Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 18157 

DRE COST DATA TABLE—Continued 

Element Units IFR RE basis 

USCG 

estimate of 

cost per unit 

Barge’s Storage Shed ............................................................................. $/year .............................................. Chapter 5 ......... 200–1,300 

Boat .......................................................................................................... $/year .............................................. Chapter 5 .......... 5,000 

Source Control Equipment ...................................................................... ......................................................... Chapter 6 ......... ........................

Submersible Pumping Kit ........................................................................ $/kit ................................................. Chapter 6 .......... 141,000 

Additionally, we seek comment on 

the following items: 

(1) Please describe your 

implementation of DRE and how you 

have invested in the following: 

(a) Operational deck spill capability; 

(b) Warehouse equipment capability; 

and 

(c) Source control equipment. 

(2) Have you needed to use the 

equipment referenced in question (1) in 

any operational situation? If so— 

(a) Please describe the situation; 

(b) What issues did you encounter in 

that implementation?; and 

(c) What recommendations do you 

have in improving that implementation? 

(3) Please describe the maintenance 

requirements associated with the 

equipment referenced in question (1). 

(4) What issues have you encountered 

in implementing the IFR? 

(5) How long did it take you to 

implement the IFR? 

(6) Are you a small business, 

according to the North American 

Industry Classification System (NAICS) 

codes? 

(7) What issues did you encounter 

with regard to similar rules regarding 

the implementation of the other OPA 90 

requirements and the implementation of 

the DRE IFR? 

(a) Were there issues with 

complementary implementation? 

(b) Were there issues with crosspurpose implementation? 

(8) How do you work together with 

the oil spill removal organizations 

(OSROs), in planning for, or responding 

to, an incident? 

(9) What is the vessel type (i.e. tanker, 

offshore barge, etc.) and size (i.e. length 

of vessel) for the data above? 

To facilitate public input, we have 

placed in the docket a questionnaire 

labeled ‘‘Discharge Removal Equipment 

(DRE) Cost Data Template.’’ We request 

that individuals or organizations with 

knowledge of the cost of compliance use 

the template to provide input via the 

docket. However, you are not required 

to use this format when submitting 

comments. 

B. Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Department of Homeland Security 

Management Directive 023–01 and 

Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, 

which guide the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have made a preliminary determination 

that this action is one of a category of 

actions that do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment. A preliminary 

environmental analysis checklist 

supporting this determination is 

available in the docket where indicated 

under the ‘‘Public Participation and 

Request for Comments’’ section of this 

notice. This rule involves regulations 

concerning the equipping of vessels. In 

addition, it implements a Congressional 

mandate (section 4202(a) of OPA 90). 

We seek any comments or information 

that may lead to the discovery of a 

significant environmental impact from 

this rule. 

At the IFR stage, an Environmental 

Assessment (EA) and a Finding of No 

Significant Impact (FONSI) were placed 

in the docket for this rulemaking. No 

comments were received on the EA or 

the FONSI. 

VIII. Intent To Finalize; Request for 

Comments 

The Coast Guard invites further 

comments regarding the finalization of 

the IFR provisions that have not yet 

been finalized. Specifically, we seek 

comments on three topics— 

• DRE requirements (except for 

§§ 155.140, 155.230 and 155.235 as 

these sections were superseded by 

subsequent rulemakings); 

• Regulatory Assessment; and 

• Environmental Impact. 

Written comments and responses will 

be added to the docket for this 

rulemaking (USCG–2011–0430). Upon 

close of the comment period, the Coast 

Guard will consider all comments 

received before finalizing the DRE 

rulemaking. 

Dated: February 22, 2012. 

J. G. Lantz, 

Director of Commercial, Regulations and 

Standards. 

[FR Doc. 2012–7344 Filed 3–26–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2011–0040: 

4500030114] 

RIN 1018–AX75 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Designation of Critical 

Habitat for Ipomopsis polyantha 

(Pagosa skyrocket), Penstemon debilis 

(Parachute beardtongue), and Phacelia 

submutica (DeBeque phacelia) 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Revised proposed rule; 

reopening of comment period. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce the 

reopening of the public comment period 

on the July 27, 2011, proposed 

designation of critical habitat for 

Ipomopsis polyantha (Pagosa 

skyrocket), Penstemon debilis 

(Parachute beardtongue), and Phacelia 

submutica (DeBeque phacelia) under 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). We also announce the 

availability of a draft economic analysis, 

a draft environmental assessment, and 

an amended required determinations 

section of the proposal. We also propose 

to revise critical habitat unit boundaries 

for Ipomopsis polyantha units 2 and 4, 

and for Phacelia submutica units 6, 7, 

and 9. Finally, we announce some 

potential additional areas being 

considered for exclusion from critical 

habitat for Penstemon debilis unit 3. We 

are reopening the comment period for 

the proposal to allow all interested 

parties an opportunity to comment 

simultaneously on the proposed rule, 

the associated draft economic analysis 

(DEA), and draft environmental 

assessment (Draft EA), and the amended 

required determinations section. If you 

submitted comments previously, you do 

not need to resubmit them because we 

have already incorporated them into the 

public record and will fully consider 

them in preparation of the final rule. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

18158 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

DATES: We will consider all comments 

received or postmarked on or before 

April 26, 2012. Comments submitted 

electronically using the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES

section, below) must be received by 

11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing 

date. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Search for docket 

FWS–R6–ES–2011–0040 and then 

follow the instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public 

Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–R6– 

ES–2011–0040; Division of Policy and 

Directives Management; U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, 

Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203. 

We will post all comments on 

http://www.regulations.gov. This 

generally means that we will post any 

personal information you provide us 

(see the Public Comments section below 

for more information). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Acting Western Colorado Supervisor, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western 

Colorado Ecological Services Office, 764 

Horizon Drive, Suite B, Grand Junction, 

CO 81506–3946; telephone 970–243– 

2778; facsimile 970–245–6933. 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 

We will accept written comments and 

information during this reopened 

comment period on our proposed 

critical habitat for Ipomopsis polyantha, 

Penstemon debilis, and Phacelia 

submutica that was published in the 

Federal Register on July 27, 2011 (76 FR 

45078), our DEA of the proposed 

designation, our Draft EA, our 

amendment of required determinations, 

our proposal to revise critical habitat 

unit boundaries for Ipomopsis 

polyantha units 2 and 4, and for 

Phacelia submutica units 6, 7, and 9, 

and additional areas being considered 

for exclusion from critical habitat for 

Penstemon debilis unit 3 provided in 

this document. We will consider 

information and recommendations from 

all interested parties. We are 

particularly interested in comments 

concerning: 

(1) The reasons why we should or 

should not designate habitat as ‘‘critical 

habitat’’ under section 4 of the Act (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) including whether 

there are threats to these species from 

human activity, the degree of which can 

be expected to increase due to the 

designation, and whether that increase 

in threat outweighs the benefit of 

designation such that the designation of 

critical habitat may not be prudent; 

(2) Specific information on: 

(a) The amount and distribution of 

Ipomopsis polyantha, Penstemon 

debilis, and Phacelia submutica habitat; 

(b) What areas that are occupied and 

that contain features essential to the 

conservation of these species should be 

included in the designation and why; 

(c) Special management 

considerations or protection that may be 

needed in critical habitat areas we are 

proposing, including managing for the 

potential effects of climate change; 

(d) What areas not occupied at the 

time of listing are essential for the 

conservation of these species and why; 

and 

(e) Means to quantify the amount of 

natural and human-caused disturbance 

these species prefer or can tolerate. 

(3) Land use designations and current 

or planned activities in the subject areas 

and their possible impacts on proposed 

critical habitat. 

(4) Information on the projected and 

reasonably likely impacts of climate 

change on Ipomopsis polyantha, 

Penstemon debilis, and Phacelia 

submutica and proposed critical habitat. 

