Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 11, 2007 / Proposed Rules 70269 

FSC group, provided the exchange 

transaction is documented and certified 

by the head of your agency to be in the 

best interests of the Government and all 

other provisions of this part are met. 

The documentation must contain a 

determination that the item exchanged 

and the item acquired are historic items. 

14. Revise newly redesignated § 102–

39.80 to read as follows: 

§ 102–39.80 What are the accounting 

requirements for exchange allowances or 

proceeds of sale? 

You must account for exchange 

allowances or proceeds of sale in 

accordance with the general finance and 

accounting rules applicable to you. 

Except as otherwise authorized by law, 

all exchange allowances or proceeds of 

sale under this part will be available 

during the fiscal year in which the 

property was sold and for one fiscal year 

thereafter for the purchase of 

replacement property. Any proceeds of 

sale not applied to replacement 

purchases during this time must be 

deposited in the United States Treasury 

as miscellaneous receipts. 

15. Amend newly redesignated § 102–

39.85 by adding paragraph (a)(3) to read 

as follows: 

§ 102–39.85 What information am I 

required to report? 

* * * * * 

(3) A list by Federal Supply 

Classification Group of property 

acquired under this part, to include: 

(i) Number of items acquired; 

(ii) Acquisition cost. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E7–23887 Filed 12–10–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820–14–S 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

RIN 1018–AV02 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Proposed Designation of 

Critical Habitat for the Pecos 

Sunflower (Helianthus paradoxus) 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of 

comment period and revisions to 

proposal. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce the 

reopening of the comment period on the 

proposed designation of critical habitat 

for Helianthus paradoxus (Pecos 

sunflower) under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). 

We also announce a revision to 

proposed critical habitat Unit 4 and 

clarification of Unit 5, the availability of 

a draft economic analysis and draft 

environmental assessment, and an 

amended required determinations 

section of the proposal. The draft 

economic analysis estimates costs 

associated with conservation activities 

for H. paradoxus to be approximately 

$3.9 to $4.4 million in undiscounted 

dollars over the next 20 years ($193,000 

to $221,000 annualized). We are 

reopening the comment period to allow 

all interested parties to comment 

simultaneously on the proposed rule, 

our revisions to the proposed rule, the 

associated draft economic analysis and 

environmental assessment, and the 

amended required determinations 

section. You do not have to resend 

comments sent earlier. We will 

incorporate them into the public record 

as part of this comment period, and we 

will fully consider them when preparing 

our final determination. 

DATES: We will accept public comments 

until January 10, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public 

Comments Processing, Attn: RIN 1018–

AV02; Division of Policy and Directives 

Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 

222; Arlington, VA 22203. 

We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We 

will post all comments on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see the 

Public Comments Solicited section 

below for more information). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Wally ‘‘J’’ Murphy, Field Supervisor, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New 

Mexico Ecological Services Field Office, 

2105 Osuna Rd NE., Albuquerque, NM 

87113; telephone 505/346–2525; 

facsimile 505/346–2542. If you use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD), call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Comments Solicited 

We will accept written comments and 

information during this reopened 

comment period on the original 

proposed critical habitat designation for 

H. paradoxus published in the Federal 

Register on March 27, 2007 (72 FR 

14328), the revisions to proposed 

critical habitat described herein (see 

‘‘Changes to the Proposed Rule’’

section), the draft economic analysis 

and draft environmental assessment of 

the proposed designation, and the 

amended required determinations 

provided in this document. We will 

consider information and 

recommendations from all interested 

parties. We are particularly interested in 

comments concerning: 

(1) The reasons why habitat should or 

should not be designated as ‘‘critical 

habitat’’ for H. paradoxus under section 

4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), 

including whether the designation of 

critical habitat is prudent. 

(2) Specific information on the 

amount and distribution of H. 

paradoxus habitat, including which 

areas occupied by the species at the 

time of listing and that contain features 

essential for the conservation of the 

species should be included in the 

designation and why, and which areas 

that were not occupied by the species at 

the time of listing are essential to the 

conservation of the species and why. 

(3) Land use designations and current 

or planned activities in the subject areas 

and their possible impacts on proposed 

critical habitat. 

(4) Any foreseeable economic, 

national security, or other potential 

impacts resulting from the proposed 

designation and, in particular, any 

impacts on small entities, and the 

benefits of including or excluding areas 

that exhibit these impacts. 

(5) The existence of lands included in 

the proposed designation that are 

covered under any conservation or 

management plans, which we should 

consider for exclusion from the 

designation pursuant to section 4(b)(2) 

of the Act. 

(6) Information on the benefits of 

including or excluding lands managed 

by Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

from the final critical habitat 

designation. 

(7) Information on any direct or 

indirect impacts to the human 

environment as a result of designating 

critical habitat for H. paradoxus. 

(8) Information on whether the draft 

economic analysis identifies all local 

costs attributable to the proposed 

critical habitat designation and 

information on any costs that have been 

inadvertently overlooked. 

(9) Whether the draft economic 

analysis correctly assesses the effect on 

regional costs associated with any land 

use controls that may derive from the 

designation of critical habitat. 

(10) Whether the draft economic 

analysis or draft environmental 

assessment makes appropriate 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
70270 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 11, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

assumptions regarding current practices 

and likely regulatory changes imposed 

as a result of the designation of critical 

habitat. 

(11) Whether the draft economic 

analysis and draft environmental 

assessment appropriately identify all 

costs and benefits that could result from 

the designation. 

(12) Information on whether there are 

any quantifiable economic benefits that 

could result from the designation of 

critical habitat. 

(13) Economic data on the 

incremental effects that would result 

from designating any particular area as 

critical habitat, since it is our intent to 

include the incremental costs attributed 

to the critical habitat designation in the 

final economic analysis. 

(14) Whether our approach to 

designating critical habitat could be 

improved or modified in any way to 

provide for greater public participation 

and understanding, or to assist us in 

accommodating public concerns and 

comments. 

If you submitted comments or 

information during the initial comment 

period from March 27, 2007, to May 29, 

2007, on the proposed rule (72 FR 

14328), please do not resubmit them. 

We will incorporate them into the 

public record as part of this comment 

period, and we will fully consider them 

in preparation of our final 

determination. Our final determination 

concerning critical habitat will take into 

consideration all written comments and 

any additional information we receive 

during both comment periods. On the 

basis of public comment, we may, 

during the development of our final 

determination, find that areas proposed 

are not essential, are appropriate for 

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

Act, or are not appropriate for 

exclusion. 

You may submit your comments and 

materials concerning this proposed rule, 

our revisions to the proposed rule, the 

associated draft economic analysis and 

draft environmental assessment of the 

proposed designation, and the amended 

required determinations section by one 

of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES

section. We will not accept comments 

you send by e-mail or fax. Please note 

that we may not consider comments we 

receive after the date specified in the 

DATES section in our final 

determination. 

Before including your address, phone 

number, e-mail address, or other 

personal identifying information in your 

comment, you should be aware that we 

will post your entire comment—

including your personal identifying 

information—on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. While you can ask 

us in your comment to withhold your 

personal identifying information from 

public review, we cannot guarantee that 

we will be able to do so. 

Comments and materials we receive, 

as well as supporting documentation we 

used in preparing this proposed rule, 

will be available for public inspection 

on http://www.regulations.gov, or by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, New Mexico Ecological 

Services Field Office, 2105 Osuna Rd 

NE., Albuquerque, NM 87113; telephone 

505/346–2525. 

You may obtain copies of the original 

proposed rule, the draft economic 

analysis, and the draft environmental 

assessment by mail from the New 

Mexico Ecological Services Field Office 

at the address listed above or by visiting 

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

southwest/es/NewMexico/. 

