223, 3686065; 558221, 3686071; 

558220, 3686078; 558224, 3686092; 

558227, 3686102; 558227, 3686119; 

558219, 3686147; 558215, 3686174; 

558216, 3686193; 558228, 3686212; 

558243, 3686232; 558267, 3686257; 

558281, 3686271; 558297, 3686283; 

558315, 3686290; 558338, 3686302; 

558355, 3686314; 558368, 3686325; 

558393, 3686346; 558406, 3686362; 

558423, 3686381; 558432, 3686397; 

558438, 3686423; 558437, 3686445; 

558425, 3686461; 558410, 3686475; 

558392, 3686490; 558373, 3686507; 

558364, 3686529; 558413, 3686519; 

558466, 3686502; 558514, 3686488; 

558558, 3686475; 558601, 3686470; 

558635, 3686457; 558667, 3686443; 

558689, 3686445; 558720, 3686431; 

thence returning to 558767, 3686447. 

(iv) Note: Map of Subunit 4c for 

Helianthus paradoxus (Map 8) follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
14360 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 58 / Tuesday, March 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2EP27MR07.007</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 58 / Tuesday, March 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 14361 

(v) Subunit 4d for Helianthus 

paradoxus, Lea Lake at Bottomless 

Lakes State Park, Chaves County, New 

Mexico. From USGS 1:24,000 

quadrangle Bottomless Lakes, lands 

bounded by the following UTM NAD83 

coordinates (meters E, meters N): 

562371, 3687020; 562381, 3687019; 

562402, 3687011; 562419, 3686993; 

562437, 3686976; 562464, 3686956; 

562476, 3686950; 562499, 3686947; 

562515, 3686938; 562519, 3686919; 

562520, 3686895; 562511, 3686875; 

562495, 3686857; 562483, 3686851; 

562471, 3686849; 562453, 3686850; 

562442, 3686836; 562432, 3686814; 

562420, 3686784; 562409, 3686747; 

562410, 3686718; 562402, 3686690; 

562391, 3686663; 562366, 3686642; 

562325, 3686637; 562286, 3686639; 

562276, 3686652; 562230, 3686695; 

562216, 3686715; 562203, 3686732; 

562200, 3686752; 562201, 3686770; 

562203, 3686791; 562208, 3686818; 

562221, 3686835; 562225, 3686852; 

562222, 3686868; 562216, 3686888; 

562217, 3686914; 562230, 3686939; 

562250, 3686958; 562270, 3686978; 

562293, 3686992; 562323, 3687006; 

562351, 3687016; thence returning to 

562371, 3687020. 

(vi) Note: Map of Subunit 4d for 

Helianthus paradoxus (Map 9) follows: 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
14362 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 58 / Tuesday, March 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2EP27MR07.008</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 58 / Tuesday, March 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 14363 

(vii) Subunit 4e for Helianthus 

paradoxus, Dexter Cienega, Chaves 

County, New Mexico. From USGS 

1:24,000 quadrangle Dexter East, lands 

bounded by the following UTM NAD83 

coordinates (meters E, meters N): 

559316, 3678509; 559316, 3678510; 

559329, 3678521; 559339, 3678530; 

559355, 3678547; 559372, 3678557; 

559402, 3678565; 559412, 3678566; 

559432, 3678560; 559452, 3678542; 

559471, 3678532; 559508, 3678527; 

559525, 3678528; 559567, 3678532; 

559595, 3678535; 559622, 3678521; 

559635, 3678495; 559645, 3678472; 

559648, 3678443; 559642, 3678414; 

559630, 3678392; 559622, 3678376; 

559606, 3678361; 559582, 3678344; 

559549, 3678334; 559519, 3678314; 

559493, 3678303; 559464, 3678290; 

559439, 3678280; 559410, 3678271; 

559381, 3678263; 559358, 3678260; 

559329, 3678249; 559293, 3678233; 

559265, 3678223; 559234, 3678215; 

559205, 3678201; 559177, 3678193; 

559160, 3678178; 559132, 3678157; 

559111, 3678136; 559083, 3678118; 

559048, 3678097; 559012, 3678082; 