(5) Any probable economic, national 

security, or other relevant impacts of 

designating any area that may be 

included in the final designation; in 

particular, any impacts on small entities 

or families, and the benefits of including 

or excluding areas that exhibit these 

impacts. 

(6) Whether any specific areas we are 

proposing for critical habitat 

designation should be considered for 

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

Act, especially the Mount Callahan 

Natural Area, the Mount Callahan 

Saddle Natural Area, newly designated 

areas at the Mt. Logan mine, and other 

lands owned by OXY USA (Oxy) for 

Penstemon debilis, and whether the 

benefits of potentially excluding any 

specific area outweigh the benefits of 

including that area under section 4(b)(2) 

of the Act. 

(7) Information on the extent to which 

the description of potential economic 

impacts in the DEA is complete and 

accurate. 

(8) Whether the DEA makes 

appropriate assumptions regarding 

current practices and any regulatory 

changes that will likely occur if we 

designate critical habitat. 

(9) Whether the DEA correctly 

assesses the effect of regional costs 

associated with land use controls that 

may result from the designation of 

critical habitat. 

(10) Whether the DEA identifies all 

Federal, State, and local costs and 

benefits attributable to the proposed 

designation of critical habitat, and 

information on any costs that have been 

inadvertently overlooked. 

(11) Whether the Draft EA adequately 

presents the purpose of and need for the 

proposed action, the proposed action 

and alternatives, and the evaluation of 

the direct, indirect, and cumulative 

effects of the alternatives. 

(12) 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 better 

accommodate public concerns and 

comments. 

You may submit your comments and 

materials concerning our proposed rule 

or the associated DEA and draft EA by 

one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. 

If you submit a comment via http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your entire 

comment—including your personal 

identifying information—will be posted 

on the Web site. If you submit a 

hardcopy comment that includes 

personal identifying information, you 

may request at the top of your document 

that we withhold this information from 

public review. However, we cannot 

guarantee that we will be able to do so. 

We will post all hardcopy comments on 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

Comments and materials we receive, 

as well as supporting documentation we 

used in preparing this proposed rule, 

DEA, and Draft EA, will be available for 

public inspection on http:// 

www.regulations.gov, or by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Colorado Ecological Services 

Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT). You may obtain copies of the 

proposed critical habitat, the DEA, and 

the Draft EA on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov at docket number 

FWS–R6–ES–2011–0040, or at http:// 

www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/ 

plants/3ColoradoPlants/index.html, or 

by mail from the Western Colorado 

Ecological Services Office (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Background 

Previous Federal Actions 

It is our intent to discuss only those 

topics directly relevant to the proposed 

designation of critical habitat for 

Ipomopsis polyantha, Penstemon 

debilis, and Phacelia submutica. For 

more information on previous Federal 

actions concerning I. polyantha, P. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 18159 

debilis, and P. submutica, refer to the 

proposed designation of critical habitat 

published in the Federal Register on 

July 27, 2011 (76 FR 45078). 

Approximately 9,641 acres (ac) (3,902 

hectares (ha)) are being proposed for 

designation as critical habitat for I. 

polyantha. Approximately 19,155 ac 

(7,752 ha) are being proposed for 

designation as critical habitat for P. 

debilis. Approximately 25,484 ac 

(10,313 ha) are being proposed for 

designation as critical habitat for P. 

submutica. In total, approximately 

54,280 ac (21,967 ha) are being 

proposed for designation as critical 

habitat for the three species. The 

proposed critical habitat is located in 

Archuleta, Garfield, and Mesa Counties, 

Colorado. The original proposal had a 

60-day public comment period, ending 

September 26, 2011. We will submit for 

publication in the Federal Register a 

final critical habitat designation for I. 

polyantha, P. debilis, and P. submutica 

on or before the statutory deadline of 

July 27, 2012. 

For additional information on the 

biology of these species, see the July 27, 

2011, final rule to list Ipomopsis 

polyantha as endangered, and to list 

Penstemon debilis, and Phacelia 

submutica as threatened (76 FR 45054); 

as well as the July 27, 2011 proposed 

critical habitat rule (76 FR 45078). 

Section 3 of the Act defines critical 

habitat as the specific areas within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species, at the time it is listed in 

accordance with the Act, on which are 

found those physical or biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species and that may require special 

management considerations or 

protection; and specific areas outside 

the geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time it is listed upon a 

determination that such areas are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. If the proposed rule is made 

final, section 7 of the Act will prohibit 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat by any activity funded, 

authorized, or carried out by any 

Federal agency. Federal agencies 

proposing actions that affect critical 

habitat must consult with us on the 

effects of their proposed actions, under 

section 7(a)(2) of the Act. 

Consideration of Impacts Under Section 

4(b)(2) of the Act 

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

we designate or revise critical habitat 

based upon the best scientific data 

available, after taking into consideration 

the economic impact, impact on 

national security, or any other relevant 

impact of specifying any particular area 

as critical habitat. We may exclude an 

area from critical habitat if we 

determine that the benefits of excluding 

the area outweigh the benefits of 

including the area as critical habitat, 

provided such an exclusion will not 

result in the extinction of the species. 

When considering the benefits of 

inclusion for an area, we consider the 

additional regulatory benefits that area 

would receive from the protection from 

adverse modification or destruction as a 

result of actions with a Federal nexus 

(activities conducted, funded, 

permitted, or authorized by Federal 

agencies), the educational benefits of 

mapping areas containing essential 

features that aid in the recovery of the 

listed species, and any benefits that may 

result from the designation due to State 

or Federal laws that may apply to 

critical habitat. 

When considering the benefits of 

exclusion, we consider, among other 

things, whether exclusion of a specific 

area is likely to result in conservation; 

the continuation, strengthening, or 

encouragement of partnerships; or 

implementation of a management plan. 

In the case of Ipomopsis polyantha, 

Penstemon debilis, and Phacelia 

submutica, the benefits of critical 

habitat include public awareness of the 

presence of these species and the 

importance of habitat protection, and, 

where a Federal action exists, increased 

habitat protection for these species due 

to protection from adverse modification 

or destruction of critical habitat. In 

practice, situations with a Federal 

action occur primarily on Federal lands 

or for projects undertaken by Federal 

agencies. 

The final decision on whether to 

exclude any areas will be based on the 

best scientific data available at the time 

of the final designation, including 

information obtained during the 

comment period and information about 

the economic impact of designation. 

Accordingly, we have prepared a DEA 

concerning the proposed critical habitat 

designation, which is available for 

review and comment (see ADDRESSES). 

Draft Economic Analysis 

The purpose of the DEA is to identify 

and analyze the potential economic 

impacts associated with the proposed 

critical habitat designation for 

Ipomopsis polyantha, Penstemon 

debilis, and Phacelia submutica. The 

DEA describes the economic impacts of 

all potential conservation efforts for I. 

polyantha, P. debilis, and P. submutica. 

Some of these costs will likely be 

incurred regardless of whether or not we 

designate critical habitat. The economic 

impact of the proposed critical habitat 

designation is analyzed by comparing 

scenarios both ‘‘with critical habitat’’ 

and ‘‘without critical habitat.’’ The 

‘‘without critical habitat’’ scenario 

represents the baseline for the analysis, 

considering protections already in place 

for these species (e.g., under the Federal 

listing and other Federal, State, and 

local regulations). Therefore, the 

baseline represents the costs incurred 

regardless of whether critical habitat is 

designated. The ‘‘with critical habitat’’ 

scenario describes the incremental 

impacts associated specifically with the 

designation of critical habitat for these 

species. The incremental conservation 

efforts and associated impacts are those 

not expected to occur absent the 

designation of critical habitat for these 

species. In other words, the incremental 

costs are those attributable solely to the 

designation of critical habitat above and 

beyond the baseline costs; these are the 

costs we may consider in the final 

designation of critical habitat. The 

analysis looks retrospectively at 

baseline impacts incurred since these 

species were listed, and forecasts both 

baseline and incremental impacts likely 

to occur if we finalize the proposed 

critical habitat designation. 