Background 

It is our intent to discuss only those 

topics directly relevant to designation of 

critical habitat in this proposal. For 

more information on H. paradoxus, refer 

to the final listing rule published in the 

Federal Register on October 20, 1999 

(64 FR 56582), the Pecos Sunflower 

Recovery Plan posted at http:// 

ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plans/2005/ 

050915.pdf, and the original proposed 

critical habitat designation published on 

March 27, 2007 (72 FR 14328). 

Helianthus paradoxus was listed as a 

threatened species on October 20, 1999 

(64 FR 56582). At the time this plant 

was federally listed, the Service 

determined that the designation of 

critical habitat was not prudent because 

we believed publication of critical 

habitat maps would increase the degree 

of threats to the species by vandalism 

and commercial collection. On 

September 27, 2005, the Forest 

Guardians filed suit against the Service 

for failure to designate critical habitat 

for this species (Forest Guardians v. 

Hall 2005). On March 20, 2006, a 

settlement was reached that requires the 

Service to re-evaluate our original 

prudency determination. The settlement 

stipulated that, if prudent, a proposed 

rule would be submitted to the Federal 

Register for publication on or before 

March 16, 2007, and a final rule by 

March 16, 2008. 

On March 15, 2007, we determined 

that critical habitat for Helianthus 

paradoxus was prudent and we 

subsequently published a proposed rule 

(72 FR 14328) to designate critical 

habitat for H. paradoxus on March 27, 

2007. We proposed five units as critical 

habitat in the original proposal, 

encompassing approximately 1,579.3 

acres (ac) (639.1 hectares (ha)). We now 

revise our original March 27, 2007, 

proposed rule (72 FR 14328) to add 

areas to one of the units and clarify the 

boundaries of another unit, as described 

in the ‘‘Changes to the Proposed Rule’’

section. As a result of these additions 

and revisions, the proposed critical 

habitat now encompasses 5,745.5 ac 

(3,733.4 ha). 

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 

of the Act as the specific areas within 

the geographical area occupied by a 

species, at the time it is listed in 

accordance with the Act, on which are 

found those physical or biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species and that may require special 

management considerations or 

protection, and specific areas outside 

the geographical area occupied by a 

species at the time it is listed, upon a 

determination that such areas are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. If the proposed rule is made 

final, section 7 of the Act will prohibit 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat by any activity funded, 

authorized, or carried out by any 

Federal agency. Federal agencies 

proposing actions affecting areas 

designated as critical habitat must 

consult with us on the effects of their 

proposed actions, pursuant to section 

7(a)(2) of the Act. 

Draft Economic Analysis 

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

we designate critical habitat based upon 

the best scientific and commercial data 

available, after taking into consideration 

the economic impact, impact on 

national security, or any other relevant 

impact of specifying any particular area 

as critical habitat. We have prepared a 

draft economic analysis based on the 

March 27, 2007, proposed rule (72 FR 

14328) and the revised units described 

in this document. 

The draft economic analysis considers 

the potential economic effects of all 

actions related to the conservation of 

Helianthus paradoxus, including costs 

associated with sections 4, 7, and 10 of 

the Act, as well as those attributable to 

designating critical habitat. It further 

considers the economic effects of 

protective measures taken as a result of 

other Federal, State, and local laws that 

aid habitat conservation for H. 

paradoxus in proposed critical habitat 

units. The draft analysis considers both 

economic efficiency and distributional 

effects. In the case of habitat 

conservation, efficiency effects generally 

reflect lost economic opportunities 

associated with restrictions on land use 

(opportunity costs). This analysis also 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 11, 2007 / Proposed Rules 70271 

addresses how potential economic 

impacts are likely to be distributed, 

including an assessment of any local or 

regional impacts of habitat conservation 

and the potential effects of conservation 

activities on small entities and the 

energy industry. This information can 

be used by decision makers to assess 

whether the effects of the designation 

might unduly burden a particular group 

or economic sector. Finally, this draft 

analysis looks retrospectively at costs 

that have been incurred since the date 

this species was listed as threatened 

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

considers those costs that may occur in 

the 20 years following designation of 

critical habitat (i.e., 2007 to 2026). 

The draft economic analysis is 

intended to quantify the economic 

impacts of all potential conservation 

efforts for Helianthus paradoxus; some 

of these costs will likely be incurred 

regardless of whether critical habitat is 

designated. This analysis estimated 

economic impacts resulting from the 

implementation of H. paradoxus 

conservation efforts in four categories: 

(a) Treatment of non-native species; (b) 

wetland filling and development; (c) 

livestock management; and (d) road 

maintenance. Over the 20-year period 

2007 to 2026, the draft economic 

analysis finds that costs associated with 

conservation activities within these four 

categories are estimated at $3.9 to $4.4 

million in undiscounted dollars over the 

next 20 years ($193,000 to $221,000 

annualized). The present value of these 

impacts is $3.3 million to $3.6 million 

($186,000 to $213,000 annualized), 

using a discount rate of three percent; or 

$2.5 million to $2.9 million ($205,000 to 

$225,000 annualized), using a discount 

rate of seven percent. 

As stated earlier, we solicit data and 

comments from the public on this draft 

economic analysis, as well as on all 

aspects of the proposal. We may revise 

the proposal, or its supporting 

documents, to incorporate or address 

new information received during the 

comment period. In particular, we may 

exclude an area from critical habitat if 

we determine that the benefits of 

excluding the area outweigh the benefits 

of including the area as critical habitat, 

provided such exclusion will not result 

in the extinction of the species. 

Changes to the Proposed Rule 

We proposed five units as critical 

habitat for Helianthus paradoxus. The 

original proposed critical habitat in our 

March 27, 2007, proposed rule (72 FR 

14328), and the additional proposed 

areas of critical habitat as described 

below, constitute our best assessment of 

areas that meet the definition of critical 

habitat under section 3(5)(a) of the Act. 

In the proposed regulation section of 

this notice, we provide maps and 

textual descriptions of the boundaries 

for Subunits 4a and 4b. These 

descriptions and maps are in addition to 

those published in our March 27, 2007, 

proposed rule, and thus included in the 

proposed critical habitat designation. 

We have also provided clarification on 

our Unit 5 description below. 

Subunits 4a and 4b are in close 

proximity with or connected to Unit 4 

described in the original proposed rule. 

Below, we present brief descriptions of 

the two subunits, the primary 

constituent elements (PCEs) they 

contain, and reasons why they meet the 

definition of critical habitat for 

Helianthus paradoxus. Within areas 

occupied by H. paradoxus at the time of 

listing and containing sufficient PCEs to 

support H. paradoxus’s life processes, 

we previously identified the Bitter Lake 

National Wildlife Refuge (portion of 

Subunit 4a) and the associated Refuge 

Farm (Subunit 4b) as areas that do not 

require special management or 

protections. As a result, these areas were 

not originally proposed to be included 

in the critical habitat designation. 

However, we have reconsidered our 

preliminary analysis of section 3(5)(a) of 

the Act and special management or 

protection needs of the PCEs on these 

refuge lands, and are now proposing to 

include these areas as critical habitat. 

However, we are considering their 

exclusion from the final designation 

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

In addition to the revision of 

proposed critical habitat, we have 

provided a clarified unit description for 

Unit 5. In the Unit 5 description found 

in the preamble of the proposed rule (72 

FR 14328), we identified that Unit 5 

contained a small group of plants 

downstream of The Nature 

Conservancy’s Diamond Y Spring 

Preserve at a nearby highway right-ofway. This right-of-way site should not 

have been included in the unit 

description, for this small area is not 

known to be able to support sufficient 

numbers of plants to be considered 

stable (Blue Earth Ecological 

Consultants, Inc., 2007b, p 3; Poole 

2006, p. 3). While the Unit 5 description 

in the preamble of the proposed rule 

was incorrect, the map and textual 

boundary description for Unit 5 found 

in the proposed regulation section did 

not include the right-of-way site and 

thus is still accurate. 