558980, 3678067; 558948, 3678058; 

558915, 3678047; 558884, 3678045; 

558855, 3678046; 558830, 3678054; 

558801, 3678062; 558776, 3678067; 

558754, 3678070; 558732, 3678071; 

558714, 3678078; 558703, 3678089; 

558702, 3678101; 558703, 3678116; 

558711, 3678128; 558728, 3678126; 

558757, 3678122; 558776, 3678124; 

558812, 3678130; 558833, 3678134; 

558843, 3678141; 558856, 3678145; 

558869, 3678166; 558895, 3678186; 

558906, 3678205; 558926, 3678207; 

558948, 3678215; 558966, 3678227; 

558976, 3678240; 558995, 3678256; 

559017, 3678272; 559038, 3678284; 

559074, 3678307; 559099, 3678323; 

559124, 3678334; 559157, 3678352; 

559185, 3678364; 559210, 3678373; 

559242, 3678378; 559260, 3678389; 

559269, 3678401; 559268, 3678424; 

559272, 3678437; 559285, 3678457; 

559299, 3678486; thence returning to 

559316, 3678509. 

(viii) Note: Map of Subunit 4e for 

Helianthus paradoxus (Map 10) follows: 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
14364 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 58 / Tuesday, March 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2EP27MR07.009</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 58 / Tuesday, March 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 14365 

(10) Unit 5: West Texas—Diamond Y 

Springs, Pecos County, Texas. 

(i) Unit 5 for Helianthus paradoxus, 

West Texas—Diamond Y Spring, Pecos 

County, Texas. From USGS 1:24,000 

quadrangles Diamond Y Spring and Fort 

Stockton West, lands bounded by the 

following UTM NAD83 coordinates 

(meters E, meters N): 699410, 3432430; 

699368, 3432356; 699338, 3432300; 

699323, 3432253; 699323, 3432205; 

699328, 3432141; 699320, 3432086; 

699291, 3432054; 699243, 3432009; 

699185, 3431996; 699137, 3431991; 

699068, 3431999; 698992, 3431993; 

698941, 3431977; 698883, 3431961; 

698849, 3431935; 698793, 3431924; 

698719, 3431906; 698679, 3431901; 

698616, 3431884; 698565, 3431825; 

698552, 3431741; 698542, 3431685; 

698539, 3431606; 698523, 3431558; 

698486, 3431510; 698425, 3431455; 

698391, 3431420; 698362, 3431378; 

698348, 3431325; 698333, 3431296; 

698295, 3431288; 698240, 3431291; 

698200, 3431330; 698168, 3431405; 

698163, 3431479; 698190, 3431561; 

698237, 3431624; 698280, 3431680; 

698274, 3431751; 698303, 3431839; 

698325, 3431900; 698346, 3431952; 

698356, 3432021; 698333, 3432058; 

698253, 3432048; 698126, 3432003; 

698044, 3431995; 697994, 3432011; 

697933, 3432019; 697877, 3432040; 

697831, 3432050; 697785, 3432055; 

697785, 3432459; 697841, 3432429; 

697913, 3432408; 697990, 3432391; 

698060, 3432384; 698110, 3432373; 

698173, 3432366; 698237, 3432370; 

698321, 3432366; 698371, 3432377; 

698417, 3432387; 698459, 3432384; 

698519, 3432380; 698565, 3432380; 

698607, 3432380; 698653, 3432387; 

698710, 3432401; 698759, 3432426; 

698830, 3432461; 698872, 3432497; 

698918, 3432532; 698978, 3432592; 

699059, 3432656; 699119, 3432691; 

699183, 3432726; 699262, 3432748; 

699299, 3432756; 699405, 3432732; 

699463, 3432674; 699473, 3432613; 

699484, 3432525; 699468, 3432494; 

thence returning to 699410, 3432430. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit 5 for Helianthus 

paradoxus (Map 11) follows: 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2
14366 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 58 / Tuesday, March 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

* * * * * Dated: March 15, 2007. 

Todd Willens, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and 

Wildlife and Parks. 

[FR Doc. 07–1396 Filed 3–26–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS2EP27MR07.010</GPH>