The DEA provides estimated costs of 

the foreseeable potential economic 

impacts of the proposed critical habitat 

designation for Ipomopsis polyantha, 

Penstemon debilis, and Phacelia 

submutica over the next 20 years, which 

was determined to be the appropriate 

period for analysis because planning 

information was available for most 

activities to reasonably forecast activity 

levels for projects for a 20-year 

timeframe. The DEA identifies potential 

incremental costs as a result of the 

proposed critical habitat designation; 

these are those costs attributed to 

critical habitat over and above those 

baseline costs attributed to listing. The 

DEA quantifies economic impacts of 

conservation efforts for Ipomopsis 

polyantha, Penstemon debilis, and 

Phacelia submutica associated with the 

following categories of activity: (1) 

Energy development; (2) transportation 

projects; (3) agriculture and grazing; and 

(4) recreation. 

Because of uncertainty regarding the 

level and distribution of future oil and 

gas development, the DEA presents a 

low and high cost scenario for baseline 

and incremental economic impacts. 

Over the next 20 years, potential 

baseline impacts in areas proposed for 

designation are estimated to be $3.85 

million to $9.81 million (low and high 

cost scenarios; approximately $340,000 

to $866,000 on an annualized basis), 

assuming a seven percent discount rate. 

Baseline impacts in areas considered for 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

18160 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

exclusion are estimated to be $2.36 

million. The DEA estimates that total 

potential incremental economic impacts 

associated with a critical habitat 

designation in areas proposed as critical 

habitat for all three species over the next 

20 years will be $967,000 to $14.8 

million (low and high cost scenarios; 

approximately $85,300 to $1.3 million 

on an annualized basis), assuming a 7- 

percent discount rate (Table 1). The 

largest contributor to potential 

incremental costs is impacts to oil and 

gas development, which represent 

approximately 90 percent of 

incremental impacts in the low-cost 

scenario and 99 percent of impacts in 

the high-cost scenario. Impacts to 

agriculture and grazing, recreation, and 

transportation projects combined 

represent less than ten percent of the 

incremental impacts in both scenarios 

analyzed. 

TABLE 1—INCREMENTAL IMPACTS OF PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION FOR IPOMOPSIS POLYANTHA, 

PENSTEMON DEBILIS, AND PHACELIA SUBMUTICA BY SPECIES, UNIT, AND ACTIVITY

[2012 dollars, assuming a 7-percent discount rate] 

Unit # Unit name Oil & gas 

–low– 

Oil & gas 

–high– 

Transportation Agriculture 

& grazing Recreation Species mgmt 

Subtotal 

–low– 

Subtotal 

–high– 

Areas Proposed for Designation 

Ipomopsis polyantha (Pagosa Skyrocket) 

1 ........................ Dyke .............................................. $0 $0 $9,370 $0 $0 $0 $9,370 $9,370 

2 ........................ O’Neal Hill Special Botanical Area 0 0 0 0 7,500 0 7,500 7,500 

3 ........................ Pagosa Springs ............................. 0 0 3,330 0 0 0 3,330 3,330 

4 ........................ Eight Mile Mesa ............................. 0 0 0 0 7,500 0 7,500 7,500 

Subtotal ...... ........................................................ 0 0 12,700 0 15,000 0 27,700 27,700 

Penstemon debilis (Parachute Beardtongue) 

1 ........................ Brush Mountain ............................. 11,600 195,000 0 0 0 0 11,600 195,000 

2 ........................ Cow Ridge ..................................... 35,500 599,000 0 0 0 0 35,500 599,000 

3 ........................ Mount Callahan ............................. 10,900 184,000 0 0 2,130 0 13,000 186,000 

4 ........................ Anvil Points .................................... 8,470 143,000 0 0 2,130 0 10,600 145,000 

Subtotal ...... ........................................................ 66,400 1,120,000 0 0 4,250 0 70,600 1,120,000 

Phacelia submutica (Debeque Phacelia) 

1 ........................ Sulphur Gulch ................................ 37,300 629,000 0 1,590 1,060 0 39,900 632,000 

2 ........................ Pyramid Rock ................................ 627,000 10,600,000 0 1,590 1,060 0 630,000 10,600,000 

3 ........................ Roan Creek ................................... 398 6,720 0 0 0 0 398 6,720 

4 ........................ DeBeque ........................................ 13,100 221,000 0 1,590 1,060 0 15,800 224,000 

5 ........................ Mount Logan ................................. 0 0 0 1,590 2,130 0 3,720 3,720 

6 ........................ Ashmead Draw .............................. 44,700 755,000 0 1,590 1,060 0 47,400 757,000 

7 ........................ Baugh Reservoir ............................ 18,200 307,000 0 1,590 1,060 0 20,800 310,000 

8 ........................ Horsethief Mountain ...................... 60,200 1,020,000 0 43,600 5,820 0 110,000 1,070,000 

9 ........................ Anderson Gulch ............................. 1,150 19,500 0 0 0 0 1,150 19,500 

Subtotal ...... ........................................................ 802,000 13,500,000 0 53,200 13,300 0 868,000 13,600,000 

Total .... ........................................................ 868,000 14,700,000 12,700 53,200 32,500 0 967,000 14,800,000 

Areas Considered for Exclusion 

Parachute Beardtongue 

3 ........................ Mount Callahan ............................. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding. 

In the low cost scenario, proposed 

Unit 2 for Phacelia submutica has the 

highest incremental impacts (65 percent 

of total), followed by proposed Unit 8 

for P. submutica (11 percent of total) 

and proposed Unit 6 for P. submutica 

(five percent of total). In the high cost 

scenario, these same three units 

(proposed Units 2, 8, and 4 for P. 

submutica) have the highest 

incremental impacts with 72 percent, 

seven percent, and five percent of the 

total incremental impacts, respectively. 

As stated earlier, we are seeking data 

and comments from the public on the 

DEA and the Draft EA, as well as all 

aspects of the proposed rule and our 

amended required determinations. We 

may revise the proposed rule or 

supporting documents to incorporate or 

address information we receive during 

the public comment period. In 

particular, we may exclude an area from 

critical habitat if we determine that the 

benefits of excluding the area outweigh 

the benefits of including the area, 

provided the exclusion will not result in 

the extinction of the species. 

Draft Environmental Assessment; 

National Environmental Policy Act 

When the range of a species includes 

States within the U.S. Tenth Circuit 

Court of Appeals, pursuant to the ruling 

in Catron County Board of 

Commissioners v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 75 F .3d 1429 (10th Cir. 1996), 

we will complete an analysis under the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) (NEPA), on 

critical habitat designations. The range 

of Ipomopsis polyantha, Penstemon 

debilis, and Phacelia submutica is 

entirely within the State of Colorado, 

which is within the Tenth Circuit. 

The Draft EA presents the purpose of 

and need for critical habitat designation, 

the proposed action and alternatives, 

and an evaluation of the direct, indirect, 

and cumulative effects of the 

alternatives under the requirements of 

NEPA as implemented by the Council 

on Environmental Quality regulations 

(40 CFR 1500 et seq.) and according to 

the Department of the Interior’s NEPA 

procedures. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 18161 

The Draft EA will be used by the 

Service to decide whether or not critical 

habitat will be designated as proposed; 

if the proposed action requires 

refinement, or if another alternative is 

appropriate; or if further analyses are 

needed through preparation of an 

environmental impact statement. If the 

proposed action is selected as described 

(or is changed minimally) and no 

further environmental analyses are 

needed, then a Finding of No Significant 

Impact (FONSI) would be the 

appropriate conclusion of this process. 

A FONSI would then be prepared for 

the environmental assessment. 