Below, we present brief descriptions 

of these three areas (Subunits 4a and 4b, 

and Unit 5), and reasons why they meet 

the definition of critical habitat for 

Helianthus paradoxus (see ‘‘Criteria 

Used To Identify Critical Habitat’’ in the 

March 27, 2007, proposed rule (72 FR 

14328)). 

Revised and New Unit Descriptions 

Unit 4: Roswell/Dexter 

Subunit 4a includes 3,572.2 ac 

(1,445.6 ha) of Bitter Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge/City of Roswell land 

located in Chaves County, New Mexico. 

This subunit is located approximately 5 

miles (mi) (8 kilometers (km)) northeast 

of the city of Roswell. 

One of the largest Helianthus 

paradoxus populations occurs on the 

Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge in 

New Mexico on Federal lands managed 

by the Service. Several hundred 

thousand to a few million plants occur 

nearly continuously along the shores 

and small islands of all the artificial 

lakes in the southern unit of the refuge. 

Also, a few small patches of plants 

occur on the west side of Bitter Lake 

Playa and adjacent springs on Lost 

River. 

This area was occupied at the time of 

listing and has been visited by species 

experts during four or more seasons. 

These experts found the site occupied 

by Helianthus paradoxus on every visit 

(Ulibarri 2006a, p. 1; Sivinski 2007a, p. 

2; Blue Earth Ecological Consultants, 

Inc. 2007a, p. 3). This area is currently 

occupied by the species and contains all 

of the PCEs essential to the conservation 

of the species. As noted, the portion of 

this subunit within Bitter Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge is proposed as critical 

habitat, but is being considered for 

exclusion from the final designation. 

Please see ‘‘Application of Section 

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

additional discussion. 

Subunit 4b includes 686.2 ac (277.7 

ha) of land within the Bitter Lake 

National Wildlife Refuge Farm (Refuge 

Farm). This subunit is located in Chaves 

County, New Mexico, approximately 5 

mi (8 km) east of Roswell on the west 

side of the Pecos River. 

Subunit 4b consists of a few large 

patches with several thousand plants on 

alkaline seeps behind the dikes on the 

western edge of the Refuge Farm south 

of Highway 380. This land is owned and 

managed by the Service as a grain farm 

and feeding area for migratory birds. 

The eastern portion of the Refuge Farm 

is a marshy spring-seep area that 

contains a large population of 

Helianthus paradoxus. The wet soils in 

this population are not cultivated. 

This Refuge Farm subunit was 

occupied at the time of listing and has 

been visited by species experts during 

four or more seasons. The experts found 

the site occupied by Helianthus 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
70272 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 11, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

paradoxus on every visit (Ulibarri 

2006b, p. 1; Sivinski 2007a, p. 2; Blue 

Earth Ecological Consultants, Inc. 

2007a, p. 3). This subunit is currently 

occupied by the species and contains all 

of the PCEs essential to the conservation 

of the species. As noted, the portion of 

this subunit within Bitter Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge is proposed as critical 

habitat, but is being considered for 

exclusion from the final designation. 

Please see ‘‘Application of Section 

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

additional discussion. 

Unit 5: West Texas 

Unit 5 includes 239.7 ac (97.0 ha) 

located solely on Diamond Y Spring in 

Pecos County, Texas. The unit is located 

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

Unit 5 consists of several hundred 

thousand to one million plants found on 

The Nature Conservancy’s Diamond Y 

Spring Preserve and a contiguous parcel 

of private land. This site was occupied 

by the species at the time of its listing. 

This site has been visited by species 

experts during four or more seasons and 

has been documented to be occupied by 

Helianthus paradoxus on every visit 

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

occupied by the species (Blue Earth 

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

and contains all of the PCEs essential to 

the conservation of the species. 

The land within The Nature 

Conservancy’s Diamond Y Spring 

Preserve was purchased to protect 

Diamond Y Spring Preserve and other 

rare or endangered aquatic species in 

the Diamond Y Spring system. This 

habitat is managed for the conservation 

of such species (Service 2005, p. 12). 

Diamond Y Spring Preserve has recently 

expanded from 1,500 to 4,000 ac (607 to 

1619 ha). However, Helianthus 

paradoxus on the Preserve is threatened 

by water withdrawal occurring outside 

the Preserve. On the adjacent private 

land, H. paradoxus is also threatened by 

water withdrawal, plus wetland filling 

and development, and livestock grazing 

during the growing and flowering 

season. As a result, special management 

or protections may be required to 

minimize these threats. At this time, we 

are not aware of any completed 

management plans that address H. 

paradoxus in this area. 

Table 1 shows the areas occupied by 

Helianthus paradoxus at the time of 

listing, those areas that are currently 

occupied, and the threats to the primary 

constituent elements that may require 

special management or protections. 

TABLE 1.—THREATS AND OCCUPANCY IN AREAS CONTAINING FEATURES ESSENTIAL TO THE CONSERVATION OF

HELIANTHUS PARADOXUS

Geographic area/unit Threats requiring special 

management or protections 

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.

Water withdrawal; on City land, wetland filling and development, incompatible livestock management.Yes .......... Yes. 

Subunit 4b. Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge Farm ...... Water withdrawal ............................................................... 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. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 11, 2007 / Proposed Rules 70273 

TABLE 2.—CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS PROPOSED FOR HELIANTHUS PARADOXUS AND AREAS CONSIDERED FOR EXCLUSION

FROM THE FINAL DESIGNATION

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

Geographic area/unit Land ownership Proposed critical habitat 

areas in acres (hectares) 

Areas considered for exclusion in 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 1 ........................ Undefined.1

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.

3,572.2 (1,445.6) ............... 3,480 (1408.3). 

Subunit 4b. Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge Farm .. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service.

686.2 (277.7) ..................... 686.2 (277.7). 

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) ............................................. ............................................ 5,745.5 (3,733.4) ............... 4,166.2 (3094.3). 

1This subunit consists of areas along the Rio San Jose located on the Pueblo of Laguna. Due to the sensitivity of tribal lands, the acreage for 

this subunit is undetermined at this time. However, on the basis of our partnership with the Pueblo, and in anticipation of completion of the Pecos 

Sunflower Draft Management Plan, Pueblo of Laguna, this subunit is being considered for exclusion from the final critical habitat designation 

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

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

Act—Bitter Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge 

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

whether to exclude a particular area 

from designation, we must identify the 

benefits of including the area in the 

designation, identify the benefits of 

excluding the area from the designation, 

and determine whether the benefits of 

exclusion outweigh the benefits of 

inclusion. If exclusion is contemplated, 

then we must determine whether 

excluding the area would result in the 

extinction of the species. In the original 

proposed rule, we addressed a number 

of general issues that are relevant to the 

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

Act that we are considering (72 FR 

14328). In addition, we have conducted 

a draft economic analysis and draft 

environmental assessment analyzing the 

potential impacts of the proposed 

critical habitat designation and related 

factors, which are available for public 

review and comment. Based on public 

comment on these documents and the 

proposed designation, additional areas 

may be excluded from final critical 

habitat by the Secretary under the 

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

This is provided for in the Act and in 

our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 

424.19. 

We have determined that areas 

managed by Bitter Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) meet the 

definition of critical habitat for 

Helianthus paradoxus. The Refuge has 

developed and completed a 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

(CCP) that provides the framework for 

protection and management of all trust 

resources, including federally listed 

species and sensitive natural habitats. 

We believe that there is minimal benefit 

from designating critical habitat for H. 

paradoxus within Refuge lands because 

these lands are protected areas for 

wildlife, and are currently managed for 

the conservation of wildlife, including 

threatened and endangered species, 

specifically H. paradoxus. Below we 

provide a description of the 

management being provided by the 

Refuge for the conservation of H. 

paradoxus within areas proposed for 

designation as critical habitat. 

The Refuge was established on 

October 8, 1937, by Executive Order 

7724 ‘‘as a refuge and breeding ground 

for migratory birds and other wildlife.’’

The Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. 

460k et seq.) identifies the refuge as 

being suitable for incidental fish and 

wildlife-oriented recreational 

development, the protection of natural 

resources, and the conservation of 

endangered species or threatened 

species. The Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 

U.S.C. 1131–1136) directs the Service to 

‘‘maintain wilderness as a naturally 

functioning ecosystem’’ on portions of 

the Refuge. While the Refuge was 

originally established to save wetlands 

vital to the perpetuation of migratory 

birds, the isolated gypsum springs, 

seeps, and associated wetlands 

protected by the Refuge have been 

recognized as providing the last known 

habitats in the world for several unique 

species. Management emphasis of the 

Refuge is placed on the protection and 

enhancement of habitat for endangered 

species and Federal candidate species, 

maintenance and improvement of 

wintering crane and waterfowl habitat, 

and monitoring and maintenance of 

natural ecosystem values. 

The Refuge sits at a juncture between 

the Roswell Artesian Groundwater 

Basin and the Pecos River. These two 

systems and their interactions account 

for the diversity of water resources on 

the Refuge, including sinkholes, springs, 

wetlands, oxbow lakes, and riverine 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
70274 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 11, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

habitats. The federally reserved water 

right for Bitter Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge has been signed by the State of 

New Mexico but awaits final approval 

by the Federal government, a procedural 

process. The Refuge is currently in 

negotiations with the New Mexico 

Office of the State Engineer, a State 

agency responsible for administering 

New Mexico’s water resources, to 

quantify these reserved rights. This 

water right allows for an in-stream flow 

in Bitter Creek and allows the Refuge to 

manage impounded springs for the 

benefit of many species, including 

Helianthus paradoxus. This water right 

protects against the threat of a future 

water user purchasing a Pecos River 

Basin water right and moving the use to 

a location that would be detrimental to 

the Refuge’s ability to manage for the 

conservation of H. paradoxus. While the 

water right does not specifically protect 

water for the purposes of H. paradoxus 

conservation, it combines with 

management under the Refuge’s CCP 

(discussed below) to remove the threat 

of water withdrawal on Refuge lands. 

The National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105–

57) (Refuge Improvement Act) 

establishes a conservation mission for 

refuges, gives policy direction to the 

Secretary of the Interior and refuge 

managers, and contains other provisions 

such as the requirement to integrate 

scientific principles into the 

management of the refuges. According 

to section 7(e)(1)(E) of the Refuge 

Improvement Act, all lands of the 

Refuge System are to be managed in 

accordance with an approved CCP that 

will guide management decisions and 

set forth strategies for achieving refuge 

purposes. In general, the purpose of the 

CCP is to provide long-range guidance 

for the management of National Wildlife 

Refuges. The Refuge Improvement Act 

requires all refuges to have a CCP and 

provides the following legislative 

mandates to guide the development of 

the CCP: (1) Wildlife has first priority in 

the management of refuges; (2) 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. 

The Bitter Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge has a final CCP that was 

approved in September 1998. The CCP 

serves as a management tool to be used 

by the Refuge staff and its partners in 

the preservation and restoration of the 

ecosystem’s natural resources. The plan 

is intended to guide management 

decisions for 15 years, and sets forth 

strategies for achieving Refuge goals and 

objectives within that timeframe. In 

2013, the plan will not expire, but will 

undergo review, and any needed 

revisions will be incorporated at that 

time. Key goals of the CCP related to 

Helianthus paradoxus include the 

following: 

(1) To restore, enhance, and protect 

the natural diversity on the Refuge 

including threatened and endangered 

species by: 

(a) Appropriate management of 

habitat and wildlife resources on Refuge 

lands and 

(b) Strengthening existing and 

establishing new cooperative efforts 

with public and private stakeholders 

and partners; and 

(2) To restore and maintain selected 

portions of a hydrological system that 

more closely mimics the natural 

processes along the reach of the Pecos 

River adjacent to the Refuge by: 

(a) Restoration of the river channel, as 

well as restoration of threatened, 

endangered, and special concern 

species, and 

(b) Control of exotic species and 

management of trust responsibilities for 

maintenance of plant and animal 

communities and to satisfy traditional 

recreational demands (Service 1998, pp. 

5, 46–52). 

Specific objectives related to these 

goals include: (1) The restoration of 

populations of aquatic species 

designated as endangered, threatened, 

or of special concern to a sustainable 

level (Helianthus paradoxus is 

specifically mentioned in this goal); and 

(2) following existing recovery plan 

objectives to monitor and study 

threatened or endangered species, their 

habitat requirements, exotic species 

encroachment, and human-induced 

impacts to prevent further decline and 

loss (Service 1998, pp. 49–52). 

In summary, we believe that the 

Refuge lands are being adequately 

protected and managed for the 

conservation of Helianthus paradoxus 

and that current management provides a 

conservation benefit to this species and 

its PCEs. Furthermore, we believe that 

there is minimal benefit from 

designating critical habitat for H. 

paradoxus on Refuge lands because, as 

explained in detail above, these lands 

are already managed for the 

conservation of the species. On the basis 

of this management, we intend to 

consider lands within the Bitter Lake 

National Wildlife Refuge and the 

associated Refuge Farm containing 

populations of H. paradoxus for 

exclusion from the final critical habitat 

designation pursuant to section 4(b)(2) 

of the Act. We will complete a full 

analysis of the benefits of excluding and 

the benefits of including these lands 

prior to making a final decision. 

Required Determinations—Amended 

In our March 27, 2007, proposed rule 

(72 FR 14328), we indicated that we 

would defer our determination of 

compliance with several statutes and 

Executive Orders until the information 

concerning potential economic impacts 

of the designation and potential effects 

on landowners and stakeholders was 

available in the draft economic analysis. 

Those data are now available for our use 

in making these determinations. In this 

notice we are affirming the information 

contained in the proposed rule 

concerning Executive Order (E.O.) 

13132, E.O. 12988, the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, and the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994, 

‘‘Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments’’ (59 FR 22951). Based on 

the information made available to us in 

the draft economic analysis, we are 

amending our Required Determinations, 

as provided below, concerning E.O. 

12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act, E.O. 13211, E.O. 12630, and the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

In accordance with E.O. 12866, this 

document is a significant rule because it 

may raise novel legal and policy issues. 

Based on our draft economic analysis of 

the proposed designation of critical 

habitat for Helianthus paradoxus, costs 

related to conservation activities for H. 

paradoxus pursuant to sections 4, 7, and 

10 of the Act are estimated at $3.9 to 

$4.4 million in undiscounted dollars 

over the next 20 years ($193,000 to 

$221,000 annualized). The present value 

of these impacts is $3.3 million to $3.6 

million ($186,000 to $213,000 

annualized), using a discount rate of 

three percent; or $2.5 million to $2.9 

million ($205,000 to $225,000 

annualized), using a discount rate of 

seven percent. Therefore, based on our 

draft economic analysis, we have 

determined that the proposed 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 11, 2007 / Proposed Rules 70275 

designation of critical habitat for H. 

paradoxus would not result in an 

annual effect on the economy of $100 

million or more or affect the economy 

in a material way. Due to the timeline 

for publication in the Federal Register, 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has not formally reviewed the 

proposed rule or accompanying 

economic analysis. 