Proposed Changes to Critical Habitat 

Unit Boundaries 

In this document, we are proposing 

changes to some of the critical habitat 

units that were defined in the July 27, 

2011, proposed designation of critical 

habitat for Ipomopsis polyantha, 

Penstemon debilis, and Phacelia 

submutica. We describe these changes 

below and provide updated critical 

habitat unit maps in this notice. Maps 

illustrating the changes from the 

previously proposed unit boundaries are 

available on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov at docket number 

FWS–R6–ES–2011–0040, or at http:// 

www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/ 

plants/3ColoradoPlants/index.html. 

Ipomopsis polyantha 

We are proposing to modify our 

proposed critical habitat Units 2 and 4 

for Ipomopsis polyantha based on 

comments we have received from the 

U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and based on 

field visits made during the summer of 

2011. Changes in acreage are depicted in 

Table 2. 

TABLE 2—PROPOSED CHANGES TO CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS FOR IPOMOPSIS POLYANTHA

Critical habitat unit Land ownership 

Size of 

original 

unit 

Size of 

proposed 

revision 

Unit 2. O’Neal Hill Special Botanical Area ........................................................ USFS—San Juan National Forest ...... 784 ac ......

(317 ha). ..

564 ac. 

(228 ha). 

Unit 4. Eight Mile Mesa ..................................................................................... USFS—San Juan National Forest ...... 1,180 ac ...

(478 ha). ..

1,146 ac. 

(464 ha). 

Total for All Units (Units 1 and 3 unchanged) ................................................... .............................................................. 9,894 ac ...

(4,004 ha). 

9,641 ac. 

(3,902 ha). 

Unit 2. O’Neal Hill Special Botanical 

Area 

We are proposing to reduce the size 

of Unit 2, the O’Neal Hill Botanical Area 

from 784 ac (317 ha) to 564 ac (228 ha). 

We are modifying this unit so that the 

thick pasture grass and riparian areas in 

the bottomlands that do not contain any 

of the primary constituent elements 

(PCEs) for Ipomopsis polyantha would 

no longer be included (USFS 2011, p. 1). 

We believe there is still enough area to 

provide protection for pollinators if this 

site is used as an introduction area in 

the future. This area is unoccupied and 

is owned by the USFS with 279 ac (113 

ha), or 49 percent of the unit within the 

O’Neal Hill Special Botanical Area that 

was designated to protect another 

Mancos shale endemic, Lesquerella 

pruinosa (Pagosa bladderpod). Because 

L. pruinosa is sometimes found growing 

with I. polyantha, we believe the site 

has high potential for introduction of I. 

polyantha. Aside from the changes 

described here, the unit description 

from our proposed critical habitat rule 

still applies (76 FR 45078). 

Unit 4. Eight Mile Mesa 

We are proposing to reduce the size 

of Unit 4, Eight Mile Mesa, from 1,180 

ac (478 ha) to 1,146 ac (464 ha). We are 

modifying this unit so that isolated 

patches that are separated from the large 

contiguous potential habitat by roads 

are not included (USFS 2011, p. 2). 

These isolated patches would not be 

suitable as potential introduction sites 

in the future because they are small and 

separated from the large block of 

contiguous habitat by roads. This unit is 

unoccupied and is owned by the USFS. 

Aside from the changes described here, 

the unit description from our proposed 

critical habitat rule still applies (76 FR 

45078). 

Phacelia submutica 

For Phacelia submutica, we are 

modifying three of the proposed critical 

habitat units, all of which are occupied: 

Ashmead Draw (Unit 6), Baugh 

Reservoir (Unit 7), and Anderson Gulch 

(Unit 9). Changes to the acreages are 

depicted in Table 3. All three units have 

been made larger. The boundaries of all 

units were expanded based on 2011 

field surveys in historical sites and in 

suitable habitat near these sites (Service 

2011, pp. 1–12; CNHP 2011, pp. 1–3, 

spatial data). 

TABLE 3—PROPOSED CHANGES TO CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS FOR PHACELIA SUBMUTICA

Unit No./Unit name 

Original proposed critical habitat Proposed revisions to critical habitat 

Land ownership by type 

Size of unit 

Land ownership by type 

Size of unit 

Federal State Private Federal State Private 

Unit 6. Ashmead Draw ..................... 1,046 ac 

(423 ha).

.................. 174 ac (71 

ha).

1,220 ac 

(494 ha).

1,110 ac 

(449 ha).

.................. 166 ac (67 

ha).

1,276 ac. 

(516 ha). 

Unit 7. Baugh Reservoir ................... 19 ac ........

(8 ha) .......

.................. 10 ac ........

(4 ha) .......

28* ac (12 

ha).

169 ac (68 

ha).

.................. 261 ac 

(106 ha).

430 ac. 

(174 ha). 

Unit 9. Anderson Gulch .................... .................. 173 ac (70 

ha).

128 ac (52 

ha).

301 ac 

(122 ha).

.................. 192 ac (78 

ha).

149 ac (60 

ha).

341 ac. 

(138 ha). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

18162 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 3—PROPOSED CHANGES TO CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS FOR PHACELIA SUBMUTICA—Continued 

Unit No./Unit name 

Original proposed critical habitat Proposed revisions to critical habitat 

Land ownership by type 

Size of unit 

Land ownership by type 

Size of unit 

Federal State Private Federal State Private 

Total (all other units unchanged) ..... 21,800 ac 

(8,822 

ha).

173 ac (70 

ha).

3,014 ac 

(1,220 

ha).

24,987 ac 

(10,112 

ha).

22,013 

(8,908 

ha).

192 ac (78 

ha).

3,278 ac 

(1,327 

ha).

25,484 ac. 

(10,313 

ha). 

* 23 ac (9 ha) of this 28 ac (12 ha) is still included in Unit 7, Baugh Reservoir. 

Unit 6. Ashmead Draw 

We are proposing to increase the size 

of Unit 6, Ashmead Draw, from 1,220 ac 

(494 ha) to 1,276 ac (516 ha). In the 

spring of 2011, we revisited a historical 

location we had used to delineate the 

unit in our proposed rule and found that 

the site extended slightly to the east of 

where it was previously mapped 

(Service 2011, pp. 1–4). To 

accommodate this situation, we are 

proposing the boundary changes 

described here. The unit comprises both 

Federal and private lands in Mesa 

County, Colorado. Eighty-seven percent 

of this unit is managed by the Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM). The entire 

unit is within the Westwide Energy 

corridor, and 87 percent is within 

several grazing allotments. This unit is 

currently occupied. Aside from the 

changes described here, the unit 

description from our proposed critical 

habitat rule still applies (76 FR 45078). 

Unit 7. Baugh Reservoir 

We are proposing to increase the size 

of Unit 7, Baugh Reservoir, from 28 ac 

(12 ha) to 430 ac (174 ha). In the spring 

of 2011, we revisited the historical 

location we had used to delineate the 

unit in our proposed critical habitat rule 

and found that the site was actually 

south of where it was originally 

mapped. After visiting the site, we 

discovered more suitable habitat in the 

area than previously known. We located 

two additional sites nearby during 

subsequent field surveys (Service 2011, 

pp. 5–12). The unit is 61 percent 

privately owned and 39 percent owned 

by the BLM. This unit is currently 

occupied. Several roads run through the 

unit close to Phacelia submutica sites. 

The entire unit is within the Westwide 

Energy corridor and one grazing 

allotment. Aside from the changes 

described here, the unit description 

from our proposed critical habitat rule 

still applies (76 FR 45078). 

Unit 9. Anderson Gulch 

We are proposing to increase the size 

of Unit 9, Anderson Gulch, from 301 ac 

(122 ha) to 341 ac (138 ha). Surveys 

during the spring of 2011 extended the 

known sites to the north (CNHP 2011, 

pp. 1–3, spatial data). To accommodate 

this situation, we are proposing the 

boundary changes described here. The 

unit comprises both State and private 

lands in Mesa County, Colorado. Within 

the unit, 56 percent of the lands are 

managed by the Colorado Division of 

Wildlife, within the Plateau Creek State 

Wildlife Area, and 44 percent is private. 