Further, E.O. 12866 directs Federal 

agencies promulgating regulations to 

evaluate regulatory alternatives (Office 

of Management and Budget, Circular A–

4, September 17, 2003). Pursuant to 

Circular A–4, once it has been 

determined that the Federal regulatory 

action is appropriate, the agency will 

need to consider alternative regulatory 

approaches. Since the determination of 

critical habitat is a statutory 

requirement pursuant to the Act, we 

must then evaluate alternative 

regulatory approaches, where feasible, 

when promulgating a designation of 

critical habitat. 

In developing our designations of 

critical habitat, we consider economic 

impacts, impacts to national security, 

and other relevant impacts pursuant to 

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

discretion allowable under this 

provision, we may exclude any 

particular area from the designation of 

critical habitat providing that the 

benefits of such exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of specifying the area as critical 

habitat and that such exclusion would 

not result in the extinction of the 

species. We believe that the evaluation 

of the inclusion or exclusion of 

particular areas, or combination thereof, 

in a designation constitutes our 

regulatory alternative analysis. 

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

et seq.) 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended 

by the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) (5 

U.S.C. 802(2)), whenever an agency is 

required to publish a notice of 

rulemaking for any proposed or final 

rule, it must prepare and make available 

for public comment a regulatory 

flexibility analysis that describes the 

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

small businesses, small organizations, 

and small governmental jurisdictions). 

However, no regulatory flexibility 

analysis is required if the head of an 

agency certifies the rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. In 

our proposed rule, we withheld our 

determination of whether this 

designation would result in a significant 

effect as defined under SBREFA until 

we completed our draft economic 

analysis of the proposed designation so 

that we would have the factual basis for 

our determination. 

According to the Small Business 

Administration (SBA), small entities 

include small organizations, such as 

independent nonprofit organizations, 

and small governmental jurisdictions, 

including school boards and city and 

town governments that serve fewer than 

50,000 residents, as well as small 

businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small 

businesses include manufacturing and 

mining concerns with fewer than 500 

employees, wholesale trade entities 

with fewer than 100 employees, retail 

and service businesses with less than $5 

million in annual sales, general and 

heavy construction businesses with less 

than $27.5 million in annual business, 

special trade contractors doing less than 

$11.5 million in annual business, and 

agricultural businesses with annual 

sales less than $750,000. To determine 

if potential economic impacts to these 

small entities are significant, we 

considered the types of activities that 

might trigger regulatory impacts under 

this designation as well as types of 

project modifications that may result. In 

general, the term significant economic 

impact is meant to apply to a typical 

small business firm’s business 

operations. 

To determine if the proposed 

Helianthus paradoxus critical habitat 

designation would affect a substantial 

number of small entities, we considered 

the number of small entities affected 

within particular types of economic 

activities (e.g., residential and 

commercial development and 

agriculture). We considered each 

industry or category individually to 

determine if certification is appropriate. 

In estimating the numbers of small 

entities potentially affected, we also 

considered whether their activities have 

any Federal involvement; some kinds of 

activities are unlikely to have any 

Federal involvement and so will not be 

affected by the designation of critical 

habitat. Designation of critical habitat 

only affects activities conducted, 

funded, permitted, or authorized by 

Federal agencies; non-Federal activities 

are not affected by the designation. 

In the draft economic analysis of the 

proposed critical habitat designation, 

we evaluated the potential economic 

effects on small business entities 

resulting from conservation actions 

related to the listing of Helianthus 

paradoxus and proposed designation of 

its critical habitat. This analysis 

estimated prospective economic impacts 

due to the implementation of H. 

paradoxus conservation efforts in four 

categories: (a) Treatment of non-native 

species; (b) wetland filling and 

development; (c) livestock management; 

and (d) road maintenance. We 

determined from our analysis that the 

economic impacts of the designation on 

small entities are expected to be borne 

primarily by modifications to wetland 

filling and development activities. We 

assumed that if owners of parcels 

containing designated critical habitat 

face land use restrictions that preclude 

development on some or all of the 

parcel, the value of the properties will 

be reduced, essentially eliminating the 

option that those areas be developed. 

This draft economic analysis assumes 

that, in a high-end scenario, the entirety 

of forecast impacts would be borne by 

one small developer. The one small 

developer estimated to be affected 

represents approximately 20 percent of 

total small developers in the region. The 

total potential impact resulting from 

land use restrictions on development 

activities is forecast to be, at most, 

$290,000 over 20 years, or 

approximately $20,000 annually. 

Assuming the annual revenues of an 

average small developer in Cibola 

County are $400,000, the total potential 

impact resulting from the proposed 

designation would amount to 

approximately 5.0 percent of typical 

annual sales of one entity. 

Consequently, we certify that the 

designation of critical habitat for H. 

paradoxus will not result in a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small business 

entities. Please see the ‘‘Economic 

Analysis’’ section above and the draft 

economic analysis itself for a more 

detailed discussion of potential 

economic impacts. 

Executive Order 13211—Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

On May 18, 2001, the President issued 

E.O. 13211 on regulations that 

significantly affect energy supply, 

distribution, or use. E.O. 13211 requires 

agencies to prepare Statements of 

Energy Effects when undertaking certain 

actions. This proposed designation of 

critical habitat for Helianthus 

paradoxus is considered a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866 because it raises novel legal and 

policy issues. OMB has provided 

guidance for implementing this 

Executive Order that outlines nine 

outcomes that may constitute ‘‘a 

significant adverse effect’’ when 

compared without the regulatory action 

under consideration. The draft 

economic analysis finds that none of 

these criteria are relevant to this 

analysis. Thus, based on information in 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
70276 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 11, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

the draft economic analysis, energyrelated impacts associated with H. 

paradoxus conservation activities 

within proposed critical habitat are not 

expected. As such, the proposed 

designation of critical habitat is not 

expected to significantly affect energy 

supplies, distribution, or use and a 

Statement of Energy Effects is not 

required. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 

U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) 

In accordance with the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501), 

the Service makes the following 

findings: 

(a) This rule will not produce a 

Federal mandate. In general, a Federal 

mandate is a provision in legislation, 

statute, or regulation that would impose 

an enforceable duty upon State, local, or 

tribal governments, or the private sector, 

and includes both ‘‘Federal 

intergovernmental mandates’’ and 

‘‘Federal private sector mandates.’’

These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 

658(5)–(7). ‘‘Federal intergovernmental 

mandate’’ includes a regulation that 

‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 

upon State, local, or tribal 

governments,’’ with two exceptions. It 

excludes ‘‘a condition of federal 

assistance.’’ It also excludes ‘‘a duty 

arising from participation in a voluntary 

Federal program,’’ unless the regulation 

‘‘relates to a then-existing Federal 

program under which $500,000,000 or 

more is provided annually to State, 

local, and tribal governments under 

entitlement authority,’’ if the provision 

would ‘‘increase the stringency of 

conditions of assistance’’ or ‘‘place caps 

upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal 

Government’s responsibility to provide 

funding’’ and the State, local, or tribal 

governments ‘‘lack authority’’ to adjust 

accordingly. At the time of enactment, 

these entitlement programs were: 

Medicaid; Aid to Families with 

Dependent Children work programs; 

Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social 

Services Block Grants; Vocational 

Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, 

Adoption Assistance, and Independent 

Living; Family Support Welfare 

Services; and Child Support 

Enforcement. ‘‘Federal private sector 

mandate’’ includes a regulation that 

‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 

upon the private sector, except (i) a 

condition of Federal assistance; or (ii) a 

duty arising from participation in a 

voluntary Federal program.’’

The designation of critical habitat 

does not impose a legally binding duty 

on non-Federal government entities or 

private parties. Under the Act, the only 

regulatory effect is that Federal agencies 

must ensure that their actions do not 

destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat under section 7. Non-Federal 

entities that receive Federal funding, 

assistance, permits, or otherwise require 

approval or authorization from a Federal 

agency for an action, may be indirectly 

impacted by the designation of critical 

habitat. However, the legally binding 

duty to avoid destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat rests 

squarely on the Federal agency. 

Furthermore, to the extent that nonFederal entities are indirectly impacted 

because they receive Federal assistance 

or participate in a voluntary Federal aid 

program, the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act would not apply; nor would 

critical habitat shift the costs of the large 

entitlement programs listed above onto 

State governments. 

(b) We do not believe that this rule 

will significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments because it will not 

produce a Federal mandate of $100 

million or greater in any year; that is, it 

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act. The proposed designation of 

critical habitat imposes no obligations 

on State or local governments. By 

definition, Federal agencies are not 

considered small entities, although the 

activities they fund or permit may be 

proposed or carried out by small 

entities. As such, a Small Government 

Agency Plan is not required. 

Executive Order 12630—Takings 

In accordance with E.O. 12630 

(‘‘Government Actions and Interference 

with Constitutionally Protected Private 

Property Rights’’), we have analyzed the 

potential takings implications of 

proposing critical habitat for Helianthus 

paradoxus. Critical habitat designation 

does not affect landowner actions that 

do not require Federal funding or 

permits, nor does it preclude 

development of habitat conservation 

programs or issuance of incidental take 

permits to permit actions that do require 

Federal funding or permits to go 

forward. We conclude that this 

designation of critical habitat for H. 

paradoxus does not pose significant 

takings implications. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 

It is our position that, outside the 

Jurisdiction of the Tenth Federal 

Circuit, we do not need to prepare 

environmental analyses as defined by 

NEPA in connection with designating 

critical habitat under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended. We 

published a notice outlining our reasons 

for this determination in the Federal 

Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 

49244). This assertion was upheld by 

the Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. 

Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. Ore. 

1995), cert. denied 516 U. S. 1042 

(1996)). However, when the range of the 

species includes States within the Tenth 

Circuit, such as that of H. paradoxus, 

under the Tenth Circuit ruling in Catron 

County Board of Commissioners v. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, 75 F.3d 1429 

(10th Cir. 1996), we conduct an 

environmental assessment under NEPA 

for the proposed critical habitat 

designation. The draft environmental 

assessment for this proposal is now 

available (http://www.fws.gov/ 

southwest/es/NewMexico/). We solicit 

data and comments from the public on 

this draft document (See FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section). 

References Cited 

To obtain a complete list of all 

references we cited in this rulemaking, 

contact the Field Supervisor, New 

Mexico Ecological Services Field Office 

(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section). 

Author(s) 

The primary authors of this package 

are staff of the New Mexico Ecological 

Services Field Office. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Proposed Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we propose to further 

amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter 

I, title 50 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, as proposed to be amended 

at 72 FR 14328, March 27, 2009, set 

forth below: 

PART 17—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C. 

1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99–

625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted. 

2. Critical habitat for Helianthus 

paradoxus (Pecos sunflower) in 

§ 17.96(a), which was proposed to be 

added on March 27, 2007, at 72 FR 

14346, is proposed to be amended by: 

a. Revising paragraph (5), including 

the text and the map; 

b. Revising the text in paragraphs 

(6)(iii) and (v); 

c. Revising the text in paragraph 

(7)(ii); 

d. Revising the text in paragraphs 

(8)(ii) and (iv); 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 11, 2007 / Proposed Rules 70277 

e. Revising the text in paragraph (9)(i) 

and the text and map in paragraph 

(9)(ii); 

f. Redesignating paragraphs (9)(iii) 

through (9)(viii) as paragraphs (9)(v) 

through (9)(x); 

g. Adding new paragraphs (9)(iii) and 

(iv), including a map; 

h. Revising the text in newly 

designated paragraphs (9)(vi), (viii), and 

(x); and 

i. Revising the text in paragraph 

(10)(ii) as follows: 

§ 17.96 Critical habitat—plants. 

(a) Flowering plants. 

* * * * * 

Family Asteraceae: Helianthus 

paradoxus (Pecos sunflower) 

* * * * * 

(5) Note: Index map for Helianthus 

paradoxus (Pecos sunflower) critical 

habitat units follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
70278 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 11, 2007 / Proposed Rules 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALSEP11DE07.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 11, 2007 / Proposed Rules 70279 

(6) * * * 

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

for Helianthus paradoxus (Pecos 

sunflower) critical habitat follows: 

* * * * * 

(v) Note: Map of subunit 1c for 

Helianthus paradoxus (Pecos sunflower) 

critical habitat follows: 

* * * * * 

(7) * * * 

(ii) Note: Map of unit 2 for Helianthus 

paradoxus (Pecos sunflower) critical 

habitat follows: 

* * * * * 

(8) * * * 

(ii) Note: Map of subunit 3a for 

Helianthus paradoxus (Pecos sunflower) 

critical habitat follows: 

* * * * * 

(iv) Note: Map of subunit 3b for 

Helianthus paradoxus (Pecos sunflower) 

critical habitat follows: 

* * * * * 

(9) * * * 

(i) Subunit 4a for Helianthus 

paradoxus, Bitter Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge/City of Roswell Land, 

Chaves County, New Mexico. From 

USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle Bitter Lake, 

lands bounded by the following UTM 

NAD83 coordinates (meters E, meters 

N): 553362, 3705257; 553381, 3705283; 

553418, 3705283; 553444, 3705255; 

553427, 3705221; 553405, 3705160; 

553392, 3705130; 553383, 3705102; 

553383, 3705076; 553392, 3705037; 

553442, 3705004; 553457, 3704987; 

553465, 3704961; 553437, 3704931; 

553429, 3704909; 553407, 3704896; 

553357, 3704881; 553329, 3704836; 

553316, 3704760; 553316, 3704643; 

553342, 3704529; 553349, 3704455; 

553347, 3704404; 553334, 3704362; 

553342, 3704308; 553370, 3704265; 

553418, 3704241; 553470, 3704235; 

553528, 3704291; 553621, 3704345; 

553686, 3704358; 553805, 3704429; 

553841, 3704466; 553887, 3704557; 

553947, 3704609; 553982, 3704710; 

554021, 3704786; 554079, 3704838; 

554168, 3704829; 554224, 3704775; 

554280, 3704790; 554334, 3704868; 

554351, 3704926; 554410, 3705025; 

554492, 3705034; 554589, 3705001; 

554658, 3704947; 554775, 3704878; 

554900, 3704854; 554943, 3704785; 

554974, 3704688; 555032, 3704604; 

555062, 3704547; 555121, 3704483; 

555242, 3704500; 555354, 3704431; 

555376, 3704347; 555417, 3704164; 

555455, 3704115; 555557, 3704108; 

555687, 3704087; 555819, 3704076; 

555873, 3704071; 556022, 3704067; 

556134, 3704058; 556067, 3703922; 

555998, 3703765; 555998, 3703596; 

556082, 3703488; 556177, 3703418; 

556255, 3703455; 556311, 3703524; 

556385, 3703591; 556529, 3703530; 

556618, 3703340; 556713, 3703182; 

556726, 3703059; 556657, 3703014; 

556557, 3703066; 556447, 3703094; 

556333, 3703022; 556313, 3702910; 

556357, 3702620; 556411, 3702491; 

556417, 3702298; 556462, 3702212; 

556560, 3702177; 556683, 3702246; 

556793, 3702298; 557145, 3702303; 

557402, 3702296; 557569, 3702205; 

557731, 3702134; 557867, 3702053; 

557891, 3701921; 557804, 3701807; 