This unit is currently occupied. Aside 

from the changes described here, the 

unit description from our proposed 

critical habitat rule still applies (76 FR 

45078). 

Additional Areas Considered for 

Exclusion 

Penstemon debilis Unit 3. Mount 

Callahan 

Three of the four viable (large and 

robust) populations of Penstemon 

debilis are on lands owned by Oxy, all 

within the proposed Unit 3 (Mount 

Callahan). Conservation of the species 

cannot occur without cooperation from 

Oxy. P. debilis populations protected 

through Colorado Natural Areas 

agreements may receive better 

protection than they would otherwise 

receive through the protections of the 

Act on private lands. Given this, and to 

facilitate our partnership, in our original 

critical habitat proposal we announced 

that we would consider the exclusion of 

areas on Oxy lands that are protected 

under a voluntary conservation 

agreement with the Colorado Natural 

Areas Program (CNAP). 

We are now considering excluding 

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

additional lands for Penstemon debilis 

based on the efforts of the landowner 

(OXY) and a potential agreement with 

CNAP. Oxy is working with CNAP to 

expand their agreement to include the 

Mt. Logan Mine area so that all three 

viable Penstemon debilis populations on 

Oxy lands are protected (see figure 

below) (Oxy 2010, pp. 1–6). If 

designated, we also would consider 

excluding this area. For areas outside 

these Natural Areas, Oxy also is working 

to develop best management practices to 

protect adjacent habitat and the 

pollinators found in these adjacent 

habitats. If these best management 

practices are adequately described in 

their Natural Areas agreement, we also 

would consider excluding Oxy lands 

that are covered by these best 

management practices outside of 

suitable habitat (barren cliff areas). If 

further protections were provided for 

suitable habitat, we would consider this 

in our decision. We do not yet know 

where the boundaries of the potential 

Natural Area at Mt. Logan Mine would 

be so we have depicted this area with 

a generalized map. We also have 

delineated, to the best of our abilities, 

suitable habitat for P. debilis in the map 

of Unit 3. 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 18163 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP27MR12.127</GPH>
18164 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Nonsubstantive Changes to § 17.12(h) 

In the July 27, 2011, proposed rule, 

the table entries for the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Plants at 

§ 17.12(h) contained a small formatting 

error. The scientific names for 

Ipomopsis polyantha and Penstemon 

debilis were presented in Roman type; 

however, they should have been 

presented in italics. We are correcting 

this error in this revised proposed rule. 

Required Determinations—Amended 

In our July 27, 2011, proposed rule 

(76 FR 45078), we indicated that we 

would defer our determination of 

compliance with several statutes and 

Executive Orders (EOs) until the 

information concerning potential 

economic impacts of the designation 

and potential effects on landowners and 

stakeholders became available in the 

DEA. We have now made use of the 

DEA data in making these 

determinations. In this document, we 

affirm the information in our proposed 

rule concerning E.O. 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review), E.O. 12630 

(Takings), E.O. 13132 (Federalism), E.O. 

12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, E.O. 12866 

and E.O. 12988 (Clarity of the Rule), and 

the President’s memorandum of April 

29, 1994, ‘‘Government-to-Government 

Relations with Native American Tribal 

Governments’’ (59 FR 22951). However, 

based on the DEA data, we are 

amending our required determinations 

concerning the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), E.O. 13211 

(Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use), 

and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.). 

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 of 1996), whenever an 

agency must publish a notice of 

rulemaking for any proposed or final 

rule, it must prepare and make available 

for public comment a regulatory 

flexibility analysis that describes the 

effects of the rule on small entities (i.e., 

small businesses, small organizations, 

and small government jurisdictions). 

However, no regulatory flexibility 

analysis is required if the head of the 

agency certifies the rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Based on our DEA of the proposed 

designation, we provide our analysis for 

determining whether the proposed rule 

would result in a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. Based on comments we receive, 

we may revise this determination as part 

of our final rulemaking. 

According to the Small Business 

Administration, small entities include 

small organizations, such as 

independent nonprofit organizations, 

and small governmental jurisdictions, 

including school boards and city and 

town governments that serve fewer than 

50,000 residents, as well as small 

businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small 

businesses include manufacturing and 

mining concerns with fewer than 500 

employees, wholesale trade entities 

with fewer than 100 employees, retail 

and service businesses with less than 

$5 million in annual sales, general and 

heavy construction businesses with less 

than $27.5 million in annual business, 

special trade contractors doing less than 

$11.5 million in annual business, and 

agricultural businesses with annual 

sales less than $750,000. To determine 

if potential economic impacts to these 

small entities are significant, we 

considered the types of activities that 

might trigger regulatory impacts under 

the rule, as well as the types of project 

modifications that may result. In 

general, the term ‘‘significant economic 

impact’’ is meant to apply to a typical 

small business firm’s business 

operations. 

To determine if the proposed 

designation of critical habitat for 

Ipomopsis polyantha, Penstemon 

debilis, and Phacelia submutica would 

affect a substantial number of small 

entities, we considered the number of 

small entities affected within particular 

types of economic activities (e.g., energy 

development, transportation projects, 

agriculture and grazing, recreation). In 

order to determine whether it is 

appropriate for our agency to certify that 

this rule would not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities, we considered 

each industry or category individually. 

In estimating the numbers of small 

entities potentially affected, we also 

considered whether their activities have 

any Federal involvement. Critical 

habitat designation will not affect 

activities that do not have any Federal 

involvement; designation of critical 

habitat affects activities conducted, 

funded, permitted, or authorized by 

Federal agencies. 

Under the Act, designation of critical 

habitat only affects activities carried 

out, funded, or permitted by Federal 

agencies. If we finalize the proposed 

critical habitat designation, Federal 

agencies must consult with us under 

section 7 of the Act if their activities 

may affect designated critical habitat. 

Consultations to avoid the destruction 

or adverse modification of critical 

habitat would be incorporated into the 

existing consultation process. 

Some kinds of activities are unlikely 

to have any Federal involvement and so 

would not result in any additional 

effects under the Act. If there is a 

Federal action, Federal agencies will be 

required to consult with us under 

section 7 of the Act on activities they 

fund, permit, or carry out that may 

affect critical habitat. If we conclude in 

a biological opinion that a proposed 

action is likely to destroy or adversely 

modify critical habitat, we can offer 

‘‘reasonable and prudent alternatives.’’ 

Reasonable and prudent alternatives are 

alternative actions that can be 

implemented in a manner consistent 

with the scope of the Federal agency’s 

legal authority and jurisdiction, that are 

economically and technologically 

feasible, and that would avoid 

destroying or adversely modifying 

critical habitat. 

Within the proposed critical habitat 

designation, the types of actions or 

authorized activities that we have 

identified as potential concerns and that 

may be subject to consultation under 

section 7 if there is a Federal action 

includes: Energy development (oil and 

gas); transportation projects; agriculture 

and grazing; and recreation. As 

discussed in Appendix A of the DEA of 

the activities addressed in the analysis, 

only oil and gas, transportation, and 

recreational activities are expected to 

experience incremental, administrative 

consultation costs that may be borne by 

small businesses. 

Any existing and planned projects, 

land uses, and activities that could 

affect the proposed critical habitat but 

have no Federal involvement would not 

require section 7 consultation with the 

Service, so they are not restricted by the 

requirements of the Act. Federal 

agencies may need to reinitiate a 

previous consultation if discretionary 

involvement or control over the Federal 

action has been retained or is authorized 

by law and the activities may affect 

critical habitat. 

In the DEA, we evaluated the 

potential economic effects on small 

entities resulting from implementation 

of conservation actions related to the 

proposed designation of critical habitat 

for Ipomopsis polyantha, Penstemon 

debilis, and Phacelia submutica. Please 

refer to our DEA of the proposed critical 

habitat designation for a more detailed 

discussion of potential economic 

impacts; we will summarize key points 

of the analysis below. 

The DEA, and its associated initial 

regulatory flexibility analysis, estimate 

that total potential incremental 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 18165 

economic impacts in areas proposed as 

critical habitat for all three species over 

the next 20 years will be $967,000 to 

$14.8 million, assuming a 7-percent 

discount rate. The largest contributor to 

the incremental costs is impacts to oil 

and gas development, which represent 

approximately 90 percent of 

incremental impacts in the low-cost 

scenario and 99 percent of impacts in 

the high-cost scenario. Incremental 

impacts to oil and gas development 

range from $868,000 to $14.7 million, 

assuming a 7-percent discount rate. 

These impacts are related to future oil 

and gas development that occurs in 

areas greater than 100 meters from 

known Phacelia submutica occurrences 

and greater than 1,000 meters from 

known Penstemon debilis occurrences. 

Similar to the baseline impacts, the 

large range in incremental impacts is 

due to uncertainty regarding the level 

and distribution of future oil and gas 

development. 

Incremental impacts to transportation 

projects are estimated to be $12,700, 

assuming a 7-percent discount rate. 

Incremental impacts to recreational 

activities are estimated to be $32,500, 

assuming a 7-percent discount rate. The 

incremental impacts to transportation 

and recreational activities are limited to 

the administrative cost of consultation. 

Incremental impacts to agriculture and 

grazing are estimated to be $53,200, 

assuming a 7-percent discount rate. 

Small entities represent 60 percent of 

all entities in the oil and gas 

development industry that may be 

affected. The analysis expects 

conservation efforts for the three plants 

to affect companies that are involved 

with drilling for oil and gas and that 

lease or plan to lease Federal lands. 

Although we predict that drilling 

activity will not be precluded by the 

designation, we anticipate requesting 

that drilling companies undertake 

project modifications to reduce 

potential impacts to the habitat. The 

costs of implementing these project 

modifications are one impact of the 

regulation. In addition, affected 

companies will incur administrative 

costs associated with the section 7 

consultation process. 

The DEA estimates that between 0.23 

and 5.1 projects are undertaken in the 

study area (total number of projects 

divided by 20 years). We multiply these 

projects by the percentage of small 

entities in these counties, or 

approximately 60 percent, to identify 

the annual number of projects likely to 

be undertaken by small entities (0.14 to 

3.06 projects annually). Some of these 

projects will only incur incremental 

administrative costs because they are 

located close to existing plants. In these 

cases, the project modification costs will 

be incurred regardless of the designation 

of critical habitat. Projects experiencing 

the highest annual incremental costs are 

located in unoccupied areas. We 

multiply the per-project costs in these 

unoccupied areas by the total number of 

annual projects undertaken by small 

entities and then divide by the number 

of affected small entities to estimate perentity costs. These impacts are then 

compared to average annual sales per 

small business in the sector. On average, 

annual incremental impacts per small 

drilling company represent 0.01 to 0.27 

percent of small developers’ annual 

average sales. 

In summary, less than two to four 

small entities may be affected annually 

by the proposed rule. These entities will 

likely experience costs equivalent to 

less than 1 percent of annual revenues. 

Importantly, these estimates assume 

each well pad is drilled by a separate 

entity. In the case that one small 

company drills more well pads than 

predicted, impacts to that company are 

underestimated, and the annual number 

of affected entities is overstated. 

Executive Order 13211—Energy Supply, 

Distribution, and Use 

E.O. 13211, Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use, 

requires agencies to prepare Statements 

of Energy Effects when undertaking 

certain actions. The Office of 

Management and Budget’s guidance for 

implementing this Executive order 

outlines nine outcomes that may 

constitute ‘‘a significant adverse effect’’ 

when compared to no regulatory action. 

Critical habitat designation for the three 

plants is anticipated to affect oil and gas 

activities. However, the Service is more 

likely to recommend a series of project 

modifications that will allow for work 

within critical habitat, rather than 

complete avoidance of critical habitat. 

Therefore, reductions in oil and natural 

gas production are not anticipated. 

Furthermore, given the small fraction of 

projects affected, less than one to 

approximately two per year, project 

modification costs are not anticipated to 

increase the cost of energy production 

or distribution in the United States in 

excess of 1 percent. Thus, none of the 

nine threshold levels of impact listed 

above is exceeded. Therefore, 

designation of critical habitat is not 

expected to lead to any adverse 

outcomes (such as a reduction in oil and 

natural gas production or distribution), 

and a Statement of Energy Effects is not 

required. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 

U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) 

In accordance with the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et 

seq.), we make 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. 

First, it excludes ‘‘a condition of federal 

assistance.’’ Second, it excludes ‘‘a duty 

arising from participation in a voluntary 

Federal program,’’ unless the regulation 

‘‘relates to a then-existing Federal 

program under which $500,000,000 or 

more is provided annually to State, 

local, and Tribal governments under 

entitlement authority,’’ if the provision 

would ‘‘increase the stringency of 

conditions of assistance’’ or ‘‘place caps 

upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal 

Government’s responsibility to provide 

funding’’ and the State, local, or Tribal 

governments ‘‘lack authority’’ to adjust 

accordingly. At the time of enactment, 

these entitlement programs were: 

Medicaid; Aid to Families with 

Dependent Children work programs; 

Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social 

Services Block Grants; Vocational 

Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, 

Adoption Assistance, and Independent 

Living; Family Support Welfare 

Services; and Child Support 

Enforcement. ‘‘Federal private sector 

mandate’’ includes a regulation that 

‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 

upon the private sector, except (i) a 

condition of Federal assistance; or (ii) a 

duty arising from participation in a 

voluntary Federal program.’’ 

The designation of critical habitat 

does not impose a legally binding duty 

on non-Federal government entities or 

private parties. Under the Act, the only 

regulatory effect is that Federal agencies 

must ensure that their actions do not 

destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat under section 7. While nonFederal entities that receive Federal 

funding, assistance, or permits, or that 

otherwise require approval or 

authorization from a Federal agency for 

an action, may be indirectly impacted 

by the designation of critical habitat, the 

legally binding duty to avoid 

destruction or adverse modification of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

18166 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

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) As discussed in the DEA of the 

proposed designation of critical habitat 

for Ipomopsis polyantha, Penstemon 

debilis, and Phacelia submutica, we do 

not believe that the rule would 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments because it would not 

produce a Federal mandate of $100 

million or greater in any year; that is, it 

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act. The DEA concludes that 

incremental impacts may occur due to 

project modifications and 

administrative costs of consultation that 

may need to be made for oil and gas, 

transportation, grazing, and recreational 

activities; however, these are not 

expected to affect small governments to 

the extent described above. 

Consequently, we do not believe that 

the proposed critical habitat designation 

would significantly or uniquely affect 

small government entities. As such, a 

Small Government Agency Plan is not 

required. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references we 

cited in the proposed rule and in this 

document is available on the Internet at 

http://www.regulations.gov or by 

contacting the Colorado Ecological 

Services Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this document 

are the staff members of the Western 

Colorado Ecological Services Office. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Proposed Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we propose to further 

amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter 

I, title 50 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, as proposed to be amended 

at 76 FR 45078, July 27, 2011, as 

follows: 

PART 17—ENDANGERED AND 

THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS 

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. 

§ 17.12 [Amended] 

2. In § 17.12(h), amend the entries for 

‘‘Ipomopsis polyantha’’ and 

‘‘Penstemon debilis’’ under ‘‘Flowering 

Plants’’ in the List of Endangered and 

Threatened Plants by removing the 

words ‘‘Ipomopsis polyantha’’ and 

‘‘Penstemon debilis’’ and adding in their 

place the words ‘‘Ipomopsis polyantha’’ 

and ‘‘Penstemon debilis’’. 

3. In § 17.96, in paragraph (a), amend 

the entry for ‘‘Phacelia submutica 

(DeBeque phacelia)’’ by revising units 6, 

7, and 9, and the entry for ‘‘Ipomopsis 

polyantha (Pagosa skyrocket)’’ by 

revising units 2 and 4, to read as 

follows: 

§ 17.96 Critical habitat—plants. 

(a) Flowering plants. 

* * * * * 

Family Hydrophyllaceae: Phacelia 

submutica (DeBeque phacelia) 

* * * * * 

(11) Unit 6: Mesa County, Colorado. 

(i) Land bounded by the following 

UTM NAD83, zone 13N coordinates 

(E,N): 224560.31, 4351994.12; 

224551.61, 4351993.51; 224545.14, 

4351993.94; 224534.23, 4351994.73; 

224343.42, 4352006.84; 224341.20, 

4352007.01; 224332.52, 4352007.77; 

224315.35, 4352010.79; 224306.93, 

4352013.05; 224298.61, 4352015.67; 

224290.55, 4352019.01; 224282.65, 

4352022.70; 224267.56, 4352031.41; 

224260.42, 4352036.41; 224253.50, 

4352041.72; 224247.06, 4352047.61; 

224240.90, 4352053.78; 224229.70, 

4352067.13; 224224.70, 4352074.27; 

224220.01, 4352081.63; 224215.98, 

4352089.37; 224212.30, 4352097.26; 

224208.96, 4352105.32; 224206.34, 

4352113.64; 224204.08, 4352122.06; 

224201.05, 4352139.23; 224200.29, 

4352147.91; 224199.93, 4352154.95; 

224629.91, 4354119.91; 224136.18, 

4355951.10; 224136.42, 4355958.96; 

224137.28, 4355966.78; 224138.75, 

4355974.51; 224140.82, 4355982.09; 

224143.49, 4355989.49; 224146.73, 

4355996.66; 224167.76, 4356038.72; 

224169.66, 4356042.35; 225797.71, 

4358990.45; 225803.34, 4358999.46; 

225808.33, 4359006.60; 225819.54, 

4359019.96; 225825.70, 4359026.12; 

225832.13, 4359032.01; 225839.05, 

4359037.32; 225846.19, 4359042.32; 

225861.29, 4359051.04; 225869.19, 

4359054.72; 225877.25, 4359058.06; 

225885.57, 4359060.68; 225893.99, 

4359062.94; 225911.15, 4359065.97; 

225919.84, 4359066.73; 225928.55, 

4359067.11; 225937.27, 4359066.73; 

225945.95, 4359065.97; 225963.12, 

4359062.94; 225971.53, 4359060.68; 

225979.85, 4359058.06; 225987.91, 

4359054.72; 225995.81, 4359051.04; 

226010.91, 4359042.32; 226018.05, 

4359037.32; 226024.97, 4359032.01; 

226031.40, 4359026.12; 226037.56, 

4359019.96; 226048.77, 4359006.60; 

226053.77, 4358999.46; 226058.46, 

4358992.11; 226062.48, 4358984.37; 

226066.17, 4358976.47; 226069.51, 

4358968.41; 226072.13, 4358960.09; 

226074.38, 4358951.67; 226077.41, 

4358934.50; 226078.17, 4358925.82; 

226078.55, 4358917.11; 226078.17, 

4358908.39; 226077.41, 4358899.71; 

226075.73, 4358888.22; 224674.17, 

4352093.97; 224672.83, 4352088.29; 

224671.70, 4352084.08; 224665.74, 

4352067.70; 224663.89, 4352063.75; 

224659.87, 4352056.01; 224655.18, 

4352048.65; 224652.68, 4352045.08; 

224647.37, 4352038.16; 224641.48, 

4352031.73; 224638.39, 4352028.65; 

224625.04, 4352017.44; 224621.47, 

4352014.94; 224614.11, 4352010.26; 

224606.38, 4352006.23; 224602.43, 

4352004.39; 224594.37, 4352001.05; 

224585.93, 4351998.98; 224577.53, 

4351996.65; 224568.97, 4351995.03; 

224560.31, 4351994.12; and returning to 

224560.31, 4351994.12. 

* * * * * 

(12) Unit 7: Mesa County, Colorado. 

(i) Land bounded by the following 

UTM NAD83, zone 13N coordinates 

(E,N): 223172.45, 4348678.18; 

223164.10, 4348677.06; 223155.69, 

4348676.65; 223147.28, 4348676.96; 

223138.92, 4348677.98; 223130.67, 

4348679.70; 223122.61, 4348682.12; 

223114.77, 4348685.22; 223107.23, 

4348688.97; 223105.08, 4348690.05; 

221446.80, 4349594.77; 221439.42, 

4349599.22; 221432.45, 4349604.28; 

221425.95, 4349609.93; 221419.95, 

4349616.11; 221414.51, 4349622.79; 

221409.67, 4349629.91; 221405.45, 

4349637.43; 221401.90, 4349645.27; 

221399.04, 4349653.40; 221396.88, 

4349661.74; 221395.45, 4349670.23; 

221394.76, 4349678.82; 221394.81, 

4349687.43; 221395.60, 4349696.01; 

221397.13, 4349704.49; 221399.38, 

4349712.80; 221402.33, 4349720.89; 

221405.97, 4349728.70; 221410.27, 

4349736.16; 221415.20, 4349743.23; 

221420.72, 4349749.84; 221426.78, 

4349755.96; 221433.35, 4349761.53; 

221440.38, 4349766.52; 221528.06, 

4349823.24; 221530.29, 4349824.64; 

222690.07, 4350532.12; 222697.89, 

4350536.43; 222706.07, 4350540.02; 

222714.53, 4350542.87; 222723.22, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 18167 

4350544.95; 222732.06, 4350546.24; 

222740.97, 4350546.75; 222749.90, 

4350546.45; 222758.76, 4350545.36; 

222767.49, 4350543.49; 222776.02, 

4350540.84; 222784.28, 4350537.44; 

222792.21, 4350533.32; 222799.73, 

4350528.51; 222806.80, 4350523.04; 

222813.34, 4350516.97; 222819.32, 

4350510.34; 222824.69, 4350503.20; 

222829.40, 4350495.61; 222833.41, 

4350487.63; 222836.69, 4350479.32; 

222839.22, 4350470.76; 223249.33, 

4348810.93; 223251.95, 4348800.61; 

223253.68, 4348792.17; 223254.68, 

4348783.61; 223254.94, 4348774.99; 

223254.45, 4348766.39; 223253.22, 

4348757.86; 223251.26, 4348749.46; 

223248.58, 4348741.27; 223245.20, 

4348733.34; 223241.15, 4348725.74; 

223236.45, 4348718.51; 223231.15, 

4348711.71; 223225.28, 4348705.40; 

223218.89, 4348699.62; 223212.02, 

4348694.41; 223204.73, 4348689.82; 

223197.07, 4348685.87; 223189.10, 

4348682.60; 223180.87, 4348680.03; 

223172.45, 4348678.18; and returning to 

223172.45, 4348678.18. 

* * * * * 

(14) Unit 9: Mesa County, Colorado. 

(i) Land bounded by the following 

UTM NAD83, zone 13N coordinates 

(E,N): 238464.91, 4347092.87; 

238447.55, 4347091.35; 238440.44, 

4347091.83; 238436.82, 4347092.11; 

238430.10, 4347092.73; 236172.30, 

4347409.84; 236160.33, 4347412.28; 

236156.12, 4347413.40; 236147.80, 

4347416.03; 236139.74, 4347419.37; 

236135.79, 4347421.21; 236120.70, 

4347429.92; 236117.13, 4347432.42; 

236110.20, 4347437.73; 236103.77, 

4347443.63; 236100.69, 4347446.71; 

236089.49, 4347460.06; 236086.99, 

4347463.63; 236082.30, 4347470.99; 

236078.27, 4347478.73; 236076.43, 

4347482.68; 236074.59, 4347486.87; 

236049.56, 4347547.66; 236045.44, 

4347559.85; 236044.31, 4347564.06; 

236042.42, 4347572.58; 236041.28, 

4347581.23; 236040.90, 4347585.57; 

236040.90, 4347603.00; 236041.28, 

4347607.34; 236042.42, 4347615.99; 

236044.31, 4347624.51; 236045.44, 

4347628.72; 236051.40, 4347645.10; 

236053.24, 4347649.05; 236061.96, 

4347664.14; 236064.46, 4347667.71; 

236069.77, 4347674.63; 236075.66, 

4347681.07; 236078.74, 4347684.15; 

236085.17, 4347690.04; 236092.10, 

4347695.35; 236095.67, 4347697.85; 

236110.76, 4347706.57; 236114.71, 

4347708.41; 236131.09, 4347714.37; 

236135.30, 4347715.50; 236143.82, 

4347717.39; 236152.47, 4347718.52; 

236156.81, 4347718.90; 236160.40, 

4347719.15; 238092.65, 4347818.34; 

238097.77, 4347818.47; 238114.80, 

4347817.01; 238597.16, 4347733.65; 

238602.61, 4347732.55; 238604.85, 

4347732.03; 238617.20, 4347728.33; 

238729.89, 4347686.46; 238741.46, 

4347681.30; 238745.08, 4347679.41; 

238748.68, 4347677.43; 238761.06, 

4347668.98; 238778.98, 4347654.68; 

238784.95, 4347649.51; 238790.51, 

4347643.88; 238795.59, 4347637.84; 

238800.19, 4347631.41; 238804.26, 

4347624.63; 238807.79, 4347617.56; 

238809.34, 4347614.11; 238812.48, 

4347606.26; 238814.95, 4347598.18; 

238816.72, 4347589.91; 238817.79, 

4347581.52; 238818.15, 4347573.07; 

238818.15, 4347568.42; 238817.82, 

4347560.33; 238816.84, 4347552.30; 

238815.21, 4347544.37; 238812.95, 

4347536.59; 238810.06, 4347529.03; 

238808.51, 4347525.41; 238803.20, 

4347514.80; 238798.23, 4347507.04; 

238536.17, 4347136.70; 238531.84, 

4347131.01; 238527.10, 4347125.65; 

238521.99, 4347120.64; 238516.54, 

4347116.00; 238510.78, 4347111.77; 

238507.54, 4347109.57; 238501.31, 

4347105.66; 238497.71, 4347104.41; 

238490.32, 4347100.70; 238482.63, 

4347097.65; 238474.70, 4347095.31; 

238470.96, 4347094.36; 238464.91, 

4347092.87; and returning to 238464.91, 

4347092.87. 

(ii) Note: Map of Units 6, 7, 8, and 9 

of critical habitat for Phacelia 

submutica follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

18168 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP27MR12.128</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 18169 

* * * * * 

Family Polemoniaceae: Ipomopsis 

polyantha (Pagosa skyrocket) 

* * * * * 

(7) Unit 2: Archuleta County, 

Colorado. 

(i) Land bounded by the following 

UTM NAD83, zone 13N coordinates 

(E,N): 306219.79, 4143158.27; 

306228.72, 4143313.61; 307003.79, 

4143989.39; 307211.97, 4144018.22; 

307840.95, 4143816.88; 308210.39, 

4143809.74; 308215.75, 4143886.66; 

308293.59, 4143872.46; 308346.60, 

4143847.52; 309004.29, 4143385.20; 

309534.52, 4142892.90; 309558.00, 

4142861.72; 309548.26, 4142623.97; 

309546.44, 4142621.82; 309498.44, 

4142571.81; 309318.44, 4142432.81; 

309132.45, 4142298.80; 309124.45, 

4142295.80; 309054.45, 4142279.80; 

309046.45, 4142278.80; 309016.45, 

4142278.80; 308991.49, 4142282.38; 

308922.13, 4142364.20; 308858.63, 

4142428.49; 308830.85, 4142479.29; 

308822.12, 4142519.77; 308830.05, 

4142563.43; 308856.25, 4142645.19; 

308853.87, 4142696.78; 308836.40, 

4142745.99; 308782.18, 4142812.18; 

308714.17, 4142804.73; 308676.86, 

4142811.08; 308653.05, 4142836.48; 

308626.85, 4142854.74; 308606.22, 

4142884.90; 308539.54, 4142924.59; 

308456.99, 4142965.07; 308362.53, 

4142957.92; 308341.10, 4142927.76; 

308301.41, 4142926.97; 308278.40, 

4142907.12; 308241.88, 4142909.50; 

308220.45, 4142925.38; 308203.78, 

4142965.07; 308185.36, 4142971.60; 

308169.65, 4142988.02; 308126.10, 

4143042.28; 308033.92, 4143066.67; 

307948.29, 4143076.16; 307909.78, 

4143060.13; 307844.10, 4143097.25; 

307829.82, 4143133.66; 307754.15, 

4143153.65; 307732.02, 4143122.24; 

307707.74, 4143147.94; 307632.07, 

4143137.23; 307597.80, 4143170.07; 

307574.32, 4143187.15; 307556.42, 

4143182.30; 307489.41, 4143186.52; 

307474.33, 4143216.69; 307399.12, 

4143231.89; 307363.99, 4143263.52; 

307348.91, 4143288.12; 307325.10, 

4143278.60; 307285.41, 4143283.36; 

307256.84, 4143311.14; 307229.85, 

4143317.49; 307186.99, 4143286.54; 

307149.68, 4143300.82; 307152.86, 

4143331.78; 307128.25, 4143327.02; 

307117.93, 4143292.89; 307098.88, 

4143346.07; 307074.40, 4143334.28; 

307056.81, 4143323.05; 307037.76, 

4143341.31; 307018.71, 4143328.61; 

306995.69, 4143365.91; 306972.34, 

4143356.44; 306943.07, 4143368.01; 

306883.21, 4143353.82; 306781.41, 

4143329.68; 306785.35, 4143297.65; 

306772.65, 4143280.19; 306771.86, 

4143247.64; 306763.12, 4143238.91; 

306678.98, 4143190.32; 306628.81, 

4143188.23; 306534.05, 4143193.11; 

306467.85, 4143210.53; 306379.36, 

4143213.32; 306319.43, 4143206.35; 

306279.02, 4143188.23; 306253.93, 

4143163.15; 306219.79, 4143158.27; and 

returning to 306219.79, 4143158.27. 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit 2 of critical 

habitat for Ipomopsis polyantha follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

18170 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP27MR12.129</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 18171 

* * * * * 

(9) Unit 4: Archuleta County, 

Colorado. 

(i) Land bounded by the following 

UTM NAD83, zone 13N coordinates 

(E,N): 325341.89, 4116396.61; 

325387.72, 4117588.25; 326991.87, 

4117571.07; 326986.14, 4116780.45; 

328165.61, 4116660.32; 328052.33, 

4116301.10; 327816.85, 4116316.40; 

327799.67, 4115921.09; 327392.90, 

4115932.55; 327375.84, 4115058.23; 

327212.37, 4115018.58; 327107.67, 

4114981.94; 327017.91, 4114906.40; 

326959.34, 4114892.94; 326963.22, 

4115164.85; 326567.91, 4115187.77; 

326562.18, 4115588.81; 326172.61, 

4115594.53; 326161.15, 4115204.96; 

325777.30, 4115210.69; 325576.78, 

4115199.23; 325737.20, 4115554.43; 

325754.39, 4115795.05; 325668.45, 

4115886.72; 325324.70, 4115995.57; 

325341.89, 4116396.61; and returning to 

325341.89, 4116396.61. 

(ii) Note: Map of Units 3 and 4 of 

critical habitat for Ipomopsis polyantha 

follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

18172 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 

* * * * * 

Dated: March 15, 2012. 

Eileen Sobeck, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and 

Wildlife and Parks. 

[FR Doc. 2012–7087 Filed 3–26–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP27MR12.130</GPH>