557739, 3701670; 557659, 3701502; 

557541, 3701350; 557344, 3701250; 

557227, 3701203; 557109, 3701136; 

557083, 3701006; 557204, 3700872; 

557115, 3700872; 556711, 3700874; 

556778, 3700069; 556370, 3700063; 

556331, 3699254; 555939, 3699246; 

555907, 3698435; 555918, 3697997; 

555924, 3697540; 555935, 3697100; 

555937, 3696816; 555704, 3696812; 

555235, 3696803; 554632, 3696803; 

554336, 3696805; 554338, 3697211; 

553934, 3697207; 553930, 3697605; 

553988, 3697664; 554012, 3697698; 

554053, 3697715; 554075, 3697746; 

554066, 3697806; 554060, 3697828; 

554075, 3697908; 554075, 3698003; 

554090, 3698141; 554109, 3698215; 

554120, 3698308; 554055, 3698447; 

554010, 3698587; 553999, 3698673; 

554001, 3698719; 554045, 3698771; 

554092, 3698816; 554157, 3698851; 

554194, 3698881; 554233, 3698942; 

554256, 3698968; 554293, 3698994; 

554371, 3699029; 554390, 3699052; 

554427, 3699115; 554453, 3699147; 

554505, 3699202; 554535, 3699258; 

554580, 3699323; 554617, 3699364; 

554678, 3699411; 554706, 3699446; 

554729, 3699498; 554755, 3699558; 

554781, 3699619; 554816, 3699654; 

554844, 3699678; 554900, 3699704; 

554935, 3699719; 554967, 3699738; 

554984, 3699779; 554989, 3699851; 

554995, 3699885; 555004, 3699928; 

555034, 3699952; 555060, 3699982; 

555073, 3700019; 555092, 3700052; 

555103, 3700073; 555118, 3700101; 

555127, 3700127; 555157, 3700147; 

555179, 3700144; 555205, 3700151; 

555222, 3700160; 555235, 3700185; 

555244, 3700224; 555248, 3700248; 

555207, 3700268; 555172, 3700277; 

555157, 3700284; 555166, 3700318; 

555203, 3700340; 555218, 3700381; 

555185, 3700409; 555162, 3700422; 

555183, 3700459; 555196, 3700500; 

555175, 3700515; 555175, 3700545; 

555203, 3700556; 555207, 3700584; 

555242, 3700614; 555248, 3700655; 

555270, 3700690; 555283, 3700733; 

555287, 3700778; 555287, 3700815; 

555287, 3700862; 555296, 3700940; 

555319, 3700979; 555343, 3701035; 

555373, 3701069; 555369, 3701118; 

555363, 3701142; 555380, 3701188; 

555417, 3701173; 555438, 3701196; 

555434, 3701231; 555440, 3701272; 

555449, 3701296; 555492, 3701317; 

555514, 3701348; 555525, 3701384; 

555516, 3701460; 555499, 3701477; 

555494, 3701490; 555529, 3701523; 

555592, 3701574; 555605, 3701596; 

555618, 3701644; 555641, 3701692; 

555639, 3701754; 555600, 3701798; 

555581, 3701830; 555622, 3701865; 

555598, 3701908; 555628, 3701925; 

555618, 3701958; 555644, 3701970; 

555620, 3702057; 555568, 3702074; 

555592, 3702107; 555598, 3702126; 

555551, 3702128; 555553, 3702150; 

555570, 3702167; 555564, 3702191; 

555555, 3702215; 555527, 3702219; 

555514, 3702254; 555535, 3702267; 

555551, 3702273; 555535, 3702310; 

555492, 3702411; 555449, 3702446; 

555434, 3702487; 555427, 3702544; 

555389, 3702611; 555369, 3702650; 

555358, 3702693; 555358, 3702743; 

555360, 3702791; 555350, 3702838; 

555313, 3702873; 555233, 3702907; 

555134, 3702973; 555030, 3703038; 

554969, 3703100; 554911, 3703159; 

554853, 3703191; 554840, 3703226; 

554827, 3703273; 554775, 3703342; 

554725, 3703392; 554704, 3703472; 

554663, 3703500; 554580, 3703528; 

554550, 3703494; 554526, 3703448; 

554550, 3703414; 554550, 3703377; 

554535, 3703323; 554498, 3703271; 

554436, 3703260; 554282, 3703332; 

554222, 3703377; 554163, 3703396; 

554036, 3703489; 553995, 3703520; 

553958, 3703517; 553945, 3703545; 

553945, 3703612; 553870, 3703705; 

553807, 3703727; 553787, 3703744; 

553766, 3703736; 553744, 3703736; 

553736, 3703775; 553714, 3703792; 

553593, 3703837; 553545, 3703878; 

553440, 3704013; 553368, 3704067; 

553301, 3704125; 553260, 3704173; 

553249, 3704246; 553208, 3704287; 

553208, 3704332; 553221, 3704365; 

553217, 3704432; 553193, 3704469; 

553182, 3704551; 553165, 3704637; 

553165, 3704758; 553176, 3704802; 

553180, 3704902; 553193, 3704988; 

553236, 3705027; 553271, 3705042; 

553303, 3705083; 553321, 3705144; 

553338, 3705213; thence returning to 

553362, 3705257. 

553930, 3697605; 553934, 3697207; 

554338, 3697211; 554336, 3696806; 

554330, 3696733; 554330, 3696665; 

554327, 3696605; 554268, 3696635; 

554205, 3696666; 554127, 3696699; 

554092, 3696768; 554089, 3696787; 

554084, 3696811; 554048, 3696856; 

554021, 3696861; 553990, 3696861; 

553957, 3696849; 553925, 3696849; 

553881, 3696851; 553847, 3696860; 

553809, 3696885; 553793, 3696903; 

553765, 3696930; 553751, 3696954; 

553740, 3696972; 553738, 3696995; 

553733, 3697019; 553718, 3697038; 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
70280 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 11, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

553716, 3697053; 553710, 3697067; 

553702, 3697088; 553691, 3697115; 

553689, 3697128; 553684, 3697150; 

553673, 3697170; 553652, 3697201; 

553624, 3697231; 553617, 3697248; 

553614, 3697266; 553601, 3697291; 

553600, 3697304; 553580, 3697324; 

553571, 3697335; 553567, 3697359; 

553567, 3697381; 553569, 3697402; 

553577, 3697416; 553587, 3697427; 

553601, 3697453; 553627, 3697474; 

553647, 3697485; 553663, 3697495; 

553689, 3697518; 553709, 3697535; 

553731, 3697546; 553765, 3697552; 

553808, 3697556; 553866, 3697558; 

553895, 3697563; 553916, 3697574; 

553923, 3697590; thence returning to 

553930, 3697605. 

(ii) Note: Map of subunit 4a for 

Helianthus paradoxus (Pecos sunflower) 

critical habitat follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 11, 2007 / Proposed Rules 70281 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALSEP11DE07.001</GPH>
70282 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 11, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

(iii) Subunit 4b for Helianthus 

paradoxus, Bitter Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge Farm, Chaves County, 

New Mexico. From USGS 1:24,000 

quadrangles Bottomless Lakes and 

South Spring, lands bounded by the 

following UTM NAD83 coordinates 

(meters E, meters N): 555093, 3693168; 

555018, 3693338; 555018, 3693440; 

555053, 3693558; 554996, 3693646; 

554948, 3693704; 554930, 3693796; 

554886, 3694091; 555317, 3694170; 

555203, 3694254; 555137, 3694364; 

555137, 3694447; 555159, 3694535; 

555129, 3694614; 554983, 3694672; 

554890, 3694698; 554899, 3694810; 

554897, 3694841; 554894, 3694878; 

554885, 3694912; 554882, 3694940; 

554868, 3695008; 554856, 3695090; 

554839, 3695191; 554971, 3695198; 

555042, 3695216; 555087, 3695235; 

555104, 3695208; 555159, 3695215; 

555176, 3695212; 555225, 3695291; 

555339, 3695326; 555511, 3695287; 

555515, 3695190; 555559, 3695133; 

555599, 3695031; 555599, 3694930; 

555581, 3694820; 555599, 3694732; 

555643, 3694648; 555669, 3694556; 

555652, 3694468; 555616, 3694402; 

555573, 3694345; 555515, 3694288; 

555462, 3694235; 555405, 3694164; 

555339, 3694072; 555247, 3693901; 

555247, 3693818; 555282, 3693712; 

555278, 3693624; 555229, 3693457; 

555216, 3693382; 555229, 3693303; 

555295, 3693241; 555361, 3693219; 

555441, 3693250; 555529, 3693228; 

555630, 3693188; 555718, 3693118; 

555771, 3693027; 555907, 3692714; 

555889, 3692626; 555859, 3692547; 

555709, 3692613; 555476, 3692530; 

555301, 3692484; 555040, 3692613; 

554657, 3692591; 554428, 3692763; 

554336, 3693027; 554243, 3693128; 

554133, 3693338; 554001, 3693444; 

553861, 3693563; 553733, 3693721; 

553667, 3693888; 553597, 3694029; 

553597, 3694122; 553619, 3694219; 

553619, 3694293; 553715, 3694377; 

553887, 3694351; 554023, 3694355; 

554142, 3694434; 554191, 3694491; 

554164, 3694601; 554120, 3694681; 

554142, 3694747; 554067, 3694777; 

554032, 3694817; 554081, 3694881; 

554230, 3694835; 554283, 3694672; 

554375, 3694601; 554380, 3694456; 

554296, 3694315; 554402, 3694126; 

554547, 3694029; 554520, 3693841; 

554555, 3693720; 554604, 3693624; 

554666, 3693541; 554710, 3693396; 

554780, 3693272; 554882, 3693167; 

554930, 3693118; thence returning to 

555093, 3693168. 

(iv) Note: Map of subunit 4b for 

Helianthus paradoxus (Pecos sunflower) 

critical habitat follows: 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 11, 2007 / Proposed Rules 70283 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALSEP11DE07.002</GPH>
70284 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 11, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

* * * * * 

(vi) Note: Map of subunit 4c for 

Helianthus paradoxus (Pecos sunflower) 

critical habitat follows: 

* * * * * 

(viii) Note: Map of subunit 4d for 

Helianthus paradoxus (Pecos sunflower) 

critical habitat follows: 

* * * * * 

(x) Note: Map of subunit 4e for 

Helianthus paradoxus (Pecos sunflower) 

critical habitat follows: 

* * * * * 

(10) * * * 

(ii) Note: Map of unit 5 for Helianthus 

paradoxus (Pecos sunflower) critical 

habitat follows: 

* * * * * 

Dated: November 30, 2007. 

Mitchell Butler, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and 

Wildlife and Parks. 

[FR Doc. 07–5973 Filed 12–10–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

RIN 1018–AV07; 1018–AV04 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Designations of Critical 

Habitat for the San Bernardino 

Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys merriami 

parvus), Poa atropurpurea (San 

Bernardino bluegrass), and Taraxacum 

californicum (California taraxacum) 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of 

reopening of public comment periods, 

and notice of public hearings. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce the 

reopening of the public comment period 

and the scheduling of public hearings 

on the proposed rule to revise critical 

habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo 

rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus), and 

on the proposed rule to designate 

critical habitat for Poa atropurpurea 

(San Bernardino bluegrass) and 

Taraxacum californicum (California 

taraxacum) under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). 

The reopened comment periods will 

provide the public; Federal, State, and 

local agencies; and Tribes with an 

additional opportunity to submit 

written comments on these proposed 

rules. Comments previously submitted 

for the proposed critical habitat 

designations for the San Bernardino 

kangaroo rat, P. atropurpurea, or T. 

californicum need not be resubmitted as 

they have already been incorporated 

into the public record and will be fully 

considered in any final decisions. 

DATES: Written Comments: We will 

accept comments and information until 

January 25, 2008, or at the public 

hearing. Any comments received after 

the closing date may not be considered 

in the final decisions on the 

designations of critical habitat. 

Public Hearings: The public hearings 

will take place on January 10, 2008, 

from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. and from 6 p.m. 

to 8 p.m. in San Bernardino, California. 

ADDRESSES: Written Comments: You 

may submit comments by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public 

Comments Processing, Attn: RIN 1018–

AV07 or 1018–AV04; Division of Policy 

and Directives Management; U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax 

Drive, Suite 222, Arlington, VA 22203. 

We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We 

will accept written comments at the 

public hearing. 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). 

Public Hearings: The public hearings 

will be held at the Clarion Hotel and 

Convention Center, 295 North E Street, 

San Bernardino, CA 92401. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim 

Bartel, Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish 

and Wildlife Office, 6010 Hidden Valley 

Road, Carlsbad, CA 92011; telephone 

760–431–9440; facsimile 760–431–9624. 

If you use a telecommunications device 

for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal 

Information relay Service (FIRS) at 800–

877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Comments 

We intend that any final actions 

resulting from these proposals will be as 

accurate and as effective as possible. 

Therefore, we solicit comments or 

suggestions on these proposed rules 

from the public, other concerned 

governmental agencies, Tribes, the 

scientific community, industry, or any 

other interested parties concerning the 

proposed rules. We particularly seek 

comments on the proposed revised 

critical habitat designation for the San 

Bernardino kangaroo rat, and the 

proposed critical habitat designations 

for Poa atropurpurea and Taraxacum 

californicum 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 

the benefit of designation is outweighed 

by the threats to each species caused by 

their respective designations such that 

the designation of critical habitat is 

prudent; 

(2) Specific information on: 

• The amount and distribution of 

habitat for each species; 

• What areas that were occupied at 

the time of listing and that contain the 

features essential for the conservation of 

the species should be included in their 

respective designations and why; and 

• What areas not occupied at the time 

of listing are essential to the 

conservation of each species and why; 

(3) Land use designations and current 

or planned activities in the subject areas 

and their possible impacts on proposed 

critical habitat for each species; 

(4) Any foreseeable economic, 

national security, or other potential 

impacts resulting from the proposed 

revised designation for the San 

Bernardino kangaroo rat, and proposed 

critical habitat for Poa atropurpurea and 

Taraxacum californicum and, in 

particular, any impacts on small 

entities, and the benefits of including or 

excluding areas that exhibit these 

impacts; and 

(5) Whether our approach to 

designating critical habitat could be 

improved or modified in any way as to 

provide for greater public participation 

and understanding, or to assist us in 

accommodating public concerns and 

comments. 

In addition, we seek the following 

specific comments on the proposed 

revised designation of critical habitat for 

the San Bernardino kangaroo rat: 

(1a) Specific information on dispersal 

areas important for habitat connectivity, 

their role in the conservation and 

recovery of the subspecies, and reasons 

why such areas should or should not be 

included in the critical habitat 

designation; 

(2a) Our proposed exclusions totaling 

2,544 acres (ac) (1,029 hectares (ha)) of 

San Bernardino kangaroo rat habitat and 

whether the benefits of excluding these 

areas would outweigh the benefits of 

their inclusion under section 4(b)(2) of 

the Act. If the Secretary determines that 

the benefits of including these lands are 

not outweighed by the benefits of 

excluding them, they will not be 

excluded from final critical habitat; 

(3a) Any proposed critical habitat 

areas covered by existing or proposed 

conservation or management plans that 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS