[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 63 (Tuesday, April 1, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17762-17807]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-5811]



[[Page 17761]]

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

Part III





Department of the Interior





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



Fish and Wildlife Service



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



50 CFR Part 17



 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical 
Habitat for Helianthus Paradoxus (Pecos Sunflower); Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 1, 2008 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 17762]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[FWS-R2-ES-2008-0002; 92210-1117-0000-B4]
RIN 1018-AV02


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of 
Critical Habitat for Helianthus Paradoxus (Pecos Sunflower)

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), designate 
critical habitat for Helianthus paradoxus (Pecos Sunflower) under the 
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). In total, 
approximately 1,305 acres (ac) (528) hectares (ha)) in Chaves, Cibola, 
and Guadalupe counties, New Mexico, and in Pecos County, Texas, fall 
within the boundaries of the final critical habitat designation.

DATES: This final rule becomes effective on May 1, 2008.

ADDRESSES: This final rule and final economic analysis is available on 
the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/newmexico/. Supporting documentation we used in preparing 
this final rule will be available for public inspection, by 
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office, 2105 
Osuna Road, NE., Albuquerque, New Mexico 87113; telephone 505-346-2525; 
facsimile 505-346-2542.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wally ``J'' Murphy, Field Supervisor, 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New Mexico Ecological Services Field 
Office (see ADDRESSES section). If you use a telecommunications device 
for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) 
at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to 
the development and designation of critical habitat in this final rule. 
For additional information on Helianthus paradoxus, refer to the 
proposed critical habitat rule published in the Federal Register on 
March 27, 2007 (72 FR 14328), the final listing rule published in the 
Federal Register on October 20, 1999 (64 FR 56582), or the Pecos 
Sunflower Recovery Plan available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and http://www.ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plans/2005/050915.pdf.

Previous Federal Actions

    On March 27, 2007, we published a proposed rule to designate 
critical habitat for Helianthus paradoxus (72 FR 14328). We solicited 
data and comments from the public on the proposed rule. The comment 
period opened on March 27, 2007, and closed on May 29, 2007. On 
December 11, 2007, we published a notice announcing the availability of 
the draft economic analysis, draft environmental assessment, and the 
reopening of the public comment period (72 FR 70269). We also announced 
a revision to proposed critical habitat Unit 4 and a clarification of 
Unit 5. Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we consider economic 
impacts, impacts to national security, and other relevant impacts prior 
to making a final decision on what areas to designate as critical 
habitat. We solicited data and comments from the public on these draft 
documents, as well as on all aspects of our proposal, so that we could 
consider these in this final determination. This comment period closed 
on January 10, 2008. For more information on previous Federal actions 
concerning Helianthus paradoxus, please refer to the proposed critical 
habitat rule published in the Federal Register on March 27, 2007 (72 FR 
14328), and the final listing rule published in the Federal Register on 
October 20, 1999 (64 FR 56582).

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    We requested comments from the public on the proposed designation 
of critical habitat for Helianthus paradoxus during two comment 
periods. The first comment period associated with the publication of 
the proposed rule (72 FR 14328) opened on March 17, 2007, and closed on 
May 29, 2007. We did not receive any requests for a public hearing 
during this comment period. We also requested comments on the proposed 
critical habitat designation, associated draft economic analysis, and 
draft environmental assessment during a comment period that opened 
December 11, 2007, and closed on January 10, 2008 (72 FR 70269). We 
contacted appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies; scientific 
organizations; and other interested parties and invited them to comment 
on the proposed rule and/or draft economic analysis and draft 
environmental assessment during these two comment periods.
    During the first comment period, we received seven comments 
directly addressing the proposed critical habitat designation: one from 
a State agency, one from a Federal agency, and five from organizations 
or individuals. During the second comment period, we received seven 
comments addressing the proposed critical habitat designation, the 
draft economic analysis, or the draft environmental assessment. All 
substantive information provided during both public comment periods has 
been either incorporated directly into this final determination or 
addressed below.

Peer Review

    In accordance with our policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 
34270), we solicited expert opinions from three knowledgeable 
individuals with scientific expertise that included familiarity with 
the species, the geographic region in which the species occurs, and 
conservation biology principles. We received a response from one of the 
three peer reviewers from which we requested comments. The peer 
reviewer generally agreed that the physical and biological features 
identified in the proposed designation for Helianthus paradoxus were 
accurate. However, the peer reviewer suggested that the designation 
should be expanded to include additional areas and increase the size of 
existing units.
    We reviewed all comments received from the public and the peer 
reviewer for substantive issues and new information regarding the 
designation of critical habitat for Helianthus paradoxus, and address 
them in the following summary.

Peer Reviewer Comments

    1. Comment: The peer reviewer questioned why the proposed critical 
habitat designation did not include additional sites that were occupied 
by Helianthus paradoxus at the time of listing.
    Our Response: In the notice of availability published on December 
11, 2007 (72 FR 70269), we proposed to include two additional sites 
(Subunits 4a and 4b) within the designation. Nevertheless, we recognize 
that this critical habitat designation does not include all of the 
areas that are occupied by H. paradoxus throughout the species' range. 
Additional sites were not proposed as critical habitat because it is 
unclear whether they are stable or support sufficient numbers of plants 
to be considered stable and therefore do not meet our criteria for 
designation as critical habitat for H. paradoxus (Blue Earth Ecological 
Consultants, Inc.

[[Page 17763]]

2007b, p. 3; Poole 1992, p. 27; 2006, p. 3). These additional areas 
that were not proposed as critical habitat will continue to be subject 
to conservation actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act 
and to the regulatory protections afforded by the section 7(a)(2) 
jeopardy standard, as determined on the basis of the best available 
information at the time of the action. Please see the ``Criteria Used 
to Identify Critical Habitat'' section below for more discussion of 
stable populations.
    2. Comment: The peer reviewer stated that the map of Unit 5 at 
Diamond Y Spring Preserve in West Texas does not depict proposed 
critical habitat on the north side of Leon Creek, even though the area 
is occupied by Helianthus paradoxus.
    Our Response: We reviewed the map and description of the boundaries 
for Unit 5 and found that the map in the proposed rule incorrectly 
displayed Unit 5. However, the textual description of the boundaries is 
accurate. We have corrected the map in this final rule. The maps 
published in the Federal Register are for illustration purposes and the 
amount of detail that can be published is limited. If additional 
clarification is necessary, contact the New Mexico Ecological Services 
Field Office (see ADDRESSES section).
    3. Comment: The peer reviewer questioned whether Unit 5 contained a 
small group of plants downstream of The Nature Conservancy's Diamond Y 
Spring Preserve at a nearby highway right-of-way.
    Our Response: In our notice of availability published on December, 
11, 2007 (72 FR 70269), we clarified that the right-of-way site should 
not have been included in the unit description. Our notice revised 
proposed Unit 5 and did not include the right-of-way as critical 
habitat because 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). Please see 
the ``Criteria Used to Identify Critical Habitat'' section below for 
more discussion of stable populations.
    4. Comment: The peer reviewer questioned whether wetland filling 
and development has been documented as a threat within Unit 5.
    Our Response: Our final economic analysis found that the land area 
at Diamond Y Spring Preserve proposed as critical habitat in Unit 5 
does not face residential development pressure. However, the subsurface 
mineral rights are not owned by the landowners. Therefore, a future 
potential threat of wetland filling and development for drilling pads 
and access roads for oil and gas exists (see pages 3-10 of the final 
economic analysis). The information in the ``Final Critical Habitat 
Designation'' section below has been updated to reflect this 
information.
    5. Comment: The peer reviewer questioned whether landowners were 
contacted prior to critical habitat being proposed for designation.
    Our Response: We attempted to contact all of the private landowners 
on February 28, 2007, prior to the publication of the proposed rule. 
Furthermore, we sent the proposed rule and December 11, 2007, notice of 
availability to all interested parties, including landowners. 
Additionally, contractors contacted affected private parties during the 
development of the draft and final economic analyses.

Comments From the Public

    6. Comment: The Service should exclude the La Joya Wildlife 
Management Area (Unit 2) from the final designation.
    Our Response: We agree. After conducting an analysis under section 
4(b)(2) of the Act, we concluded that the benefits of excluding Unit 2 
from the final designation outweigh the benefits of inclusion (see 
``Exclusions under Section 4(b)(2)'' section).
    7. Comment: A management plan has been developed for Unit 2. This 
plan provides considerably more conservation for the species than the 
designation of critical habitat.
    Our Response: We agree. Please see our response to Comment 6.
    8. Comment: La Joya Wildlife Management Area lies in the path of 
the Westwide Energy Corridor, a proposal that would focus energy 
infrastructure such as pipelines, within a predefined corridor. 
Critical habitat would help prevent this proposed project from 
adversely impacting Helianthus paradoxus.
    Our Response: Projects associated with the Westwide Energy Corridor 
proposal that are funded, permitted, or carried out by a Federal agency 
(i.e., projects with a Federal nexus) would require section 7 
consultation under the adverse modification standard if they affected 
designated critical habitat (see ``Section 7 Consultation'' section for 
more discussion of this process). However, because this area is also 
occupied by Helianthus paradoxus, consultation would be required under 
section 7 of the Act under the jeopardy standard whether the area is 
designated as critical habitat or not. As discussed in our 
environmental assessment and in the ``Application of the Adverse 
Modification Standard'' section, the outcome of such consultations 
under the jeopardy and adverse modification standards are not likely to 
differ materially (Service 2008, p. 23, 24). Further, as discussed 
under our response to comment 6 above, we have excluded the La Joya 
Wildlife Management Area from this final designation.
    9. Comment: One commenter expressed concern that there are areas 
containing Helianthus paradoxus that were not proposed as critical 
habitat. The Service should designate additional occupied sites that 
were not identified in the proposed rule.
    Our Response: See response to Comment 1.
    10. Comment: The Service must include suitable unoccupied habitat 
within the final designation to conserve Helianthus paradoxus.
    Our Response: We disagree. We are not able to designate unoccupied 
areas as critical habitat for a species unless we make a determination 
that those areas are essential to the conservation of the species. We 
used a specific set of criteria, consistent with the biology of this 
species, to determine habitat essential for the conservation of 
Helianthus paradoxus. Please see the ``Criteria Used to Identify 
Critical Habitat'' section below for additional discussion of these 
criteria. Based on the areas that were identified using these criteria, 
we determined that additional, unoccupied areas were not essential for 
the conservation of the species.
    11. Comment: If the Service excludes an area because of a 
management plan, the plan must fulfill the listing criteria of the Act. 
It cannot be voluntary, unenforceable, speculative, nor have funding 
uncertainties.
    Our Response: Pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we are 
required to take into consideration the economic, national security, 
and any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as 
critical habitat. We may exclude any area from the critical habitat 
designation if we determine that the benefits of such exclusion 
outweigh the benefits (i.e., biological or conservation benefits) of 
including such area within critical habitat, providing that the failure 
to designate such area will not result in the extinction of the 
species. This analysis includes consideration of the impacts of the 
designation, the benefits to the species, as well as policy 
considerations such as national security, Tribal relationships, and 
impacts on conservation partnerships. We have utilized management plans 
in this rule as a part of this balancing analysis under section 4(b)(2) 
of the Act. Critical

[[Page 17764]]

habitat does not require proactive management, only that Federal 
actions do not adversely modify the habitat. In many cases, management 
plans provide for proactive management and conservation of listed 
species, thereby improving the habitat quality rather than just 
maintaining the status quo. This proactive management may be more 
beneficial to the conservation of the species than the critical habitat 
prohibitions would be. Although these plans may not always be fully 
certain of implementation and funding, taken in concert with the other 
impacts analyzed under section 4(b)(2), the benefits of exclusion may 
still outweigh the benefits of inclusion. Please see the ``Exclusions 
Under Section 4(b)(2)'' section for further discussion of management 
plans in 4(b)(2) analyses.
    12. Comment: The Service should not exclude Bitter Lake National 
Wildlife Refuge from the designation.
    Our Response: We agree. We have determined that certain areas 
managed by Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) meet the 
definition of occupied 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. In our December 11, 2007, notice of availability (72 
FR 70269), we stated our belief that the Refuge lands are being 
adequately protected and managed for the conservation of H. paradoxus. 
Nevertheless, we believe it is appropriate to designate lands within 
the Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge and the associated Refuge Farm 
as critical habitat in this final rule.
    13. Comment: The maps for Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge and 
the Refuge Farm include areas that are not occupied by the species and 
are not suitable habitat.
    Our Response: Upon further review of records from Bitter Lake 
National Wildlife Refuge, we have determined that the proposal included 
lands that are not occupied by the species, do not contain physical and 
biological features essential to the conservation of the species, and 
do not themselves meet the definition of critical habitat (Service 
2008, p. 1). For example, the proposed maps included open water areas, 
dry native grassland, cultivated fields, and other non-essential 
features and habitat (Service 2008, p. 1). As such, we corrected the 
maps for Subunits 4a and 4b to include only those areas that contain 
suitable Helianthus paradoxus habitat and possess all of the primary 
constituent elements (PCEs). As explained in response to Comment 1, we 
subsequently removed an approximately 3,586 ac (1,451 ha) area of 
Federal land that was proposed as critical habitat in Subunit 4a and 4b 
from this final designation because these areas do not meet our 
criteria for designation of critical habitat for H. paradoxus.
    14. Comment: The Service should include Bureau of Land Management 
(BLM) lands adjacent to Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge in the 
critical habitat designation for Helianthus paradoxus.
    Our Response: We have determined that BLM lands adjacent to the 
Refuge do not contain the physical and biological features essential to 
the conservation of Helianthus paradoxus nor do they meet our criteria 
for designation as critical habitat for this species (see responses to 
comments 9 and ``Criteria Used to Identify Critical Habitat'' section 
below).
    15. Comment: The Service should recognize that the designation of 
critical habitat for Helianthus paradoxus on Bitter Lake National 
Wildlife Refuge would provide benefits to the Roswell springsnail 
(Pyrgulopsis roswellensis), Koster's springsnail (Juturnia kosteri), 
Noel's amphipod (Gammarus desperatus), and the Pecos assiminea 
(Assiminea pecos).
    Our Response: This discussion is provided in our environmental 
assessment (Service 2008), which included an analysis of the general 
benefits of an overlap with other listed species.
    16. Comment: The Service continues to understate the impact of 
livestock grazing on Helianthus paradoxus. If private lands are 
designated as critical habitat, H. paradoxus would benefit from the 
higher protections provided under the adverse modification standard 
than the jeopardy standard.
    Our Response: We disagree. The proposed rule states that one of the 
threats to Helianthus paradoxus is overgrazing by livestock during the 
species' flowering season (72 FR 14328). The proposed rule notes that 
livestock will eat H. paradoxus when other green forage is scarce, and 
when the buds are developing and abundant (Service 1999, p. 56587). 
Cattle and horses tend to pull off the flower heads, which can reduce 
seed production (Bush and Van Auken 1997, p. 416). Nevertheless, we 
also note that properly managed livestock grazing can be compatible 
with H. paradoxus conservation.
    Federal agencies already consult with us on activities in areas 
occupied by the species. Action on private lands that are not federally 
funded, authorized, or permitted, do not require section 7 
consultations. Our environmental assessment found that a designation of 
critical habitat would have no effect on livestock grazing because 
there is no Federal nexus associated with any of the ongoing livestock 
grazing within any of the critical habitat units.
    17. Comment: The designation should be larger to buffer the species 
from extended droughts caused by climate change. Critical habitat would 
provide an increased ability to the Service to respond to anthropogenic 
threats to maximize the species' chances of surviving climate change.
    Our Response: The commenter did not cite any specific information 
that we could review on the vulnerability of Helianthus paradoxus to 
broad-scale environmental changes, such as climate change. One of our 
criteria for selecting areas to include in critical habitat was the 
size and stability of populations. We focused on large, stable 
occurrences because they are more likely to support intact ecosystem 
processes and native species. Therefore, we believe these areas have 
the highest likelihood of persisting through the environmental extremes 
and to withstand future introduced stressors such as climate change.
    We are not aware of any reliable information that is currently 
available to us that was not considered in this designation process. 
This final determination constitutes our best assessment of areas 
needed for the conservation of the species. Much remains to be learned 
about this species; should credible, new information become available 
which contradicts this designation, we will reevaluate our analysis 
and, if appropriate, propose to modify this critical habitat 
designation, depending on available funding and staffing. We must make 
this designation on the basis of the information available at this 
time, and we may not delay our decision until more information about 
the species and its habitat are available (Southwest Center for 
Biological Diversity v. Babbitt, 215 F.3d 58 D.C. Cir. 2000).
    18. Comment: A more expansive critical habitat designation would 
address the threat of hybridization with common sunflower (Helianthus 
annuus).
    Our Response: Pecos sunflower will naturally hybridize with common 
sunflower (Helianthus annuus). As noted in the recovery plan, there is 
concern about the extent to which backcrosses from common sunflower 
could affect the genetic integrity of small Pecos sunflower 
populations.

[[Page 17765]]

Obvious hybrid plants have been found on the drier peripheries of the 
Pecos sunflower populations at Santa Rosa and La Joya, New Mexico. 
However, the dense stands of Pecos sunflower on wetter habitats appear 
to remain genetically pure based upon their appearance (Sivinski, 
personal observations, 1994-2004, cited in Service 2005, p. 10). We 
conclude that a more expansive designation would do nothing to 
alleviate the threat of hybridization.
    19. Comment: The Service did not consider the threat of air 
pollution on Helianthus paradoxus. The National Park Service has 
described this threat for another, recently delisted sunflower, 
Helianthus eggertii (Olson undated).
    Our Response: We appreciate the additional information; however, we 
believe we do not have specific and credible information to consider 
air pollution as a threat to Helianthus paradoxus. The National Park 
Service information concerns an area where acid deposition from air 
pollution is much more prevalent than it is in the range of H. 
paradoxus.
    20. Comment: The designation of Unit 2 would result in unresolvable 
conflicts between the Rio Grande silvery minnow (Hybognathus amarus) 
and southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) because 
these species are also dependent on the same limited supply of water as 
Helianthus paradoxus.
    Our Response: The commenter did not provide any indication of the 
types of conflicts that might occur. The final economic analysis does 
point to one recorded instance where delivery of water to La Joya's 
holding ponds was postponed so that water would be available for the 
Rio Grande silvery minnow downstream. However, no adverse impacts to 
Helianthus paradoxus were recorded as a result of that event. It is 
therefore unclear whether any potential changes to water management 
would be needed to protect the plant. The economic analysis therefore 
does not quantify future impacts on water withdrawals in this unit.
    We are required to designate critical habitat to the maximum extent 
prudent and determinable for each species that is listed as threatened 
or endangered within the United States. As part of this process, within 
the specific areas occupied by the species, we are to determine those 
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the 
species and define critical habitat based on those features. We 
recognize that, in some cases, critical habitat for one species may 
overlap with critical habitat for another species which could result in 
conflicts in management or conservation actions. These conflicts would 
need to be addressed on a case-by-case basis with the Federal action 
agencies involved in any given consultation under section 7 of the Act 
to ensure that the actions would not result in the adverse modification 
of critical habitat for each species concerned.
    21. Comment: The jeopardy standard does not protect habitat that is 
not occupied by Helianthus paradoxus.
    Our Response: We have determined that unoccupied areas are not 
essential to the conservation of this species; therefore, we are 
precluded from designating such areas as critical habitat. When Federal 
actions do not directly or indirectly affect Helianthus paradoxus, the 
actions do not require section 7(a)(2) consultation and thus, are not 
protected by the jeopardy standard. However, when a Federal agency 
funds, authorizes, or carries out an action that may affect H. 
paradoxus, the Act requires that the agency consult with us under 
section 7 of the Act. Our view is that any Federal action that affects 
H. paradoxus should be considered a situation that ``may affect'' the 
species and should undergo section 7 consultation under the jeopardy 
standard. As in the past, the Federal action agency will continue to 
make the determination as to whether their project ``may affect'' the 
species or designated critical habitat.
    22. Comment: The destruction of a single population of Helianthus 
paradoxus would violate the Act's prohibition on adverse modification.
    Our Response: Activities that may result in the destruction or 
adverse modification of critical habitat include those that alter the 
physical and biological features to an extent that the value of 
critical habitat for the conservation of Helianthus paradoxus is 
appreciably reduced (i.e., with the implementation of the proposed 
project, will the critical habitat remain functional). We note that 
such activities may also jeopardize the continued existence of the 
species. Actions that would be expected to both jeopardize the 
continued existence of H. paradoxus and destroy or adversely modify its 
critical habitat would include those that significantly and 
detrimentally alter the species' habitat over an area large enough that 
the likelihood of H. paradoxus' persistence and recovery range-wide is 
significantly reduced. Thus, the likelihood of an adverse modification 
or jeopardy determination would depend on the baseline condition of the 
species as a whole.

Comments Related to the Draft Economic Analysis

    23. Comment: According to the draft economic analysis, most of the 
projected costs associated with critical habitat for Helianthus 
paradoxus are from non-native species control. Non-native species 
control is voluntary on state and private lands and has been ongoing on 
the Refuge. Therefore, critical habitat designation does not cause 
these funds to be expended and should not be a basis for excluding 
areas from the final designation.
    Our Response: The final economic analysis has been updated to 
include an assessment of incremental costs (i.e., those costs directly 
associated with the designation of critical habitat). While the costs 
of non-native species management are presented as part of the 
coextensive economic impacts associated with the conservation of 
Helianthus paradoxus, they are considered to be baseline impacts (i.e., 
not directly associated with this rulemaking) in the final economic 
analysis (Appendix B). As such they are not considered to be costs of 
including those areas as critical habitat.
    24. Comment: Benefits that should have been considered in the 
economic analysis include the benefit of National Wildlife Refuges to 
neighboring communities, the economic benefits to The Nature 
Conservancy, and the value of ecosystem services. Specifically, the 
Service should consider economic benefits such as additional protection 
of National Wildlife Refuge lands that currently attract visitors and 
provide benefits to local communities.
    Our Response: Where data are available, the final economic analysis 
attempts to recognize and measure the net economic impact of the 
proposed designation. However, monetization of this category of 
benefits would require detailed information that quantifies, for 
example, the recreational value added by critical habitat designation 
and its impact on visitation to the National Wildlife Refuge. This 
information is currently not available and thus is not included in the 
economic analysis. Such ``baseline'' benefits occur regardless of the 
designation of critical habitat and would not be considered in the 
evaluation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
    25. Comment: In the economic analysis for the four invertebrates 
found at Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge, New Mexico, and on 
Diamond Y Spring Preserve in West Texas, it was noted that the 
designation of critical habitat might increase recognition and 
potential funding for restoration or conservation

[[Page 17766]]

projects. This economic benefit should be integrated into the final 
economic analysis for Helianthus paradoxus.
    Our Response: We acknowledge that the general statement appeared in 
our economic analysis for the four invertebrates on the Refuge. 
However, we did not have any specific information at that time, nor are 
we aware of any information that is currently available to us that 
would permit us to quantify this assumed benefit. Please see our 
response to comment 23 for additional information regarding treatment 
of benefits in the final economic analysis.
    26. Comment: It is unacceptable to place dollar values on Pueblo of 
Acoma lands in the economic analysis, as those lands will not be sold.
    Our Response: The final economic analysis states that the Pueblo of 
Acoma lands in Unit 1a have recently been acquired by the Pueblo, and 
that it may wish to develop the land at some point, though no 
definitive plans were provided. The final economic analysis quantifies 
potential impacts to the Pueblo of Acoma related to the development of 
a management plan, monitoring costs, and management of livestock to 
avoid impacts to Helianthus paradoxus. The analysis does not quantify 
potential impacts on property value for Pueblo lands nor is it meant to 
quantify the actual property value of the area.

Comments From the State

    27. Comment: The water source for Unit 2 is currently used by the 
New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (NMDGF) to inundate portions of 
the La Joya Wildlife Management Area. However, the water source is not 
secure (i.e., protected by a water right) and is subject to changing 
water management practices of the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy 
District (MRGCD).
    Our Response: The designation of critical habitat would also not 
secure the water source. Critical habitat does not establish a preserve 
or provide water rights to designated areas. Designation of critical 
habitat requires that Federal agencies consult on actions they fund, 
authorize, permit, or carry out in order to ensure that the actions do 
not adversely modify the critical habitat. These consultations may 
limit the effects of changing water management, but are not guaranteed 
to preserve water in the area. In addition, unless there is a Federal 
nexus, any activities related to water management operations would not 
result in a consultation with us.
    The water right at La Joya Wildlife Management Area is owned by 
MRGCD; however, NMDGF (i.e., the State of New Mexico) has a written 
agreement from 1960 with the MRGCD that allows them to replenish the 
water in six ponds from the return flow during the non-irrigation 
season (approximately October to February) to provide resting places 
for migratory waterfowl (NMDGF 2007). During this period, the MRGCD 
will allow the diversion of water from the return flow to an extent 
that such water is available (NMDGF 2007). This water is used to 
inundate wetland areas within La Joya Wildlife Management Area at a 
time of the year when other water demands are at their lowest. To date, 
there have been no conflicts associated with competing demands for this 
water. There are no known projects anticipated to impact water 
withdrawals in the future (Service 2008). Therefore, we find no reason 
that this relationship would not continue into the future.

Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule

    In preparing the final critical habitat designation for Helianthus 
paradoxus, we reviewed and considered comments from the public and peer 
reviewers on the March 27, 2007, proposed designation of critical 
habitat (72 FR 14328) and the December 11, 2007, notice announcing the 
availability of the draft economic analysis and draft environmental 
assessment, as well as the proposal of two additional subunits and the 
clarification of one unit as critical habitat (72 FR 70269). As a 
result of comments received, we made the following changes to our 
proposed designation:
    (1) The final designation includes a correction to Subunits 4a and 
4b and a clarification with respect to Unit 5. These three areas: (a) 
Are within the historical range of the species and were occupied at the 
time of listing; (b) provide the physical and biological features 
essential for the long-term persistence of Helianthus paradoxus 
populations; and (c) are currently occupied.
    (2) We have excluded 854 ac (346 ha) of lands within the La Joya 
Wildlife Management Area (Unit 2) proposed as critical habitat for 
Helianthus paradoxus from the final designation (see the ``Exclusions 
under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act'' section of this final rule for 
further details).
    (3) We have excluded land on the Pueblo of Laguna (Subunit 1c) 
proposed as critical habitat for Helianthus paradoxus from the final 
designation (see the ``Exclusions under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act'' 
section of this final rule for further details).

Critical Habitat

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
    (i) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a 
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which 
are found those physical or biological features
    (a) Essential to the conservation of the species and
    (b) Which may require special management consideration or 
protections; and
    (ii) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a 
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas 
are essential for the conservation of the species.
    Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means the use 
of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring any 
endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures 
provided under the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and 
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated 
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law 
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live 
trapping, and transplantation, and in the extraordinary case where 
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise 
relieved, may include regulated taking.
    Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act 
through the prohibition against Federal agencies carrying out, funding, 
or authorizing the destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires consultation on Federal 
actions that may affect critical habitat. The designation of critical 
habitat does not affect land ownership or establish a refuge, 
wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other conservation area. Such 
designation does not allow the government or public to access private 
lands. Such designation does not require implementation of restoration, 
recovery, or enhancement measures by private landowners. Where a 
landowner requests federal agency funding or authorization for an 
action that may affect a listed species or critical habitat, the 
consultation requirements of section 7(a)(2) would apply, but even in 
the event of a destruction or adverse modification finding, the 
landowner's obligation is not to restore or recover the species, but to 
implement reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid destruction or 
adverse modification of critical habitat.
    For inclusion in a critical habitat designation, the habitat within 
the

[[Page 17767]]

geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing must 
contain the physical and biological features essential to the 
conservation of the species, and be included only if those features may 
require special management considerations or protection. Critical 
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best 
scientific data available, habitat areas that provide essential life 
cycle needs of the species (i.e., areas on which are found the PCEs 
laid out in the appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement for the 
conservation of the species). Under the Act, we can designate critical 
habitat in areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species 
at the time it is listed only when we determine that those areas are 
essential for the conservation of the species.
    Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on 
the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available. 
Further, our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered 
Species Act (published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 
34271)), the Information Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and 
General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 
106-554; H.R. 5658)), and our associated Information Quality Guidelines 
issued by the Service, provide criteria, establish procedures, and 
provide guidance to ensure that our decisions are based on the best 
scientific data available. They require Service biologists, to the 
extent consistent with the Act and with the use of the best scientific 
data available, to use primary and original sources of information as 
the basis for recommendations to designate critical habitat.
    When determining which areas should be designated as critical 
habitat, our primary source of information is generally the information 
developed during the listing process for the species. Additional 
information sources may include the recovery plan for the species, 
articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans developed by 
States and counties, scientific status surveys and studies, biological 
assessments, or other unpublished materials and expert opinion or 
personal knowledge.
    Habitat is often dynamic, and species may move from one area to 
another over time. Furthermore, we recognize that designation of 
critical habitat may not include all of the habitat areas that we may 
eventually determine to be necessary for the recovery of the species. 
For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that 
habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not promote 
the recovery of the species.
    Areas that support populations, but are outside the critical 
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to conservation 
actions. They are also subject to the regulatory protections afforded 
by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy standard, as determined on the basis of 
the best available information at the time of the action. Federally 
funded or permitted projects affecting listed species outside their 
designated critical habitat areas may require consultation under 
section 7 of the Act and may still result in jeopardy findings in some 
cases. Similarly, critical habitat designations made on the basis of 
the best available information at the time of designation will not 
control the direction and substance of future recovery plans, habitat 
conservation plans, or other species conservation planning efforts if 
information available at the time of these planning efforts calls for a 
different outcome.

Primary Constituent Elements

    In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at 
50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas occupied by the species at 
the time of listing to designate as critical habitat, we consider those 
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the 
species that may require special management considerations or 
protection. We consider the physical or biological features to be the 
PCEs laid out in the appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement for 
the conservation of the species. The PCEs include, but are not limited 
to:
    (1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal 
behavior;
    (2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or 
physiological requirements;
    (3) Cover or shelter;
    (4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, and rearing (or development) 
of offspring; and
    (5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are 
representative of the historic, geographical, and ecological 
distributions of a species.
    We derived the specific PCEs required for Helianthus paradoxus from 
the biological needs of the species as described below. Additional 
information can also be found in the final listing rule published in 
the Federal Register on October 20, 1999 (64 FR 56582).

Space for Individual and Population Growth, Including Sites for 
Germination, Pollination, Reproduction, and Seed Bank

    Helianthus paradoxus is an annual species that must re-establish 
populations of adult plants each year from seed produced during 
previous years' reproductive efforts. Habitats with suitable alkaline 
soils and perennially wet hydrologic conditions for all of the life 
functions of H. paradoxus are typically small areas around springs and 
ponds. Therefore, populations tend to grow in crowded patches of dozens 
or even thousands of individuals. Solitary individuals may be found 
around the periphery of the wetland, but dense, well-defined stands 
within suitable habitats are more typical. Aggregations of individuals 
may occur in different adjacent areas than the patches of dead stalks 
from the population of the previous year (Sivinski 1992, p. 125). This 
suggests seed dispersal or the presence of a persistent soil seed bank 
(Van Auken 2001). Patch densities and locations are determined by a 
combination of factors, including variations in seasonal soil moisture, 
salinity, oxygen, disturbance, and competing vegetation (Bush 2002, pp. 
1-2; Van Auken and Bush 1995, p. 15; Bush and Van Auken 1997, p. 417).
    Dense stands of Helianthus paradoxus produce smaller, spindly 
plants, while more open stands have larger plants (Service 2005, p. 6). 
Likewise, experiments to remove competing vegetation, such as alkali 
sacaton (Sporobolus airoides) and saltgrass (Distichlis spicata), also 
produced larger H. paradoxus plants with more flowers per plant (Bush 
and Van Auken 1997, p. 417).
    Pollination vectors for Helianthus paradoxus have not been studied. 
However, most plants in the aster family with ray-like flowers, such as 
H. paradoxus, attract a variety of insect pollinators (Service 2005, p. 
7). Seed production is greatly enhanced in H. paradoxus by cross-
pollination between individual plants. An experiment that excluded 
pollinators from flower heads produced only 5 percent viable seed 
compared to 84 percent viable seed produced by flower heads that were 
open to insect pollination (Van Auken and Bush 1997, p. 44). Helianthus 
paradoxus blooms in the months of September and October. Flowering 
peaks the second week of September in the northern-most New Mexico 
populations. The peak flowering time for the southern-most population 
in West Texas is later in October. Seeds fill and mature during October 
and

[[Page 17768]]

November and then require a 2- to 3-month after-ripening period before 
germination (Van Auken 2001, p. 157). A few seeds remain dormant for 
longer periods and appear to be insurance for species survival by 
remaining viable in the soil seed bank (Van Auken 2001). The duration 
of seed viability has not yet been studied.

Areas That Provide the Basic Requirements for Growth (Such as Water, 
Light, and Minerals)

    Helianthus paradoxus habitat attributes usually are present in 
desert wetland areas that contain permanently saturated soils in the 
root zone (Service 2005, p. 6). These are most commonly desert springs 
and seeps that form wet meadows called ``cienegas.'' Nevertheless, H. 
paradoxus also can occur around the margins of lakes and creeks 
(Service 2005, p. 6). When H. paradoxus grows around lakes or ponds, 
these areas are usually associated with natural cienega habitats. The 
soils of these desert wetlands and riparian areas are typically saline 
or alkaline because the waters are high in dissolved solids and 
elevated evaporation rates leave deposits of salts, including 
carbonates, at the soil's surface. Studies by Van Auken and Bush (1995, 
p. 14) showed that H. paradoxus grows in saline soils, but seeds 
germinate and establish best when precipitation and high water tables 
reduce salinity near the soil surface. Based on greenhouse and limited 
field studies, H. paradoxus requires salinity levels ranging from 10 to 
40 parts per thousand for optimal growth in competition with other salt 
marsh plant species (Van Auken and Bush 2006, p. 29). Helianthus 
paradoxus can occur on cienegas that contain alkaline, fine sand soils 
that may be dry at the surface during summer months, but are sub-
irrigated in the root zone. Where saturated soils are shaded by taller 
vegetation, H. paradoxus may also not be present every year or in 
numbers greater than a few hundred plants. Like all sunflowers, this 
species requires open areas that are not shaded by taller vegetation 
for optimal growth. Solitary trees or shrubs are sometimes located 
within stands of H. paradoxus. Clusters of tall trees and shrubs will 
inhibit H. paradoxus' growth by shading germinating seeds and seedlings 
(Service 2005, p. 6).

Primary Constituent Elements for Helianthus paradoxus

    Pursuant to the Act and its implementing regulations, we are 
required to identify the physical and biological features within the 
geographical area occupied by Helianthus paradoxus at the time of 
listing that are essential to the conservation of the species and which 
may require special management considerations or protections. The 
physical and biological features are those primary constituent elements 
(PCEs) laid out in a specific spatial arrangement and quantity to be 
essential to the conservation of the species. All areas designated as 
critical habitat for H. paradoxus are currently occupied, within the 
species' historical geographic range, and contain sufficient PCEs to 
support at least one life history function.
    Based on our current knowledge of the life history, biology, and 
ecology of the species and the habitat requirements for sustaining the 
essential life history functions of the species, we have determined 
that Helianthus paradoxus' PCEs are the desert wetland or riparian 
habitat components that provide:
    (1) Silty clay or fine sand soils that contain high organic 
content, are saline or alkaline, are permanently saturated within the 
root zone (top 50 cm of the soil profile), and have salinity levels 
ranging from 10 to 40 parts per thousand; and
    (2) Low proportion (less than 10 percent) of woody shrub or canopy 
cover directly around the plant.
    This final designation is designed for the conservation of the PCEs 
necessary to support the life history functions of the species and the 
areas containing those PCEs in the appropriate quantity and spatial 
arrangement essential for the conservation of the species. Because all 
of the species' life history functions require all of the PCEs, all 
critical habitat units contain all of the PCEs.

Special Management Considerations or Protections

    When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the areas 
occupied by the species at the time of listing contain the physical and 
biological features essential to the conservation of the species, and 
whether these features may require special management consideration or 
protections. As stated in the final listing rule (64 FR 56582), threats 
to Helianthus paradoxus and its physical and biological features 
include drying of wetlands from groundwater depletion, alteration of 
wetlands (e.g., wetland fills, draining, impoundment, and development), 
competition from nonnative plant species, overgrazing by livestock 
during H. paradoxus' flowering season, impacts from recreational 
activities, mowing, and highway maintenance.
    The loss or alteration of wetland habitat continues to be the main 
threat to Helianthus paradoxus. The scattered distribution of cienegas 
makes them aquatic islands of unique habitat in an arid-land matrix 
(Hendrickson and Minckley 1984, p. 169). There is evidence these 
habitats have been historically, and are presently being, reduced or 
eliminated by aquifer depletion, and severely impacted by agricultural 
activities and encroachment by exotic plants (Poole 1992, pp. 1-2; 
Sivinski 1995, p. 11). The lowering of water tables through aquifer 
withdrawals for irrigation and municipal use, diversion of water from 
wetlands for agriculture and recreational uses, and wetland filling for 
conversion to dry land uses destroy or degrade desert wetlands.
    In Grants, New Mexico, Helianthus paradoxus has been observed in 
close proximity to building sites that may have contained suitable 
wetland habitat prior to filling (Service 2005, p. 8). A cienega 
containing H. paradoxus near Dexter, New Mexico, was dried when a 
wellhead was placed on the spring and the water diverted for other uses 
(Service 2005, p. 8). Springs that have fed H. paradoxus habitats have 
been converted to swimming pools and fishing ponds in the towns of 
Roswell and Santa Rosa, New Mexico (Service 2005, p. 8). Groundwater 
withdrawals for agriculture in Pecos and Reeves counties in Texas have 
had an especially severe impact on desert springs (Service 2005, p. 8). 
Of the 61 historical desert springs in these two counties, only 13 were 
still flowing in 1980 (Brune 1981 in Poole 1992, p. 5). Beginning 
around 1946, groundwater levels fell as much as 400 feet (ft) (120 
meters (m)) in Pecos County and 500 ft (150 m) in Reeves County. 
Groundwater pumping has lessened in more recent years due to the higher 
cost of removing water from deeper aquifers, but rising water tables 
and resumption of spring flows are not expected (Poole 1992, p. 5). We 
are not aware of any protections afforded by Texas water law for the 
remaining springs that support H. paradoxus populations on The Nature 
Conservancy properties, which limits options for addressing this 
threat.
    Livestock will eat Helianthus paradoxus when other green forage is 
scarce, and when the buds are developing and abundant (Service 1999, p. 
56587). Cattle and horses tend to pull off the flower heads, which can 
reduce seed production (Bush and Van Auken 1997, p. 416). However, 
well-managed grazing during non-flowering months may have a beneficial 
effect on H. paradoxus populations by decreasing the density and 
biomass of potentially competing plant species in these

[[Page 17769]]

habitats. This sunflower germinates earlier than most associated plants 
and grows vigorously on wet, bare, highly insolated soils (Service 
2005, p. 9). Actions that remove shading grass cover, such as grazing, 
appear to enhance growth and reproduction of sunflower plants that are 
later protected from grazing while they are reproductively maturing. 
Therefore, properly managed livestock grazing can be compatible with H. 
paradoxus conservation. Livestock grazing operations that are not 
managed to protect H. paradoxus occur in populations in the Grants and 
Roswell areas of New Mexico (Service 2005, p. 9).
    Although water contamination is a significant threat for the 
Roswell springsnail, Koster's springsnail, Noel's amphipod, and the 
Pecos assiminea found on Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge (70 FR 
46304), we have no information on whether contamination of water would 
affect Helianthus paradoxus. We did not find that reduced water quality 
was a threat to the species when it was listed in 1999 (64 FR 56582). 
Moreover, we are not aware of any research or information that 
documents the species' response to elevated nutrients or contaminants. 
For these reasons, we do not believe that water contamination is a 
significant threat to H. paradoxus at this time.
    We have determined that each area included in this designation 
meets the definition of critical habitat for the reasons described in 
our unit descriptions below.

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

    We are designating critical habitat in areas that were occupied by 
the species at the time of listing and contain PCEs in the quantity and 
spatial arrangement to support life history functions essential for the 
conservation of the species. Each such area contains all PCEs and 
support multiple life processes. We are also designating critical 
habitat in two areas that were not occupied by the species at the time 
of listing. We have determined that these areas, which are currently 
occupied, are essential to the conservation of the species.
    For many species that are listed under the Act, habitat loss is a 
primary factor in their decline. For these species it is very important 
to conserve every piece of available habitat, and, in some cases, it is 
essential to conserve areas that may become suitable habitat in the 
future. This is not the case for Helianthus paradoxus, because this 
species currently exists throughout its range in a spatial arrangement 
that would provide for its long-term conservation, if the populations 
were secure from threats. For this reason, not all areas which are 
known to be occupied by H. paradoxus are required in order to conserve 
the species. To include all areas that are occupied by the Pecos 
sunflower, and unoccupied areas that could be occupied by the species, 
would encompass more areas than are reasonably needed to conserve the 
species. Thus, we developed a set of restrictive criteria to focus on 
those areas most likely to contribute to the long-term conservation of 
the species. We have chosen to focus on larger populations supported by 
water sources that are thought to be relatively stable. By focusing on 
size and stability, we believe we have chosen the populations that are 
most likely to become secure from threats in the long term and provide 
for the long-term conservation of this species.

Occupancy

    We consider an area to be currently occupied if Helianthus 
paradoxus was found to be present by species experts within the last 
two years (Hirsch 2006, p. 1; Poole 2006, p. 1; Ulibarri 2006, p. 1; 
Sivinski 2007, p. 1). Two years is an appropriate time period because 
surveys may not occur in all areas in all years, and because plants 
reestablish in an area from seeds left in the ground from the previous 
year's production. The sunflower would be likely to persist in an area 
over multiple years unless major habitat modification occurred 
resulting in destruction of the seed bank.

Stability

    In designating critical habitat, we considered the stability of the 
known populations, including size and status over time. According to 
population-level analysis conducted for Helianthus paradoxus, 
approximately 1,600 or more individuals is a population target that 
gives a high probability of having a stable population over time (Poole 
2004; Sanderson 2006, p. 918). We consider the status of a population 
to be stable when it appears that (1) the number of new individuals in 
a population is equal to or greater than the number of individuals 
dying, and (2) the population occupies a similar or larger area over 
multiple survey periods. The survey and field data on which this 
designation is based are from consistently observed populations during 
the last several years. Most of the sites included in this designation 
were visited by species experts four or more times between 1992 and 
2007; however, at a minimum each site was visited twice.
    By including stable populations, we are designating currently 
occupied habitat that provides for important life-history functions, 
such as seed dispersal and genetic exchange, which will contribute to 
the long-term conservation of the species. Locations that have 
populations that do not support at least 1,600 individuals are usually 
either dependent on an inconsistent water supply or rely on small, 
restricted, or modified habitats. We believe that, by designating large 
populations, the species will persist, the potential for successful 
pollination is high, and genetic exchange is facilitated. Using this 
criteria results in some occupied areas not being included; however, we 
believe we have included the most important areas and in a spatial 
arrangement and quantity that allows for long-term conservation of the 
species.

Essential Areas

    For areas not occupied by the species at the time of listing, the 
Service must demonstrate that these areas are essential to the 
conservation of the species in order to include them in a critical 
habitat designation. Helianthus paradoxus critical habitat units in New 
Mexico and west Texas (shown in Table 1) are sufficiently distant (40 
to 100 miles (mi) (64 to 161 kilometers (km)) from one another to rule 
out frequent gene exchange by pollen vectors or seed dispersal. 
Therefore, due to the spatial distance between them, we have determined 
that each of these populations, including two not occupied by the 
species at the time of listing (Unit 2 and Subunit 3b), are essential 
to the conservation of the species because they provide for the 
maintenance of the genetic diversity of H. paradoxus. The areas we have 
determined meet the definition of critical habitat for this species 
include populations containing all of the known remaining genetic 
diversity within the species. These areas include representation of 
each major subbasin in the known historical range of the species 
(Service 2005, p. 4).
    In summary, this critical habitat designation includes populations 
of Helianthus paradoxus and habitats that possess the physical and 
biological features essential to the conservation of the species. We 
believe the populations included in this designation, if secured, would 
provide for the conservation of H. paradoxus by: (1) Maintaining the 
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the 
species in areas where large populations

[[Page 17770]]

of H. paradoxus are known to occur; (2) maintaining the current 
distribution, thus preserving genetic variation throughout the range of 
H. paradoxus and minimizing the potential effects of local extinction; 
(3) minimizing fragmentation within populations by establishing 
contiguous occurrences and maintaining existing connectivity; (4) 
including sufficient pollinators; and (5) protecting the seed bank to 
ensure long-term persistence of the species.

Mapping

    The designated Helianthus paradoxus critical habitat areas are 
grouped both spatially and by watershed into four larger units: West-
Central New Mexico, Santa Rosa, Roswell/Dexter, and West Texas. The 
boundaries of the critical habitat designation for each subunit were 
mapped using a global positioning system (GPS) along the outside 
boundary of the area of occupied habitat (Pittenger 2007). We attempted 
to encompass only areas that contain all of the PCEs in a year of 
average rainfall. The elevated water table that provides conditions 
favorable to H. paradoxus growth is influenced by both past and current 
precipitation. Groundwater level is often affected by precipitation in 
the entire watershed from many prior years as water slowly moves 
through the soil and geologic features into springs and wetlands. The 
groundwater provides a relatively reliable, stable water source 
permanently saturating soils adjacent to springs and wetlands. Winter 
storms and monsoons provide a more dynamic source of precipitation to 
H. paradoxus habitat. The suitable habitat expands and contracts 
horizontally and laterally from the groundwater-influenced areas 
depending on the amount of annual precipitation (Sivinski 1992, p. 
125). Therefore, in very wet years, suitable H. paradoxus habitat may 
extend beyond the mapped boundaries for critical habitat and in very 
dry years may shrink to a smaller area than delineated.
    In a few of the subunits we include narrow dirt roads within the 
mapped boundaries when these roads were present within the occupied 
habitat. Due to soil compaction from vehicle tracks, these roads do not 
provide the PCEs for Helianthus paradoxus. They do, however, represent 
a small area (6 ft (2 m) wide), and they are directly adjacent to 
occupied habitat, so we found it too difficult, due to mapping 
constraints, to exclude them from the maps of critical habitat. To the 
best of our knowledge, no other areas were included within the mapped 
boundaries of subunits that do not possess all of the PCEs.
    We were not able to obtain physical access to some private lands in 
order to map the boundaries of Helianthus paradoxus habitat. We 
utilized U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute quadrangle maps to create 
maps that depict the habitat containing the physical and biological 
features essential to the conservation of the species. One of the 
features of 7.5 minute quadrangle maps is their accurate depiction of 
permanent water sources (e.g., springs and wetlands) associated with 
these populations. The depiction of the subunits is based on: (1) Map 
features, (2) limited visual observations, and (3) a knowledge of how 
spring/wetland habitats influence similar H. paradoxus populations in 
other geographic areas within the species' range.
    With the exception of the narrow dirt roads discussed above, when 
determining critical habitat boundaries, we made every effort to avoid 
including (within the boundaries of the map contained within this final 
rule) developed areas such as buildings, paved areas, and other 
structures that lack PCEs for Helianthus paradoxus. The scale of the 
maps prepared under the parameters for publication within the Code of 
Federal Regulations may not reflect the exclusion of such developed 
areas.
    We are designating critical habitat in areas that we have 
determined were occupied at the time of listing, and that contain the 
PCEs laid out in the appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement to 
support life history functions essential for the conservation of the 
species. We are also designating critical habitat in areas that were 
not occupied at the time of listing, but are now occupied. We have 
determined that these areas are essential to the conservation of the 
species.

Final Critical Habitat Designation

    The critical habitat areas described below constitute our current 
best assessment of areas determined to meet the definition of critical 
habitat for H. paradoxus. Table 1 outlines these areas and the threats 
requiring special management.

      Table 1.--Threats and Occupancy in Areas Containing Physical and Biological Features Essential to the
                                      Conservation of Helianthus paradoxus
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Threats requiring
         Geographic area/unit             special management or    Occupied at the time     Currently  occupied
                                               protections              of listing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Unit 1. West--Central New Mexico
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subunit 1a. Rancho del Padre Spring     Water withdrawal,         Yes...................  Yes.
 Cienega.                                wetland filling and
                                         development,
                                         incompatible livestock
                                         management.
Subunit 1b. Grants Salt Flat Wetland..  Wetland filling and       Yes...................  Yes.
                                         development,
                                         encroachment by
                                         nonnative vegetation,
                                         incompatible livestock
                                         management.
Subunit 1c. Pueblo of Laguna..........  Water withdrawal,         Yes...................  Yes.
                                         incompatible livestock
                                         management,
                                         encroachment by
                                         nonnative vegetation.
Unit 2. La Joya--La Joya State          Encroachment by           No....................  Yes.
 Wildlife Management Area.               nonnative vegetation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Unit 3. Santa Rosa
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subunit 3a. Blue Hole Cienega/Blue      Encroachment by           Yes...................  Yes.
 Hole Fish Hatchery Ponds.               nonnative vegetation;
                                         on City land, wetland
                                         filling and recreation
                                         use, mowing to edges of
                                         ponds, dredging ponds
                                         and filling of wetlands.
Subunit 3b. Westside Spring...........  Water withdrawal,         No....................  Yes.
                                         wetland filling and
                                         development,
                                         encroachment by
                                         nonnative vegetation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 17771]]

 
                                             Unit 4. Roswell/Dexter
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subunit 4a. Bitter Lake National        Water withdrawal,         Yes...................  Yes.
 Wildlife Refuge/ City of Roswell Land.  encroachment by
                                         nonnative vegetation;
                                         on City land, wetland
                                         filling and
                                         development,
                                         incompatible livestock
                                         management.
Subunit 4b. Bitter Lake National        Water withdrawal and      Yes...................  Yes.
 Wildlife Refuge Farm.                   encroachment by
                                         nonnative vegetation.
Subunit 4c. Oasis Dairy...............  Water withdrawal,         Yes...................  Yes.
                                         wetland filling and
                                         development,
                                         incompatible livestock
                                         management.
Subunit 4d. Lea Lake at Bottomless      Campgrounds and human     Yes...................  Yes.
 Lakes State Park.                       trampling, encroachment
                                         by nonnative vegetation.
Subunit 4e. Dexter Cienega............  Water withdrawal,         Yes...................  Yes.
                                         wetland filling and
                                         development,
                                         incompatible livestock
                                         management.
Unit 5. West Texas--Diamond Y Spring..  Water withdrawal,         Yes...................  Yes.
                                         wetland filling and
                                         development,
                                         incompatible livestock
                                         management.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The approximate area encompassed within each critical habitat unit 
is shown in Table 2.

           Table 2.--Lands Designated as Critical Habitat for Helianthus paradoxus and Land Ownership
                                     [Area is displayed in acres (hectares)]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Lands  meeting
                                                                        the            Lands
         Geographic area/unit                Land ownership       definition  of   excluded from     Critical
                                                                     critical        critical         habitat
                                                                      habitat         habitat
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subunit 1a. Rancho del Padre Spring     Private and Tribal......         26 (10)           0 (0)         26 (10)
 Cienega.
Subunit 1b. Grants Salt Flat Wetland..  Private.................         63 (25)           0 (0)         63 (25)
Subunit 1c. Pueblo of Laguna..........  Tribal..................           (\1\)           (\1\)           0 (0)
Unit 2. La Joya--La Joya State          State of New Mexico.....       854 (346)       854 (346)           0 (0)
 Wildlife Management Area.
Subunit 3a. Blue Hole Cienega/Blue      State of New Mexico and         134 (54)           0 (0)        134 (54)
 Hole Fish Hatchery Ponds.               City of Roswell.
Subunit 3b. Westside Spring...........  Private.................           6 (3)           0 (0)           6 (3)
Subunit 4a. Bitter Lake National        U.S. Fish and Wildlife         576 (233)           0 (0)       576 (233)
 Wildlife Refuge/City of Roswell Land.   Service and City of
                                         Roswell.
Subunit 4b. Bitter Lake National        U.S. Fish and Wildlife           96 (39)           0 (0)         96 (39)
 Wildlife Refuge Farm.                   Service.
Subunit 4c. Oasis Dairy...............  Private.................        104 (42)           0 (0)        104 (42)
Subunit 4d. Lea Lake at Bottomless      State of New Mexico.....          20 (8)           0 (0)          20 (8)
 Lakes State Park.
Subunit 4e. Dexter Cienega............  Private.................         41 (17)           0 (0)         41 (17)
Unit 5. West Texas--Diamond Y Spring..  Private.................        240 (97)           0 (0)        240 (97)
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total Acres (Hectares)............  ........................  ..............  ..............    1,305 (528)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Undefined.

    Below, we present a brief description of all subunits that meet the 
definition of critical habitat for Helianthus paradoxus (see Criteria 
Used To Identify Critical Habitat section above).

Unit 1: West-Central New Mexico

    Subunit 1a is located at Rancho del Padre Spring Cienega. This 
subunit is 26 ac (10 ha) in Cibola County, New Mexico. The subunit 
consists of an area of Rancho del Padre Spring Cienega from the spring 
on the south side of I-40 then northeast approximately 0.5 mi (0.8 km) 
to the Rio San Jose.
    This population consists of large patches of several thousand 
plants on areas owned by two private landowners (23 ac (9 ha)) and the 
Pueblo of Acoma (3 ac (1 ha)). This site was known to be occupied at 
the time of listing and has been visited or observed from a public 
right-of-way by species experts during four or more seasons. These 
experts have found the site occupied by H. paradoxus on every visit 
(Sivinski 2007a, p. 3). This unit is currently occupied, contains all 
of the PCEs in the appropriate spatial arrangement and quantity, and is 
threatened by water withdrawal, wetland filling and development, and 
livestock grazing during H. paradoxus's growing and flowering season. 
Therefore, special management or protections may be required to 
minimize these threats. At this time, we are not aware of any

[[Page 17772]]

management plans that address H. paradoxus in this area.
    Subunit 1b is located at Grants Salt Flat Wetland. This subunit is 
63 ac (25 ha) of private land in Cibola County, New Mexico. The subunit 
consists of an area of wet alkaline playa (i.e., a seasonal, shallow 
desert lake) between railroad tracks and I-40 and west of Hwy 122 (Road 
from Interstate to downtown Grants). Playas are nearly level areas at 
the bottom of undrained desert basins that are sometimes covered in 
water.
    This population consists of large patches of several thousand 
plants mostly on private property. This site was occupied at the time 
of listing and has been visited or observed from a public right-of-way 
by species experts during four or more seasons. These experts have 
found the site occupied by Helianthus paradoxus on every visit 
(Sivinski 2007). This unit is currently occupied, contains all of the 
PCEs in the appropriate spatial arrangement and quantity, and is 
threatened by wetland filling and development, encroachment by 
nonnative vegetation, and livestock management not compatible with H. 
paradoxus physiology. Therefore, special management or protections may 
be required to minimize these threats. At this time, we are not aware 
of any management plans that address H. paradoxus in this area.
    Subunit 1c is located at the Pueblo of Laguna. This subunit's 
acreage is undefined in Valencia County, New Mexico. The subunit 
consists of an area along the Rio San Jose, South Garcia, New Mexico.
    At this site, Helianthus paradoxus plants are located in patches at 
springs along the Rio San Jose. Each patch consists of several hundred 
to several thousand plants, and a few scattered plants grow along the 
river (Sivinski 1995, p. 4). The entire site belongs to the Pueblo of 
Laguna. This site was occupied at the time of listing, is currently 
occupied, contains all of the PCEs in the appropriate spatial 
arrangement and quantity, and is threatened by water withdrawal, 
encroachment by nonnative vegetation, and livestock grazing during H. 
paradoxus' growing and flowering season. The Pueblo has developed a 
management plan for H. paradoxus. On the basis of this plan and our 
partnership with the Pueblo of Laguna, we are excluding this area from 
the final critical habitat designation pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of 
the Act (see ``Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act'' section 
below for additional information).

Unit 2: La Joya Wildlife Management Area

    Unit 2 is located in the La Joya Wildlife Management Area. This 
unit is 854 ac (346 ha) in Socorro County, New Mexico. This population 
is located about 7 mi (11 km) south of Bernardo within Socorro County 
near the confluence of the Rio Grande and the Rio Puerco. The La Joya 
population is bounded to the west by I-25 and to the east by the Unit 7 
Drain. The north boundary is adjacent to River Mile 126 of the Rio 
Grande and the south boundary is adjacent to River Mile 123.
    One of the largest populations of Helianthus paradoxus occurs 
adjacent to the Rio Grande at La Joya. This Rio Grande population 
consists of 100,000 to 1,000,000 plants and occurs on the La Joya 
Wildlife Management Area (Service 2005, p. 4). It is within the La Joya 
Unit of the Ladd S. Gordon Waterfowl Complex. This property is owned by 
the New Mexico State Game Commission. It is managed by the NMDGF for 
migratory waterfowl habitat, which is compatible with preservation of 
wetlands for H. paradoxus.
    We believe this area was not occupied at the time of listing. It 
was discovered in 2004. This site has been found to be occupied every 
year since then and represents one of the largest populations of 
Helianthus paradoxus in the range of the species (Hirsch 2006, p. 1). 
This unit is currently occupied by a stable population (Blue Earth 
Ecological Consultants, Inc. 2007c, p. 3), contains all of the PCEs in 
the appropriate spatial arrangement and quantity, and is threatened by 
encroachment of nonnative vegetation.
    We have determined this site to be essential to the conservation of 
the species because it is currently occupied by a stable, very large 
population of Helianthus paradoxus, and is sufficiently distant (over 
40 mi (64 km)) from other populations to serve as an additional 
locality that contributes to the conservation of genetic variation. 
This population may prevent extirpation of the species resulting from 
encroachment of nonnative species, degradation of habitat, or a 
catastrophic event because it is the sole representative located in an 
area distinct from any other population in the range of the species. As 
such, it may contain genetic variation not found anywhere else in the 
range of the species. Because the water source for this population is 
stable, this population can be expected to persist in very large 
numbers every year.
    As described below, we are excluding Unit 2, the La Joya Wildlife 
Management Area, from the critical habitat designation for Helianthus 
paradoxus (see ``Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2)'' section).

Unit 3: Santa Rosa

    Subunit 3a is located at Blue Hole Cienega/Blue Hole Fish Hatchery 
Ponds. This subunit is 134 ac (54 ha) in Guadalupe County, New Mexico. 
The Blue Hole Fish Hatchery Ponds population of Helianthus paradoxus is 
part of the same population as and nearly contiguous with the Blue Hole 
Cienega in Santa Rosa, New Mexico. The Blue Hole Fish Hatchery Ponds 
population is immediately north of Blue Hole Road and the Blue Hole 
Cienega is immediately south.
    This subunit was occupied at the time of listing and has been 
visited by species experts during four or more seasons. These experts 
found the subunit to be occupied by Helianthus paradoxus on every visit 
(Sivinski 2007a, p. 2). This subunit is currently occupied (Blue Earth 
Ecological Consultants, Inc. 2006, p.1), contains all of the PCEs in 
the appropriate spatial arrangement and quantity, and is threatened by 
encroachment of nonnative vegetation, wetland filling, and park 
maintenance activities. Therefore, special management or protections 
may be required to minimize these threats. At this time, we are not 
aware of any management plans that address H. paradoxus in this area.
    The part of this population at Blue Hole Cienega consists of 
100,000 to 1,000,000 plants and is the largest population of Helianthus 
paradoxus in the upper Pecos River basin. A non-traditional section 6 
grant was awarded to the State of New Mexico in 2004 for acquisition of 
the Blue Hole Cienega, which was finalized in July 2005. At this site, 
shallow ground water seeps to the surface to create cienega 
communities. This subunit is currently occupied, contains all of the 
PCEs in the appropriate spatial arrangement and quantity, and is 
threatened by encroachment by nonnative vegetation. Therefore, special 
management or protections may be required to minimize these threats. At 
this time, we are not aware of any management plans that address H. 
paradoxus in this area.
    The part of this population at the Blue Hole Fish Hatchery Ponds is 
owned and administered by the City of Santa Rosa and consists of 
approximately 1,000 plants. This site is maintained as a recreational 
area. City of Santa Rosa park maintenance staff have voluntarily 
stopped mowing and cutting Helianthus paradoxus during the months of 
August and September. An information kiosk

[[Page 17773]]

on endangered wetland plants is being planned for the bike/foot path 
along the creek at Blue Hole Park.
    This subunit was confirmed to be occupied in 2006 (Blue Earth 
Ecological Consultants, Inc. 2006, p. 4), contains all of the PCEs, and 
is threatened by encroachment from nonnative vegetation, wetland 
filling, and park maintenance activities. Therefore, special management 
or protections may be required to minimize these threats. At this time, 
we are not aware of any management plans that address Helianthus 
paradoxus in this area.
    Subunit 3b is located at Westside Spring. This subunit is 6 ac (3 
ha) of private land in Santa Rosa, Guadalupe County, New Mexico. The 
subunit consists of an area along an unnamed spring on the west side of 
the Pecos River, located to the west of River Road and 1 mi (1.6 km) 
east of Highway 54.
    We believe this area was not occupied at the time of listing. It 
was discovered in 2005, and contained thousands of plants. This site 
was found to be occupied again in 2006 by a species expert observing 
from a public right-of-way (Sivinski 2007). This subunit is currently 
occupied by a stable population, contains all of the PCEs in the 
appropriate spatial arrangement and quantity, and is threatened by 
water withdrawal, wetland filling and development, and encroachment of 
nonnative vegetation. Therefore, special management or protections may 
be required to minimize these threats. At this time, we are not aware 
of any management plans that address Helianthus paradoxus in this area.
    We have determined this site to be essential to the conservation of 
the species because it is currently occupied by a stable, large 
population of Helianthus paradoxus, and is one of only two stable, 
large populations in Unit 3. This subunit is sufficiently distant (over 
40 mi (64 km)) from other populations to serve as an additional 
locality that contributes to the conservation of genetic variation. 
This population may prevent extirpation of the species resulting from 
encroachment of nonnative species, degradation of habitat, or a 
catastrophic event that could occur to the other subunit in Unit 3. It 
may also contain genetic variation specific to this Unit. Because the 
water source for this population is stable and not anticipated to be 
subject to any known future water withdrawals, this population can be 
expected to persist in large numbers every year.

Unit 4: Roswell/Dexter

    Subunit 4a includes 576 ac (233 ha) of Bitter Lake National 
Wildlife Refuge and City of Roswell land located in Chaves County, New 
Mexico. This subunit is located approximately 5 mi (8 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 the 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, contains all of the PCEs 
essential to the conservation of the species, and is threatened by 
water withdrawal and encroachment of nonnative vegetation. Additional 
threats occurring on the City of Roswell lands include wetland filling 
and development, and incompatible livestock management. Therefore, 
special management or protections may be required to minimize these 
threats.
    Subunit 4b includes 96 ac (39 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 area was known to be occupied at the time of listing and has 
been visited by species experts during four or more seasons. The 
experts found the site occupied by Helianthus paradoxus on every visit 
(Ulibarri 2006b, p. 1; Sivinski 2007a, p. 2; Blue Earth Ecological 
Consultants, Inc. 2007a, p. 3). This subunit is currently occupied and 
contains all of the PCEs in the appropriate spatial arrangement and 
quantity essential to the conservation of the species.
    Subunit 4c is located at the Oasis Dairy. This subunit is 104 ac 
(42 ha) of private land in Chaves County, New Mexico. The subunit is 
located on the east side of Roswell, west side of Pecos River Valley, 
approximately 4 mi (7 km) southeast of the Hwy 380 bridge, and beside 
an unnamed spring approximately 0.6 mi (1 km) west of the Pecos River 
and 6 mi (9 km) south of Highway 380.
    This site contains a very large, dense patch of several thousand 
Helianthus paradoxus in a low alkaline sink area approximately 0.5 mi 
(0.8 km) west of the Pecos River on private land. It also contains a 
large patch with many thousands of H. paradoxus in a low area below a 
spring, also on private land. This site was occupied at the time of 
listing and has been visited by species experts during at least three 
seasons. These experts found the site occupied by H. paradoxus on every 
visit (Sivinski 2007a, p. 3). This subunit is currently occupied, 
contains all of the PCEs in the appropriate spatial arrangement and 
quantity, and is threatened by livestock grazing during H. paradoxus' 
growing and flowering season, water withdrawal, and wetland filling and 
development. Therefore, special management or protections may be 
required to minimize these threats. At this time, we are not aware of 
any management plans that address H. paradoxus in this area.
    Subunit 4d is located at Lea Lake at Bottomless Lakes State Park. 
This subunit is 20 ac (8 ha) in Chaves County, New Mexico. It includes 
the wet margins of Lea Lake.
    This site contains a few thousand plants on the riparian margins of 
Lea Lake. This land belongs to the State of New Mexico and is managed 
by the New Mexico Parks and Recreation Division. The lands adjacent to 
Lea Lake are used as a picnic area and campground for the State Park. 
This site 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 (Sivinski 2007a, 
p. 3). This subunit is currently occupied (Sivinski 2007a, p. 3; Blue 
Earth Ecological Consultants, Inc. 2007a, p. 3), contains all of the 
PCEs in the appropriate spatial arrangement and quantity, and is 
threatened by encroachment of nonnative vegetation, and recreational 
and park maintenance activities. Therefore, special management or 
protections may be required to minimize these threats. At this time, we 
are not aware of any management plans that address H. paradoxus in this 
area.

[[Page 17774]]

    Subunit 4e is located at Dexter Cienega. This subunit is 41 ac (17 
ha) of private land in Chaves County, New Mexico. The subunit is 
located in a small valley west of the Pecos River, east of the Hagerman 
Irrigation Canal, and 3 mi (5 km) north of Dexter.
    This site consists of several thousand plants on private land along 
a wide, boggy drainage bottom. This site was known to be occupied at 
the time of listing based upon observations from a public right-of-way 
by species experts during at least three seasons (Sivinski 2007a, p. 
2). This subunit is currently occupied, contains all of the PCEs in the 
appropriate spatial arrangement and quantity, and is threatened by 
water withdrawal, wetland filling and development, and livestock 
grazing during Helianthus paradoxus' growing and flowering season. 
Therefore, special management or protections may be required to 
minimize these threats. At this time, we are not aware of any 
management plans that address H. paradoxus in this area.

Unit 5: West Texas

    Unit 5 includes 240 ac (97 ha) of private land located on Diamond Y 
Spring in Pecos County, Texas. The unit is located approximately 12 mi 
(20 km) north-northwest of Fort Stockton, Texas.
    Unit 5 consists of several hundred thousand to one million plants 
found on The Nature Conservancy's Diamond Y Spring Preserve and a 
contiguous parcel of private land. This site was occupied 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 (Poole 2006, p. 2). This unit is currently occupied 
(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 ac (607 ha) 
to 4,000 ac (1,618 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, 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.

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Section 7 Consultation

    Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the 
Service, to ensure that actions they fund, authorize, or carry out are 
not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or 
destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. Decisions by 
the Fifth and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have invalidated our 
definition of ``destruction or adverse modification'' (50 CFR 402.02) 
(see Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 378 
F.3d 1059 (9th Cir 2004) and Sierra Club v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service et al., 245 F.3d 434, 442F (5th Cir 2001)), and we do not rely 
on this regulatory definition when analyzing whether an action is 
likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Under the 
statutory provisions of the Act, destruction or adverse modification is 
determined on the basis of whether, with implementation of the proposed 
Federal action, the affected critical habitat would remain functional 
(or retain the current ability for the PCEs to be functionally 
established) to serve its intended conservation role for the species.
    Under section 7(a)(2) of the Act, if a Federal action may affect a 
listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency 
(action agency) must enter into consultation with us. As a result of 
this consultation, we document compliance with the requirements of 
section 7(a)(2) through our issuance of:
    (1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but 
are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat; 
or
    (2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that are likely to 
adversely affect listed species or critical habitat.
    When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is 
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or 
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we also provide 
reasonable and prudent alternatives to the project, if any are 
identifiable. We define ``Reasonable and prudent alternatives'' at 50 
CFR 402.02 as alternative actions identified during consultation that:
     Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the 
intended purpose of the action,
     Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the 
Federal agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
     Are economically and technologically feasible, and
     Would, in the Director's opinion, avoid jeopardizing the 
continued existence of the listed species or destroying or adversely 
modifying critical habitat.
    Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project 
modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs 
associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are 
similarly variable.
    Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate 
consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where a new 
species is listed or critical habitat is subsequently designated that 
may be affected and the Federal agency has retained discretionary 
involvement or control over the action or such discretionary 
involvement or control is authorized by law. Consequently, some Federal 
agencies may need to request reinitiation of consultation with us on 
actions for which formal consultation has been completed, if those 
actions may affect subsequently listed species or designated critical 
habitat.
    Federal activities that may affect Helianthus paradoxus or its 
designated critical habitat will require consultation under section 
7(a)(2) of the Act. Activities on State, Tribal, local, or private 
lands requiring a Federal permit (such as a permit from the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 
1251 et seq.) or a permit from the Service under section 10(a)(1)(B) of 
the Act) or involving some other Federal action (such as funding from 
the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, or 
the Federal Emergency Management Agency) are examples of agency actions 
that may be subject to the section 7 consultation process. Federal 
actions not affecting listed species or critical habitat, and actions 
on State, Tribal, local, or private lands that are not federally 
funded, authorized, or permitted, do not require section 7(a)(2) 
consultations.

Application of the Adverse Modification Standard

    The key factor related to the adverse modification determination is 
whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the 
affected critical habitat would remain functional (or retain the 
current ability for the PCEs to be functionally established) to serve 
its intended conservation role for the species. Activities that may 
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat are those that alter the 
physical and

[[Page 17775]]

biological features to an extent that appreciably reduces the 
conservation value of critical habitat for Helianthus paradoxus. 
Generally, the conservation role of H. paradoxus critical habitat units 
is to support viable core area populations.
    Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and 
describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical 
habitat, those activities involving a Federal action that may destroy 
or adversely modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such 
designation.
    Activities that, when carried out, funded, or authorized by a 
Federal agency, may affect critical habitat and, therefore, should 
result in consultation for Helianthus paradoxus include, but are not 
limited to:
    (1) Projects that physically alter permanently saturated saline or 
alkaline soils (e.g., salt deposits or crusts present) or result in the 
loss and degradation of Helianthus paradoxus habitat. Such activities 
could include, but are not limited to, drying of wetlands from 
groundwater depletion, alteration of wetlands (e.g., wetland fills, 
draining, construction of water impoundments), livestock management not 
compatible with H. paradoxus physiology, clearing, introducing or 
encouraging the spread of nonnative plants, and recreational use (such 
as the use of off-road vehicles);
    (2) Removing, thinning, or destroying Helianthus paradoxus plants. 
This may occur through plowing, grading, wetland filling and 
development, road building, burning, mechanical weed control, herbicide 
application, recreational use, and activities associated with 
firefighting (e.g., staging areas, surface disturbance); and
    (3) Activities that appreciably diminish habitat value or quality 
through indirect effects (e.g., encroachment of nonnative plants or 
animals, or fragmentation).
    All of the units designated as critical habitat, as well as Subunit 
1c and Unit 2 that have been excluded under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, 
contain the physical and biological features essential to the 
conservation of Helianthus paradoxus. The five units are within the 
geographic range of the species, all except two were known to be 
occupied by the species at the time of listing (based on observations 
made within the last 14 seasons (Ulibarri 2006; Kargas 2007; Sivinski 
2007)), and all units are currently occupied. Federal agencies already 
consult with us on activities in areas occupied by the species, and if 
the species may be affected by the proposed action, the consultation is 
to ensure that their actions do not jeopardize the continued existence 
of H. paradoxus.
    We recognize that jeopardy and adverse modification are not 
equivalent standards. However, for Helianthus paradoxus, there is not 
likely to be any difference in project modifications made under the 
jeopardy standard and the adverse modification standard. In other 
words, the material outcomes of consultations completed under the two 
standards are not likely to differ. Whether consulting under either 
standard, in order to reach a conclusion of jeopardy or adverse 
modification, the proposed action would have to make the habitat 
unsuitable to support plants. Helianthus paradoxus is an annual species 
that re-establishes populations of adult plants each year from seed 
produced during the previous year or years' reproductive efforts. Roots 
and seeds are present in the soil year round, even when the plants are 
not flowering. Because the plant grows in patches and sprouts from 
seeds left in the ground the year before, harming or killing existing 
plants would not likely result in jeopardy to the species. The outcome 
of formal consultation that does not determine jeopardy or adverse 
modification results in only discretionary conservation 
recommendations. Critical habitat designation may interject additional 
considerations for protection of habitat function, suitability, or 
capability over the long term into section 7 consultations. This could 
result in additional discretionary conservation recommendations.
    Alternatively, in order to conclude that a proposed action 
jeopardizes the continued existence of Helianthus paradoxus, an action 
would have to make the habitat unsuitable within critical habitat units 
or core areas. Temporary effects to this fairly hardy plant would not 
have lasting effects at the population level, and likely would not 
jeopardize the continued existence of the species, as long as the 
habitat remained suitable. For example, an area that is completely 
mowed would result in adverse effects to the H. paradoxus, but likely 
would not jeopardize the species because the plant should re-establish 
from seeds in the soil.
    If a consultation were to reach the conclusion that the action 
jeopardized the continued existence of Helianthus paradoxus, the 
reasonable and prudent alternative, which would be required if the 
project was to proceed, would have to reduce impacts to plants and the 
biological and physical features of habitat. The reasonable and prudent 
alternative under a conclusion that the action would result in adverse 
modification of critical habitat would not likely add any additional 
requirements because the alternative for jeopardy already considers 
effects to the biological and physical features of habitat. 
Consequently, the outcome of section 7 consultations in such cases may 
not be substantially different with designation of critical habitat 
compared to existing consultation conducted under the jeopardy 
standard.

Exclusions

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

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary must designate 
and revise critical habitat on the basis of the best available 
scientific data after taking into consideration the economic impact, 
national security impact, and any other relevant impact of specifying 
any particular area as critical habitat. The Secretary may exclude an 
area from critical habitat if he determines that the benefits of such 
exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such area as part of the 
critical habitat, unless he determines, based on the best scientific 
data available, that the failure to designate such area as critical 
habitat will result in the extinction of the species. In making that 
determination, the statute on its face, as well as the legislative 
history are clear that the Secretary has broad discretion regarding 
which factor(s) to use and how much weight to give any factor. In the 
following sections, we address a number of general issues that are 
relevant to the exclusions we considered.

Benefits of Designating Critical Habitat

    The process of designating critical habitat as described in the Act 
requires that the Service identify those lands on which are found the 
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the 
species that may require special management considerations or 
protection, and those areas outside the geographical area occupied by 
the species at the time of listing that are essential to the 
conservation of the species. In identifying those lands, the Service 
must consider the recovery needs of the species, such that, on the 
basis of the best scientific and commercial data available at the time 
of designation, the habitat that is identified, if managed, could 
provide for the survival and recovery of the species.
    The identification of those areas that are essential for the 
conservation of the species and can, if managed, provide for the 
recovery of a species is beneficial. The process of proposing and 
finalizing a critical habitat rule provides the

[[Page 17776]]

Service with the opportunity to determine the physical and biological 
features essential for conservation of the species within the 
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing, as 
well as to determine other areas essential to the conservation of the 
species. The designation process includes peer review and public 
comment on the identified physical and biological features and areas. 
This process is valuable to land owners and managers in developing 
conservation management plans for identified areas, as well as any 
other occupied habitat or suitable habitat that may not have been 
included in the Service's determination of essential habitat.
    The consultation provisions under section 7(a)(2) of the Act 
constitute the regulatory benefits of critical habitat. As discussed 
above, Federal agencies must consult with the Service on actions that 
may affect critical habitat and must avoid destroying or adversely 
modifying critical habitat. Federal agencies must also consult with us 
on actions that may affect a listed species and refrain from 
undertaking actions that are likely to jeopardize the continued 
existence of such species. The analysis of effects to critical habitat 
is a separate and different analysis from that of the effects to the 
species. Therefore, the difference in outcomes of these two analyses 
represents the regulatory benefit of critical habitat. For some 
species, and in some locations, the outcome of these analyses will be 
similar, because effects to habitat will often also result in effects 
to the species. However, the regulatory standard is different, as the 
jeopardy analysis looks on the action's impact to survival and recovery 
of the species and the adverse modification analysis looks at the 
effects to the designated habitat's contribution to conservation of the 
species. This will, in many instances, lead to different results, and 
different regulatory requirements. Thus, critical habitat designations 
may provide greater regulatory benefits to the recovery of a species 
than would listing alone.
    There are two limitations to the regulatory effect of critical 
habitat. First, a section 7(a)(2) consultation is only required where 
there is a Federal nexus (an action authorized, funded, or carried out 
by any Federal agency)--if there is no Federal nexus, the critical 
habitat designation of private lands itself does not restrict any 
actions that destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Second, the 
designation only limits destruction or adverse modification. By its 
nature, the prohibition on adverse modification is designed to ensure 
that the conservation role and function of those areas that contain the 
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the 
species or of unoccupied areas that are essential for the conservation 
of the species are not appreciably reduced. Critical habitat 
designation alone, however, does not require private property owners to 
undertake specific steps toward recovery of the species.
    Once an agency determines that consultation under section 7(a)(2) 
of the Act is necessary, the process may conclude informally when the 
Service concurs in writing that the proposed Federal action is not 
likely to adversely affect critical habitat. However, if the Service 
determines through informal consultation that adverse impacts are 
likely to occur, then formal consultation is initiated. Formal 
consultation concludes with a biological opinion issued by the Service 
on whether the proposed Federal action is likely to result in 
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
    For critical habitat, a biological opinion that concludes in a 
determination of no destruction or adverse modification may contain 
discretionary conservation recommendations to minimize adverse effects 
to the physical and biological features essential to the conservation 
of the species, but it would not suggest the implementation of any 
reasonable and prudent alternative. We suggest reasonable and prudent 
alternatives to the proposed Federal action only when our biological 
opinion results in an adverse modification conclusion.
    As stated above, the designation of critical habitat does not 
require that any management or recovery actions take place on the lands 
included in the designation. Even in cases where consultation has been 
initiated under section 7(a)(2) of the Act, the end result of 
consultation is to avoid jeopardy to the species and/or adverse 
modification of its critical habitat, but not necessarily to manage 
critical habitat or institute recovery actions on critical habitat. 
Conversely, voluntary conservation efforts implemented through 
management plans institute proactive actions over the lands they 
encompass and are put in place to remove or reduce known threats to a 
species or its habitat; therefore, implementing recovery actions. We 
believe that in many instances the regulatory benefit of critical 
habitat is low when compared to the conservation benefit that can be 
achieved through conservation efforts or management plans. The 
conservation achieved through implementing Habitat Conservation Plans 
(HCPs) under section 10 of the Act or other habitat management plans is 
typically greater than would be achieved through multiple site-by-site, 
project-by-project, section 7 consultations involving consideration of 
critical habitat. Management plans commit resources to implement long-
term management and protection to particular habitat for at least one 
and possibly other listed or sensitive species. Section 7 consultations 
only commit Federal agencies to prevent adverse modification to 
critical habitat caused by the particular project, and they are not 
committed to provide conservation or long-term benefits to areas not 
affected by the proposed project. Thus, implementation of any HCP or 
management plan that incorporates enhancement or recovery as the 
management standard may often provide as much or more benefit than a 
consultation for critical habitat designation.
    Another benefit of including lands in critical habitat is that 
designation of critical habitat serves to educate landowners, State and 
local governments, and the public regarding the potential conservation 
value of an area. This helps focus and promote conservation efforts by 
other parties by clearly delineating areas of high conservation value 
for Helianthus paradoxus. In general, critical habitat designation 
always has educational benefits; however, in some cases, they may be 
redundant with other educational effects. For example, HCPs have 
significant public input and may largely duplicate the educational 
benefits of a critical habitat designation. Including lands in critical 
habitat also would inform State agencies and local governments about 
areas that could be conserved under State laws or local ordinances.

Recovery Benefits

    The process of designating critical habitat as described in the Act 
requires that the Service identify those lands on which are found the 
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the 
species which may require special management consideration or 
protections. In identifying those lands, the Service must consider the 
recovery needs of the species, such that the habitat that is 
identified, if managed, could provide for the survival and recovery of 
the species. Furthermore, once critical habitat has been designated, 
Federal agencies must consult with the Service under section 7(a)(2) of 
the Act to ensure that their actions will not adversely modify 
designated critical habitat or jeopardize the continued existence of 
the species. As noted in the Ninth Circuit's Gifford

[[Page 17777]]

Pinchot decision, the Court ruled that the jeopardy and adverse 
modification standards are distinct, and that adverse modification 
evaluations require consideration of impacts to the recovery of 
species. Thus, through the section 7(a)(2) consultation process, 
critical habitat designations provide recovery benefits to species by 
ensuring that Federal actions will not destroy or adversely modify 
designated critical habitat.
    It is beneficial to identify those lands that are necessary for the 
conservation of the species and that, if managed appropriately, would 
further recovery measures for the species. The process of proposing and 
finalizing a critical habitat rule provides the Service with the 
opportunity to determine lands essential for conservation as well as 
identify the physical and biological features essential for 
conservation on those lands. The designation process includes peer 
review and public comment on the identified features and lands. This 
process is valuable to landowners and managers in developing habitat 
management plans for identified lands, as well as any other occupied 
habitat or suitable habitat that may not have been included in the 
Service's determination of essential habitat.
    However, the designation of critical habitat does not require that 
any management or recovery actions take place on the lands included in 
the designation. Even in cases where consultation has been initiated 
under section 7(a)(2) of the Act, the end result of consultation is to 
avoid jeopardy to the species and adverse modification of its critical 
habitat, but not specifically to manage remaining lands or institute 
recovery actions on remaining lands. Conversely, management plans 
institute proactive actions over the lands they encompass intentionally 
to remove or reduce known threats to a species or its habitat and, 
therefore, implement recovery actions. We believe that the conservation 
of a species and its habitat that could be achieved through the 
designation of critical habitat, in some cases, is less than the 
conservation that could be achieved through the implementation of a 
management plan that includes species-specific provisions and considers 
enhancement or recovery of listed species as the management standard 
over the same lands. Consequently, implementation of an HCP or 
management plan that considers enhancement or recovery as the 
management standard will often provide as much or more benefit than a 
consultation for critical habitat designation conducted under the 
standards required by the Ninth Circuit in the Gifford Pinchot 
decision.

Conservation Partnerships on Non-Federal Lands

    Most federally listed species in the United States will not recover 
without the cooperation of non-Federal landowners. More than 60 percent 
of the United States is privately owned (National Wilderness Institute 
1995, p. 2), and at least 80 percent of endangered or threatened 
species occur either partially or solely on private lands (Crouse et 
al. 2002, p. 720). Stein et al. (1995, p. 400) found that only about 12 
percent of listed species were found almost exclusively on Federal 
lands (90 to 100 percent of their known occurrences restricted to 
Federal lands) and that 50 percent of federally listed species are not 
known to occur on Federal lands at all.
    Given the distribution of listed species with respect to land 
ownership, conservation of listed species in many parts of the United 
States is dependent upon working partnerships with a wide variety of 
entities and the voluntary cooperation of many non-Federal landowners 
(Wilcove and Chen 1998, p. 1407; Crouse et al. 2002, p. 720; James 
2002, p. 271). Building partnerships and promoting voluntary 
cooperation of landowners is essential to understanding the status of 
species on non-Federal lands and is necessary to implement recovery 
actions such as reintroducing listed species, habitat restoration, and 
habitat protection.
    Many non-Federal landowners derive satisfaction in contributing to 
endangered species recovery. The Service promotes these private-sector 
efforts through the Department of the Interior's Cooperative 
Conservation philosophy. Conservation agreements with non-Federal 
landowners (HCPs, safe harbor agreements, other conservation 
agreements, easements, and State and local regulations) enhance species 
conservation by extending species protections beyond those available 
through section 7 consultations. In the past decade, we have encouraged 
non-Federal landowners to enter into conservation agreements, based on 
a view that we can achieve greater species conservation on non-Federal 
land through such partnerships than we can through regulatory methods 
(61 FR 63854; December 2, 1996).
    Many private landowners, however, are wary of the possible 
consequences of encouraging endangered species to their property, and 
there is mounting evidence that some regulatory actions by the Federal 
Government, while well-intentioned and required by law, can (under 
certain circumstances) have unintended negative consequences for the 
conservation of species on private lands (Wilcove et al. 1996, pp. 5-6; 
Bean 2002, pp. 2-3; Conner and Mathews 2002, pp. 1-2; James 2002, pp. 
270-271; Koch 2002, pp. 2-3; Brook et al. 2003, pp. 1639-1643). Many 
landowners fear a decline in their property value due to real or 
perceived restrictions on land-use options where threatened or 
endangered species are found. Consequently, harboring endangered 
species is viewed by many landowners as a liability. This perception 
results in anti-conservation incentives because maintaining habitats 
that harbor endangered species represents a risk to future economic 
opportunities (Main et al. 1999, pp. 1264-1265; Brook et al. 2003, pp. 
1644-1648).
    According to some researchers, the designation of critical habitat 
on private lands significantly reduces the likelihood that landowners 
will support and carry out conservation actions (Main et al. 1999, p. 
1263; Bean 2002, p. 2; Brook et al. 2003, pp. 1644-1648). The magnitude 
of this negative outcome is greatly amplified in situations where 
active management measures (such as reintroduction, fire management, 
and control of invasive species) are necessary for species conservation 
(Bean 2002, pp. 3-4). The Service believes that the judicious exclusion 
of specific areas of non-federally owned lands from critical habitat 
designations can contribute to species recovery and provide a superior 
level of conservation than critical habitat alone.
    The purpose of designating critical habitat is to contribute to the 
conservation of threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems 
upon which they depend. The outcome of the designation, triggering 
regulatory requirements for actions funded, authorized, or carried out 
by Federal agencies under section 7(a)(2) of the Act, can sometimes be 
counterproductive to its intended purpose on non-Federal lands. Thus, 
the benefits of excluding areas that are covered by partnerships or 
voluntary conservation efforts can often be high.

Benefits of Excluding Lands With HCPs or Other Management Plans From 
Critical Habitat

    The benefits of excluding lands with HCPs or other management plans 
from critical habitat designation include relieving landowners, 
communities, and counties of any additional regulatory burden that 
might be imposed by a critical habitat designation. Most HCPs

[[Page 17778]]

and other conservation plans take many years to develop and, upon 
completion, are consistent with the recovery objectives for listed 
species that are covered within the plan area. Many conservation plans 
also provide conservation benefits to unlisted sensitive species. 
Imposing an additional regulatory review as a result of the designation 
of critical habitat may undermine these conservation efforts and 
partnerships designed to proactively protect species to ensure that 
listing under the Act will not be necessary. Our experience in 
implementing the Act has found that designation of critical habitat 
within the boundaries of management plans that provide conservation 
measures for a species is a disincentive to those entities currently 
developing these plans or contemplating them in the future, because one 
of the incentives for undertaking conservation is greater ease of 
permitting where listed species are affected. Addition of a new 
regulatory requirement would remove a significant incentive for 
undertaking the time and expense of management planning. In fact, 
designating critical habitat in areas covered by a pending HCP or 
conservation plan could result in the loss of some species' benefits if 
participants abandon the planning process, in part because of the 
strength of the perceived additional regulatory compliance that such 
designation would entail. The time and cost of regulatory compliance 
for a critical habitat designation do not have to be quantified for 
them to be perceived as additional Federal regulatory burden sufficient 
to discourage continued participation in plans targeting listed 
species' conservation.
    A related benefit of excluding lands covered by approved HCPs or 
other management plans from critical habitat designation is the 
unhindered, continued ability it gives us to seek new partnerships with 
future plan participants, including States, Counties, local 
jurisdictions, conservation organizations, and private landowners, 
which together can implement conservation actions that we would be 
unable to accomplish otherwise. If lands within approved management 
plan areas are designated as critical habitat, it would likely have a 
negative effect on our ability to establish new partnerships to develop 
these plans, particularly plans that address landscape-level 
conservation of species and habitats. By preemptively excluding these 
lands, we preserve our current partnerships and encourage additional 
conservation actions in the future.
    Furthermore, HCP applications require consultation, which would 
review the effects of all HCP-covered activities that might adversely 
impact the species under a jeopardy standard, including possibly 
significant habitat modification (see definition of ``harm'' at 50 CFR 
17.3), even without the critical habitat designation. In addition, all 
other Federal actions that may affect the listed species would still 
require consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Act, and we would 
review these actions for possibly significant habitat modification in 
accordance with the definition of harm referenced above.
    The information provided in the previous section applies to all the 
following discussions of benefits of inclusion or exclusion of critical 
habitat.

Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act

    When performing the required analysis under section 4(b)(2) of the 
Act, the existence of a management plan (HCPs as well as other types) 
that considers enhancement or recovery of listed species as its 
management standard is relevant to our weighing of the benefits of 
inclusion of a particular area in the critical habitat designation. We 
considered the following criteria in evaluating the management and 
protection provided by such plans:
    (1) The plan is complete and provides for the conservation and 
protection of the physical and biological features essential to the 
conservation of the species;
    (2) There is a reasonable expectation that the conservation 
management strategies and actions will be implemented for the 
foreseeable future, based on past practices, written guidance, or 
regulations; and
    (3) The plan provides conservation strategies and measures 
consistent with currently accepted principles of conservation biology.
    Discussions of Subunit 1c, the Pueblo of Laguna, and Unit 2, the La 
Joya Wildlife Management Area, under the provisions in section 4(b)(2) 
of the Act are provided below.

La Joya Wildlife Management Area

    During the first comment period, which closed on May 29, 2007 (72 
FR 14328), the NMDGF requested technical assistance on the development 
of a habitat management plan for Helianthus paradoxus. During the 
second comment period, which closed on January 10, 2008, we received 
the final Pecos sunflower (Helianthus paradoxus) Habitat Management 
Plan on the La Joya Wildlife Management Area from the NMDGF. The NMDGF 
finalized the habitat management plan in order to preclude the 
designation of critical habitat on their lands (NMDGF 2008, p. 1).
    The purpose of the management plan is to support conservation of 
the species on the La Joya Wildlife Management Area by: (1) Annually 
controlling invasive species; (2) protecting the natural spring in Unit 
5 from motorized vehicles and heavy equipment; (3) monitoring core 
populations by digitizing these areas annually; (4) conserving H. 
paradoxus by adjusting invasive species treatment area boundaries; and 
(5) restoring native habitat through revegetation.
    The habitat management plan was developed in accordance with the 
recovery plan for Helianthus paradoxus (NMDGF 2008, p. 1). The recovery 
plan identifies that the recovery objective for H. paradoxus is to 
protect and manage significant populations. The recovery plan 
identified the La Joya population as a core conservation area that 
would ensure the survival of the species (Service 2006, p. 17). Long-
term protection can be provided by purchasing populations and 
implementing appropriate management plans for H. paradoxus (Service 
2006, p. 15-16). The recovery plan outlines that these management plans 
should reduce the identified threats to H. paradoxus (e.g., controlling 
invasive plants, identifying and restricting incompatible land uses, 
and ensuring spring flows). We find that the management plan developed 
by NMDGF is consistent with the tenets identified in the recovery plan 
for H. paradoxus. Therefore, we conclude that the plan is complete and 
provides for the conservation and protection of the physical and 
biological features essential to the conservation of the species.

Benefits of Inclusion

    The benefits of including lands in critical habitat can be 
regulatory, educational, or to aid in recovery of species as generally 
discussed in the ``Benefits of Designating Critical Habitat'' section. 
Few additional benefits would be derived from including the La Joya 
Wildlife Management Area in a critical habitat designation for 
Helianthus paradoxus beyond what will be achieved through the 
implementation of NMDGF's management plan. The principal benefit of 
designating critical habitat in that area would be that activities that 
affect H. paradoxus would require consultation under section 7 of the 
Act. Consultation would ensure that a proposed action does not result 
in the

[[Page 17779]]

destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
    Based upon our analysis conducted within the environmental 
assessment and discussion in the ``Application of the Adverse 
Modification Standard'' section, we conclude that few regulatory 
benefits to Helianthus paradoxus would be gained from a designation of 
critical habitat on these lands because the outcomes of consultations 
conducted under the jeopardy and adverse modification standards for 
this species would not be materially different (Service 2008, pp. 23, 
34). The most likely Federal nexus would occur due to invasive species 
removal associated with management activities, funded in part, through 
the Service's Federal Assistance Division. A consultation related to 
invasive species removal would likely result in a conservation 
recommendation to avoid core stands of H. paradoxus when applying 
herbicides or that backpack sprayers be utilized to target herbicide 
application. However, these conservation recommendations are already 
being implemented by NMDGF during invasive species removal. Therefore, 
designation of critical habitat would provide little conservation 
benefit as it related to the control of invasive species and the 
management of H. paradoxus.
    To date, there have been no consultations that addressed Helianthus 
paradoxus or its habitat along the Rio Grande. Nevertheless, the 
economic analysis found that, over the next 20 years, there may be two 
future intra-Service formal consultations associated with projects to 
remove non-native species, but that no informal consultations were 
likely. These consultations would occur regardless of whether critical 
habitat is designated, because the species occupies the area. Section 7 
consultation under the jeopardy standards will still be required for 
activities affecting H. paradoxus. Beyond these, we do not expect any 
additional consultations. For these reasons, we find the consultation 
process for critical habitat is unlikely to result in additional 
protections for the species. Consequently, there is little regulatory 
benefit of a critical habitat designation in this area.
    The educational benefits of critical habitat in this case are 
relatively low for the La Joya Wildlife Management Area, because the 
recovery plan has already identified and discussed its importance to 
the conservation of Helianthus paradoxus (Service 2005). The NMDGF is 
well aware of where H. paradoxus occurs, due to the recovery plan 
(Service 2005) and their recent efforts to implement conservation 
actions for the species (NMDGF 2008, p. 5). Therefore, we believe that 
the educational benefits that inclusion of these lands would provide 
for H. paradoxus are relatively low. Further, the educational benefits 
of critical habitat designation have already been achieved through the 
overall designation process and the notice and public comment period, 
and will occur whether or not this unit is designated.
    Under the Gifford Pinchot decision, critical habitat designations 
may provide greater benefits to the recovery of a species than was 
previously believed. However, the protection provided is still a 
limitation on the adverse effects that may occur to designated critical 
habitat, as opposed to a requirement to affirmatively provide a 
conservation benefit on those lands. As outlined above and in the 
environmental assessment, we have had no consultations for actions that 
may affect Helianthus paradoxus on this land or other areas along the 
Rio Grande. However, the NMDGF has committed to definite conservation 
actions on lands covered under the management plan. Therefore, we 
believe the benefits to the recovery of H. paradoxus, based on 
inclusion of these lands in critical habitat, are low.
    For these reasons, we find that because of the management plan with 
the NMDGF, the benefits of including the La Joya Wildlife Management 
Area as critical habitat are low. Since the Act's protection of plants 
on private lands is minimal, the Service believes that it will achieve 
more conservation from this management plan than it would from a 
critical habitat designation.

Benefits of Exclusion

    Implementation of the management plan will provide benefits to 
Helianthus paradoxus as discussed earlier. The NMDGF has committed to, 
and has already begun to, manage H. paradoxus and its habitat through 
controlling invasive species, protection of natural springs habitat, 
monitoring H. paradoxus, and native species restoration activities. We 
expect the management plan will provide a significant conservation 
benefit to H. paradoxus populations.
    The development of a voluntary management plan for the lands within 
Unit 2 was a collaborative effort between the Service and the NMDGF 
that promoted a positive relationship that continues today. The Service 
believes that exclusion of Unit 2 will allow us to continue working 
with NMDGF in a spirit of cooperation and partnership. The management 
plan identifies that the NMDGF has a common interest in promoting 
healthy ecosystems and in protecting populations and habitat of 
Helianthus paradoxus. While the area is managed by the State of New 
Mexico, it was purchased using Federal funds. In the final economic 
analysis we found that approximately 75 percent of the annual budget 
for the area is reimbursed to the State through Federal Pittman-Roberts 
funds (Service 2008, p. 3-12). Thus, there is a reasonable expectation 
that the conservation management strategies and actions will continue 
to be implemented for H. paradoxus in the foreseeable future.
    In our final economic analysis, we found that, while many of the 
ongoing activities at La Joya benefit Helianthus paradoxus, including 
non-native species removal activities, management of the area for H. 
paradoxus will increase the cost of nonnative species removal from 
approximately $200 per acre for aerial spraying to $1,000 to $1,500 for 
manual/mechanical ``chop and pull'' treatments (Service 2008, p. 3-13). 
The NMDGF plans on treating approximately 1,500 acres for non-natives 
in the next few years at La Joya. As a result, an increased cost of 
$800 to $1,200 per acre, or $0.6 million to $1.1 million across the 
area for non-native species removal efforts are expected over the next 
20 years (undiscounted), or $0.6 to $0.9 million, discounted at seven 
percent. Because La Joya will implement non-native species removal in 
this way whether they are designated as critical habitat or not, these 
impacts are considered baseline costs. Thus, exclusion of these lands 
from critical habitat would not relieve the NMDGF of the higher cost of 
managing non-native species in a way that limits impacts to H. 
paradoxus. Nevertheless, because we have already come to agreement 
about how to manage H. paradoxus, the additional effort involved in 
consultations or other regulatory actions with respect to this site 
would be unnecessary. As discussed in the ``Benefits of Excluding Lands 
With HCPs or Other Management Plans From Critical Habitat'' section, 
imposing an additional regulatory review as a result of the designation 
of critical habitat may undermine conservation efforts and 
partnerships. Addition of such a regulatory requirement would remove a 
significant incentive for undertaking the time and expense of 
management planning. Thus, the designation of critical habitat may be 
counterproductive because it will strain the working relationship we 
share with NMDGF and may hinder future cooperative conservation 
projects.

[[Page 17780]]

Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Inclusion

    The NMDGF committed to the management plan in recognition that the 
plan may be used to exclude La Joya Wildlife Management Area. We 
believe the proactive management of Helianthus paradoxus provided under 
the plan provides significant benefits to this species. In contrast, 
the benefits of inclusion are, as noted above, likely to be minor 
because of the lack of any consultations in the Rio Grande since the 
listing of the species. Still, even in situations where consultation 
might occur, it would be unlikely to result in proactive management of 
the species and its habitat.
    As detailed above, even if the La Joya Wildlife Management Area is 
excluded from the designation, this area will provide a conservation 
benefit to Helianthus paradoxus by following the tenets of developing 
and implementing management plans, as described in the Recovery Plan 
(Service 2005, p. 20). As such, we find that the management plan 
provides conservation strategies and measures consistent with currently 
accepted principles of conservation biology.
    In conclusion, we have evaluated the potential regulatory, 
educational, and recovery benefits that would result from the inclusion 
of Unit 2. In receiving the final Helianthus paradoxus Habitat 
Management Plan from NMDGF during the second comment period, we have 
weighed these benefits of including Unit 2 in the critical habitat 
designation against the more tangible conservation benefits provided by 
the management plan, which would occur from excluding Unit 2 from the 
designation. Based on the above analysis, in the development of our 
final determination of critical habitat for H. paradoxus, we are 
excluding Unit 2 under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Further, we believe 
that this exclusion is a logical outgrowth from the proposed 
designation due to public comments and information received on that 
proposal.

Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Species

    We have determined that the exclusion of Unit 2 that totals 854 ac 
(346 ha) from the final designation of critical habitat will not result 
in the extinction of Helianthus paradoxus. Overall, this area 
represents less than 15 percent of the proposed designation. In 
addition, because the 854 ac (346 ha) we are excluding from critical 
habitat are occupied by H. paradoxus, consultations under section 7 of 
the Act that involve these lands will occur even in the absence of 
their designation as critical habitat. Application of the jeopardy 
standard of section 7 of the Act also provides assurances that the 
species will not go extinct in the absence of this designation.
    In summary, the benefits of including the La Joya Wildlife 
Management Area in the critical habitat designation are few. The 
benefits of excluding this area from being designated as critical 
habitat for Helianthus paradoxus are greater, and include affirmative 
actions for controlling invasive species, protection of natural springs 
habitat, monitoring H. paradoxus, and restoration activities. We find 
that the benefits of excluding this area from critical habitat 
designation outweigh the benefits of including this area.

Relationship of Critical Habitat to Tribal Lands

    In accordance with the Secretarial Order 3206, ``American Indian 
Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the 
Endangered Species Act'' (June 5, 1997); the President's memorandum of 
April 29, 1994, ``Government-to-Government Relations with Native 
American Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951); Executive Order 13175; and 
the relevant provision of the Departmental Manual of the Department of 
the Interior (512 DM 2), we believe that fish, wildlife, and other 
natural resources on tribal lands are better managed under tribal 
authorities, policies, and programs than through Federal regulation 
wherever possible and practicable. Based on this philosophy, we believe 
that, in many cases, designation of tribal lands as critical habitat 
provides very little additional benefit to threatened and endangered 
species. Conversely, such designation is often viewed by tribes as an 
unwanted intrusion into tribal self governance, thus compromising the 
government-to-government relationship essential to achieving our mutual 
goals of managing for healthy ecosystems upon which the viability of 
threatened and endangered species populations depend.
    In our critical habitat designations, we use the provision outlined 
in section 4(b)(2) of the Act to evaluate those specific areas that 
contain the physical and biological features essential to the 
conservation of the species to determine which areas to propose and 
subsequently finalize (i.e., designate) as critical habitat.

Pueblo of Laguna

    The Pueblo of Laguna has lands containing physical and biological 
features essential to the conservation of Helianthus paradoxus. In 
making our final decision with regard to Pueblo lands, we considered 
several factors, including our relationship with the Pueblo and the 
management plan that was developed for the conservation of H. paradoxus 
on their lands. On August 2, 2004, in a letter to the New Mexico 
Ecological Services Field Office from Pueblo of Laguna Governor 
Johnson, we learned that the Pueblo was developing a management plan 
for H. paradoxus and has been managing Pueblo land consistent with the 
protection and recovery of the sunflower. We received a draft 
management plan from the Pueblo in February 2007. The draft management 
plan was the basis for continued discussions with the Pueblo. 
Subsequently, we received the Pecos Sunflower (Helianthus paradoxus) 
Management Plan (Resolution  01-08), Pueblo of Laguna, 2008, 
during the public comment period on the proposed critical habitat for 
H. paradoxus, which closed on January 10, 2008. The Management Plan and 
corresponding Resolution (No. 01-08) was adopted and approved by the 
Pueblo of Laguna Staff Officers in January 2008 (Laguna 2008). The 
resolution that was passed for the management plan demonstrates the 
Pueblo's sovereign status while providing for special management 
protections and conservation of H. paradoxus. The Pueblo's management 
plan includes the following tasks and protective measures: (1) Surveys 
and monitoring of H. paradoxus; (2) riparian restoration; (3) 
controlling competition of non-native species; (4) limiting access into 
stands of H. paradoxus through a recently adopted trespass ordinance; 
and (5) appropriate management of livestock. We find that the Pueblo of 
Laguna management plan provides significant conservation benefit to H. 
paradoxus. Therefore, we find that the plan is complete, provides for 
the conservation and protection of the physical and biological features 
essential to the conservation of the species, and is consistent with 
currently accepted tenets of conservation biology.
    The Pueblo of Laguna intends to share monitoring and survey 
information with us (Laguna 2008, p. 10). The Pueblo of Laguna has also 
acquired funding from a grant through the New Mexico Environment 
Department to proactively manage areas that currently contain 
Helianthus paradoxus. Moreover, in 2006, we funded a Tribal Wildlife 
Grant for the Pueblo of Laguna (2006, p. 42). This grant provided 
funding to improve aquatic habitat on their lands by protecting, 
conserving, and improving valuable riparian systems and natural

[[Page 17781]]

spring sources on the Pueblo. The Pueblo of Laguna identified that they 
will continue to seek additional funds through the Service's Partners 
for Fish and Wildlife Program, Tribal Wildlife Grants, and Tribal 
Landowner Incentive Programs (Laguna 2008, p. 12). We believe that the 
resolution passed by the Pueblo of Laguna and the development of the 
Pueblo of Laguna management plan demonstrate that the management plan 
will be implemented. For these reasons, there is a reasonable 
expectation that the conservation management strategies and actions 
will be implemented for H. paradoxus for the foreseeable future.
    The management plan for Helianthus paradoxus also demonstrates the 
voluntary cooperative working relationship we share. This relationship 
will continue to enable us to implement a natural resource program of 
mutual interest for the benefit of H. paradoxus. Under this management 
plan, H. paradoxus will benefit from monitoring, restoration, 
enhancement, and survey efforts. The Service has also determined that 
exclusion would not result in the extinction of the species. As 
discussed below, we have considered the benefits to H. paradoxus from 
this management plan. We have also taken into account the potential 
adverse impact to this species from designation of critical habitat on 
their lands.

Benefits of Inclusion

    Few additional benefits would be derived from including the Pueblo 
of Laguna in a critical habitat designation for Helianthus paradoxus 
beyond what will be achieved through the implementation of their 
management plan. The principal benefit of any designated critical 
habitat is that activities in and affecting such habitat require 
consultation under section 7 of the Act. Such consultation would ensure 
that adequate protection is provided to avoid destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat. Based upon our analysis conducted 
within the environmental assessment and discussed in the ``Application 
of the Adverse Modification Standard'' section, we conclude that few 
regulatory benefits to H. paradoxus would be gained from a designation 
of critical habitat on the Pueblo's lands because the outcomes of 
consultations conducted under the jeopardy and adverse modification 
standards for this species would not be materially different (Service 
2008, pp. 23, 34). The economic analysis estimated that, over the next 
20 years, one formal consultation associated with livestock grazing 
activities may occur, but that no informal consultations were likely. 
This consultation would occur regardless of whether critical habitat is 
designated, because the species occupies the area. Section 7 
consultations under the jeopardy standard will still be required for 
activities affecting H. paradoxus. Beyond this formal consultation, we 
do not expect any additional consultations. For these reasons, we find 
the consultation process for critical habitat is unlikely to result in 
additional protections for the species.
    Although we believe the likelihood of additional consultations is 
small, consultation requirements under section 7 of the Act would be 
triggered as a result of the funding or permitting processes 
administered by the Federal agency involved. The benefit of critical 
habitat designation would ensure that any actions funded or permitted 
by a Federal agency would not likely destroy or adversely modify any 
critical habitat. Without critical habitat, projects would still 
trigger consultation requirements under the Act because Helianthus 
paradoxus is currently present on the Pueblo. Given that no 
consultations have occurred with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) or 
the Pueblo since H. paradoxus was listed as endangered in 1999 and the 
overall low likelihood of Federal projects being proposed in this area, 
the Service believes there is almost no regulatory benefit of a 
critical habitat designation in this area. Consequently, the 
designation of critical habitat in these areas would provide minimal, 
if any, regulatory benefit to the species.
    Another possible benefit is that the designation of critical 
habitat can help to educate the public regarding potential conservation 
value of an area, and may focus efforts by clearly delineating areas of 
high conservation value for the species. Any information about 
Helianthus paradoxus and its habitat that reaches a wide audience, 
including other parties engaged in conservation activities, would be 
considered valuable. As noted, we recently funded the Pueblo of Laguna 
to work with the Service to address riparian systems and natural spring 
sources, which would benefit H. paradoxus. The Tribal Wildlife Grant 
also included an objective to promote environmental education and 
public awareness by creating a quarterly newsletter and coordinating 
educational programs at schools, villages, and events (Service 2006, p. 
41). Additionally, we anticipate that the Tribal Wildlife Grant and the 
management plan for H. paradoxus will provide for the timely exchange 
of management and monitoring information. The Pueblo is already working 
with the Service to address the habitat needs of the species. Further, 
this area was included in the proposed designation, which itself has 
reached a wide audience, and has thus provided information to the 
broader public about the conservation value of this area. Thus, the 
educational benefits that might follow critical habitat designation, 
such as providing information to the BIA, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 
or the Pueblo on the area that is important for the long-term survival 
and conservation of the species, have already been provided by 
proposing this area as critical habitat. Therefore, the educational 
benefits important for the long-term survival and conservation of H. 
paradoxus are being realized. Educational benefits will continue on 
these lands if they are excluded from the designation, because the 
Tribal Wildlife Grant and the management plan already recognize the 
importance of this area to riparian systems and natural spring sources 
and H. paradoxus.
    For these reasons, we believe that designation of critical habitat 
would have few additional benefits beyond those that will result from 
continued consultation under the jeopardy standard.

Benefits of Exclusion

    The benefits of excluding the Pueblo of Laguna from designated 
critical habitat are more significant. We conclude that not designating 
critical habitat on the Pueblo would have substantial benefits 
including: (1) The advancement of our Federal Trust obligations and our 
deference to the Pueblo to develop and implement tribal conservation 
and natural resource management plans for their lands and resources, 
which includes Helianthus paradoxus; (2) the maintenance of effective 
working relationships to promote the conservation of H. paradoxus and 
its habitat; (3) the allowance for timely exchange of management and 
monitoring information; (4) the continued provision of conservation 
benefits to riparian systems and natural spring sources and H. 
paradoxus and its habitat that might not otherwise occur; and (5) the 
reduction or elimination of administrative and/or project modification 
costs as analyzed in the economic analysis.
    As noted above, we worked with the Pueblo of Laguna to provide 
technical assistance on the conservation or management of the species 
on their lands. We have also provided funding through our Tribal 
Wildlife Grant program for them to manage their natural resources. As 
such, we

[[Page 17782]]

established an effective working relationship with the Pueblo of 
Laguna. As part of our relationship, we provided technical assistance 
to the Pueblo to develop voluntary measures to conserve Helianthus 
paradoxus and its habitat on their lands. These voluntary measures are 
contained within the management plan that we have in our administrative 
record for this decision (see discussion above). These proactive 
actions were conducted in accordance with Secretarial Order 3206, 
``American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, 
and the Endangered Species Act'' (June 5, 1997); the President's 
memorandum of April 29, 1994, ``Government-to-Government Relations with 
Native American Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951); Executive Order 
13175; and the relevant provision of the Departmental Manual of the 
Department of the Interior (512 DM 2). We believe that the Pueblo of 
Laguna should be the governmental entity to manage and promote the 
conservation of H. paradoxus on their lands. We recognize and endorse 
their fundamental right to provide for tribal resource management 
activities, including those relating to riparian systems and natural 
spring sources and H. paradoxus. Much of our discussions centered on 
providing technical assistance to the Pueblo to develop, continue, or 
expand natural resource programs such that the designation of critical 
habitat for H. paradoxus would likely be unnecessary on Pueblo lands.
    The designation of critical habitat would be expected to adversely 
impact our working relationship with the Pueblo of Laguna. Critical 
habitat would be viewed as an intrusion on their sovereign abilities to 
manage natural resources in accordance with their own policies, 
customs, and laws. To this end, we found that the Pueblo would prefer 
to work with us on a Government-to-Government basis. For these reasons, 
we believe that our working relationship with the Pueblo of Laguna 
would be better maintained if the Pueblo of Laguna lands are excluded 
from the designation of critical for H. paradoxus. We view this as a 
substantial benefit.

Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Inclusion

    In summary, the benefits of including the Pueblo of Laguna in the 
critical habitat designation are few. The benefits of excluding this 
area from being designated as critical habitat for Helianthus paradoxus 
are more significant, and include encouraging the continued development 
and implementation of management measures such as monitoring, riparian 
restoration, controlling competition of non-native species, limiting 
access into stands of H. paradoxus, and appropriate management of 
livestock. The exclusion of this area from the designation will allow 
the Pueblo to manage its natural resources to benefit H. paradoxus, 
without the perception of Federal Government intrusion. This philosophy 
is also consistent with our published policies on Native American 
natural resource management. We find that the benefits of excluding 
this area from critical habitat designation outweigh the benefits of 
including this area.

Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Species

    As noted above, the Service may exclude areas from the critical 
habitat designation only if it is determined, ``based on the best 
scientific and commercial data available, that the failure to designate 
such area as critical habitat will not result in the extinction of the 
species concerned.'' Here, we have determined that exclusion of the 
Pueblo of Laguna from the critical habitat designation will not result 
in the extinction of Helianthus paradoxus. First, activities on the 
Pueblo that may affect H. paradoxus will still require consultation 
under section 7 of the Act. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal 
agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out 
are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species. 
Therefore, even without critical habitat designation on these lands, 
activities that occur on these lands cannot jeopardize the continued 
existence of H. paradoxus. Second, the Pueblo has committed to 
protecting and managing according to their management plan and natural 
resource management objectives. In short, the Pueblo of Laguna has 
committed to greater conservation measures on this area than would 
result from the designation of critical habitat. With these measures, 
we have concluded that this exclusion from critical habitat will not 
result in the extinction of H. paradoxus, because the management plan 
generally follows the tenets of developing and implementing similar 
plans, as identified in the Recovery Plan. Accordingly, we have 
determined that the Pueblo of Laguna should be excluded under 
subsection 4(b)(2) of the Act because the benefits of exclusion 
outweigh the benefits of inclusion and will not cause the extinction of 
the species.
    The Service believes that by not designating critical habitat on 
the Pueblo of Laguna where the management plan and other conservation 
activities will be implemented, we fulfill the Service's 
responsibilities to the Tribes (e.g., Secretarial Order 3206, the 
President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, ``Government-to-Government 
Relations with Native American Tribal Governments'', Executive Order 
13175, and the relevant provision of the 512 DM 2), we properly honor 
Tribal sovereignty, and we ultimately provide conservation benefits to 
Helianthus paradoxus. For all of these reasons, we are excluding from 
this critical habitat designation the Pueblo of Laguna.

Pueblo of Acoma

    The Pueblo of Acoma has lands containing physical and biological 
features essential to the conservation of Helianthus paradoxus. In 
making our decision on the final critical habitat designation with 
regard to these lands, we considered several factors, including our 
relationship with the Pueblo and whether a management plan has been 
developed for the conservation of H. paradoxus on their lands. 
Currently, we are not aware of a management plan for H. paradoxus for 
this area.
    We met with the Pueblo of Acoma on July 2, 2007, and offered 
technical assistance if they chose to develop a management plan for the 
species. We repeatedly contacted the Pueblo during summer and fall 
2007, but they did not express interest in developing a management 
plan. The Pueblo of Acoma submitted a letter on January 9, 2008, during 
the comment period, indicating that they opposed the designation of 
critical habitat on their lands. However, the Pueblo of Acoma did not 
pursue the development of a management plan that addresses Helianthus 
paradoxus in this area. Still, they indicated that they may request 
technical assistance on the development of a Tribal Management Plan at 
some point in the future. Although we have funded big game management 
activities in the past on the Pueblo of Acoma (Service 2006, p. 41), we 
have nothing in our administrative record that demonstrates a 
cooperative working relationship for H. paradoxus on their lands. As a 
result, Pueblo of Acoma lands have not been excluded from the final 
designation and are designated as critical habitat.

Economic Analysis

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us to designate critical 
habitat on the basis of the best scientific information available and 
to consider the economic and other relevant impacts of designating a 
particular area as critical habitat. Section 4(b)(2) of the Act allows 
the Secretary to exclude areas from critical habitat for economic 
reasons if

[[Page 17783]]

the Secretary determines that the benefits of such exclusion exceed the 
benefits of designating the area as critical habitat. However, this 
exclusion cannot occur if it will result in the extinction of the 
species concerned.
    Following the publication of the proposed critical habitat 
designation, we conducted an economic analysis to estimate the 
potential economic effects of the designation. The draft analysis 
(dated October 29, 2007) was made available for public review on 
December 11, 2007 (72 FR 70269). We accepted comments on the draft 
analysis until January 10, 2008. Following the close of the comment 
period, a final analysis of the potential economic effects of the 
designation was developed taking into consideration the public comments 
and any new information.
    The economic analysis considers the potential economic effects of 
all actions relating 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 areas containing the features essential to the 
conservation of the species. The analysis considers both economic 
efficiency and distributional effects. In the case of habitat 
conservation, efficiency effects generally reflect the ``opportunity 
costs'' associated with the commitment of resources to comply with 
habitat protection measures (such as lost economic opportunities 
associated with restrictions on land use). The economic analysis also 
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 
the decision-makers to assess whether the effects of the designation 
might unduly burden a particular group or economic sector (see 
``Required Determinations'' section below). Finally, the economic 
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., coextensive costs, 
2007-2026).
    The economic analysis focuses on the direct and indirect costs of 
the rule. However, economic impacts to land use activities can exist in 
the absence of critical habitat. These impacts may result from, for 
example, section 7 consultations under the jeopardy standard, local 
zoning laws, State and natural resource laws, and enforceable 
management plans and best management practices applied by other State 
and Federal agencies. Economic impacts that result from these types of 
protections are not included in the analysis as they are considered to 
be part of the regulatory and policy baseline.
    The economic analysis estimates potential economic impacts 
resulting from the implementation of Helianthus paradoxus conservation 
efforts in four categories: (a) Treatment of non-native species; (b) 
wetland filling and development; (c) livestock management; and (d) road 
maintenance. The final economic analysis of the proposed designation 
updates the draft economic analysis by removing impacts that were not 
considered probable or likely to occur and by adding an estimate of the 
costs associated solely with the designation of critical habitat for H. 
paradoxus (i.e., incremental costs). The final economic analysis 
estimates that the potential economic effects of actions relating to 
the conservation of H. paradoxus, including costs associated with 
sections 4, 7, and 10 of the Act, and including those attributable to 
the designation of critical habitat (i.e., coextensive costs) will be 
$3.9 to $4.4 million in undiscounted dollars ($193,000 to $221,000 
annualized) over the next 20 years. The present value of these impacts, 
applying a 3 percent discount rate, is $3.3 million to $3.6 million 
($219,000 to $245,000 annualized); or $2.5 million to $2.9 million 
($238,000 to $271,000 annualized), using a discount rate of 7 percent. 
These cost estimates are the same as those estimated in the draft 
economic analysis. The final economic analysis also estimates costs 
attributable solely to the designation of critical habitat for H. 
paradoxus (incremental costs) to be $709,000 in undiscounted dollars 
over the next 20 years. The present value of these impacts, applying a 
3 percent discount rate, is $605,000; or $517,000, using a discount 
rate of 7 percent.
    We evaluated the potential economic impact of this designation as 
identified in the economic analysis. Based on this evaluation, we 
believe that there are no disproportionate economic impacts that 
warrant exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act at this time. The 
final economic analysis is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/newmexico/ or 
upon request from the New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office (see 
ADDRESSES section).

Required Determinations

    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. In this final rule, we affirm 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).

Regulatory Planning and Review

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this 
rule is not significant and has not reviewed this rule under Executive 
Order 12866 (E.O. 12866). OMB bases its determination upon the 
following four criteria:
    (a) Whether the rule will have an annual effect of $100 million or 
more on the economy or adversely affect an economic sector, 
productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of the government.
    (b) Whether the rule will create inconsistencies with other Federal 
agencies' actions.
    (c) Whether the rule will materially affect entitlements, grants, 
user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their 
recipients.
    (d) Whether the rule raises novel legal or policy issues.

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 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 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. SBREFA amended RFA to 
require Federal agencies to provide a

[[Page 17784]]

certification statement of the factual basis for certifying that the 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. In this final rule, we are certifying that 
the critical habitat designation for Helianthus paradoxus will not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. The following discussion explains our rationale.
    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 rule could significantly 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 apply the 
``substantial number'' test individually to each industry to determine 
if certification is appropriate. However, the SBREFA does not 
explicitly define ``substantial number'' or ``significant economic 
impact.'' Consequently, to assess whether a ``substantial number'' of 
small entities is affected by this designation, this analysis considers 
the relative number of small entities likely to be impacted in an area. 
In some circumstances, especially with critical habitat designations of 
limited extent, we may aggregate across all industries and consider 
whether the total number of small entities affected is substantial. In 
estimating the number of small entities potentially affected, we also 
consider whether their activities have any Federal involvement.
    Designation of critical habitat only affects activities conducted, 
funded, or permitted by Federal agencies. Some kinds of activities are 
unlikely to have any Federal involvement and so will not be affected by 
critical habitat designation. In areas where the species is present, 
Federal agencies already are required to consult with us under section 
7 of the Act on activities they fund, permit, or implement that may 
affect Helianthus paradoxus (see Section 7 Consultation section). 
Federal agencies also must consult with us if their activities may 
affect critical habitat. Designation of critical habitat, therefore, 
could result in an additional economic impact on small entities due to 
the requirement to reinitiate consultation for ongoing Federal 
activities (see Application of the ``Adverse Modification'' Standard 
section).
    In the final 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. The 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, 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. Therefore, based on the above reasoning and 
currently available information, we certify that this rule will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. A regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C 801 et 
seq.)

    Under SBREFA, this rule is not a major rule. Our detailed 
assessment of the economic effects of this designation is described in 
the economic analysis. Based on the effects identified in the economic 
analysis, we believe that this rule will not have an annual effect on 
the economy of $100 million or more, will not cause a major increase in 
costs or prices for consumers, and will not have significant adverse 
effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, 
innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with 
foreign-based enterprises. Refer to the final economic analysis for a 
discussion of the effects of this determination (see ADDRESSES for 
information on obtaining a copy of the final economic analysis).

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. OMB has provided guidance for implementing 
this E.O. that outlines nine outcomes that may constitute ``a 
significant adverse effect'' when compared without the regulatory 
action under consideration. The economic analysis finds that none of 
these criteria are relevant to this analysis. Thus, based on 
information in the economic analysis, energy-related impacts associated 
with H. paradoxus conservation activities within critical habitat are 
not expected. As such, the designation of critical habitat is not 
expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. 
Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action, and no 
Statement of Energy Effects is required.

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,

[[Page 17785]]

statute, or regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon 
State, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector, and 
includes both ``Federal intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal 
private sector mandates.'' These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-
(7). ``Federal intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that 
``would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal 
governments,'' with two exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of 
Federal assistance.'' It also excludes ``a duty arising from 
participation in a voluntary Federal program,'' unless the regulation 
``relates to a then-existing Federal program under which $500,000,000 
or more is provided annually to State, local, and tribal governments 
under entitlement authority,'' if the provision would ``increase the 
stringency of conditions of assistance'' or ``place caps upon, or 
otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's responsibility to provide 
funding'' and the State, local, or tribal governments ``lack 
authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of enactment, these 
entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families with Dependent 
Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services 
Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, 
Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family Support Welfare 
Services; and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal private sector 
mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an enforceable duty 
upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of Federal assistance; 
or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal 
program.''
    The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally 
binding duty on non-Federal government entities or private parties. 
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must 
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat under section 7. Non-Federal entities that receive Federal 
funding, assistance, permits, or otherwise require approval or 
authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly 
impacted by the designation of critical habitat. However, the legally 
binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the 
extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they 
receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid 
program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply; nor would 
critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs 
listed above onto State governments.
    (b) We do not believe that this rule will significantly or uniquely 
affect small governments because it will not produce a Federal mandate 
of $100 million or greater in any year; that is, it is not a 
``significant regulatory action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act. The 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 
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. The takings 
implications assessment concludes that this final designation of 
critical habitat for H. paradoxus does not pose significant takings 
implications for lands within or affected by the designation.

Federalism

    In accordance with E.O. 13132 (Federalism), this final rule does 
not have significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment is not 
required. In keeping with Department of the Interior and Department of 
Commerce policy, we requested information from, and coordinated 
development of, this final critical habitat designation with 
appropriate State resource agencies in New Mexico. The designation of 
critical habitat in areas currently occupied by Helianthus paradoxus is 
not likely to impose any additional restrictions to those currently in 
place and, therefore, has little incremental impact on State and local 
governments and their activities. The designation may have some benefit 
to these governments because the areas that contain the physical and 
biological features essential to the conservation of the species are 
more clearly defined, and the PCEs of the habitat necessary to the 
conservation of the species are specifically identified. This 
information does not alter where and what federally sponsored 
activities may occur. However, it may assist local governments in long-
range planning (rather than having them wait for case-by-case section 7 
consultations to occur).

Civil Justice Reform

    In accordance with E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the Office of 
the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the 
judicial system and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 
3(b)(2) of the Order. We are designating critical habitat in accordance 
with the provisions of the Act. This final rule uses standard property 
descriptions and identifies the physical and biological features 
essential to the conservation of the species within the designated 
areas to assist the public in understanding the habitat needs of 
Helianthus paradoxus.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

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

National Environmental Policy Act (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 Act. 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 Helianthus 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. We completed an environmental assessment 
and finding of no significant impact on the designation of critical 
habitat for H. paradoxus.

[[Page 17786]]

Government-to-Government Relationship with Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, 
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments'' (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, and the Department 
of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our 
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal 
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with 
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997, ``American Indian Tribal 
Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered 
Species Act,'' we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work 
directly with tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to 
acknowledge that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as 
Federal public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to 
make information available to tribes. Therefore, we solicited 
information from the Pueblo of Acoma and Pueblo of Laguna.
    As noted above, we contacted the Pueblo of Acoma and Pueblo of 
Laguna and offered to provide technical assistance on management of the 
species and the development of management plans. On July 2, 2007, we 
met with the Pueblo of Acoma to discuss potential effects to them or 
their resources that may result from critical habitat designation. They 
did not pursue the development of a management plan. As a result, 
Pueblo of Acoma lands have not been excluded from the final designation 
and are designated as critical habitat.
    As detailed above, we provided technical assistance to the Pueblo 
to develop a management plan for Helianthus paradoxus. We received the 
Pecos Sunflower (Helianthus paradoxus) Management Plan (Resolution 
 01-08), Pueblo of Laguna, 2008, during the open comment 
period, which closed on January 10, 2008. The Management Plan and 
corresponding Resolution (No. 01-08) was adopted and approved by the 
Pueblo of Laguna Staff Officers in January 2008 (Laguna 2008). The 
resolution that was passed by the Pueblo concerning its management plan 
exercises the sovereign status of the Pueblo and provides for special 
management protections and conservation of H. paradoxus. We find that 
the Pueblo of Laguna management plan provides significant conservation 
benefit to H. paradoxus and have excluded this area from the final 
designation of critical habitat.

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited in this rulemaking is 
available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/newmexico/.

Author(s)

    The primary authors of this rulemaking 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.

Regulation Promulgation

0
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of 
the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

0
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.

0
2. In Sec.  17.12(h), revise the entry for ``Helianthus paradoxus'' 
under ``FLOWERING PLANTS'' in the List of Endangered and Threatened 
Plants to read as follows:


Sec.  17.12  Endangered and threatened plants.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Species
--------------------------------------------------------    Historic range           Family            Status      When listed    Critical     Special
         Scientific name                Common name                                                                               habitat       rules
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Flowering Plants
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Helianthus paradoxus.............  Pecos (=puzzle,       U.S.A. (NM, TX)....  Asteraceae.........  T                       667     17.96(a)           NA
                                    =paradox) sunflower.
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
3. In Sec.  17.96(a), add an entry for ``Helianthus paradoxus (Pecos 
sunflower)'' in alphabetical order under Family Asteraceae to read as 
follows:


Sec.  17.96  Critical habitat--plants.

    (a) Flowering plants.
* * * * *
    Family Asteraceae: Helianthus paradoxus (Pecos sunflower)
    (1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Chaves, Cibola, and 
Guadalupe Counties, New Mexico, and for Pecos County, Texas, on the 
maps below.
    (2) Within critical habitat units, the primary constituent elements 
of critical habitat for Helianthus paradoxus are the desert wetland or 
riparian habitat components that provide:
    (i) Silty clay or fine sand soils that contain high organic 
content, are saline or alkaline, are permanently saturated within the 
root zone (top 50 cm (19.7 in) of the soil profile), and have salinity 
levels ranging from 10 to 40 parts per thousand; and
    (ii) A low proportion (less than 10 percent) of woody shrub or 
canopy cover directly around the plant.
    (3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures, such as 
buildings, aqueducts, airports, and roads, and the land on which such 
structures are located, existing on the effective date of this rule and 
not containing one or more of the primary constituent elements.
    (4) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining map units were 
created on a base of USGS 1:24,0000 maps, and critical habitat units 
were then mapped using Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates.
    (5) Note: Index map for Helianthus paradoxus (Pecos sunflower) 
critical habitat units follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 17787]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01AP08.338

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

[[Page 17788]]

    (6) Unit 1: West-Central New Mexico, Cibola County, New Mexico.
    (i) Subunit 1a for Helianthus paradoxus, Rancho del Padre Spring 
Cienega, Cibola County, New Mexico. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 
Grants SE, lands bounded by the following UTM NAD83 coordinates (meters 
E, meters N): 243145, 3889604; 243025, 3889705; 243053, 3889708; 
243097, 3889700; 243141, 3889702; 243201, 3889703; 243246, 3889703; 
243286, 3889703; 243342, 3889708; 243377, 3889712; 243402, 3889704; 
243441, 3889707; 243441, 3889707; 243472, 3889710; 243490, 3889709; 
243518, 3889707; 243577, 3889698; 243626, 3889686; 243657, 3889669; 
243683, 3889642; 243706, 3889616; 243729, 3889590; 243765, 3889564; 
243794, 3889545; 243826, 3889535; 243863, 3889518; 243888, 3889519; 
243932, 3889513; 243966, 3889506; 243991, 3889508; 244056, 3889504; 
244120, 3889510; 244157, 3889513; 244196, 3889517; 244242, 3889530; 
244282, 3889546; 244325, 3889560; 244359, 3889575; 244388, 3889592; 
244423, 3889592; 244410, 3889576; 244393, 3889566; 244362, 3889539; 
244322, 3889506; 244278, 3889486; 244244, 3889470; 244209, 3889467; 
244155, 3889466; 244126, 3889461; 244088, 3889450; 244057, 3889453; 
244019, 3889457; 243982, 3889456; 243923, 3889459; 243879, 3889459; 
243824, 3889470; 243779, 3889490; 243752, 3889510; 243726, 3889522; 
243689, 3889537; 243653, 3889566; 243604, 3889594; 243573, 3889612; 
243515, 3889637; 243471, 3889643; 243427, 3889641; 243376, 3889630; 
243325, 3889625; 243265, 3889619; 243224, 3889611; 243169, 3889606; 
thence returning to 243145, 3889604.
    (ii) Subunit 1b for Helianthus paradoxus, Grants Salt Flat 
Wetlands, Cibola County, New Mexico. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle 
Grants, lands bounded by the following UTM NAD83 coordinates (meters E, 
meters N): 241567, 3891788; 241548, 3891788; 241521, 3891788; 241509, 
3891801; 241493, 3891806; 241482, 3891812; 241460, 3891822; 241448, 
3891840; 241440, 3891865; 241445, 3891886; 241449, 3891910; 241445, 
3891930; 241456, 3891947; 241463, 3891957; 241484, 3891960; 241499, 
3891965; 241517, 3891962; 241531, 3891941; 241534, 3891918; 241543, 
3891893; 241551, 3891866; 241560, 3891846; 241568, 3891825; 241582, 
3891801; 241602, 3891789; 241636, 3891777; 241670, 3891770; 241691, 
3891774; 241714, 3891774; 241733, 3891785; 241751, 3891795; 241751, 
3891785; 241762, 3891765; 241775, 3891750; 241798, 3891741; 241812, 
3891747; 241825, 3891755; 241850, 3891755; 241876, 3891751; 241901, 
3891738; 241917, 3891731; 241934, 3891717; 241942, 3891694; 241952, 
3891679; 241959, 3891662; 241979, 3891648; 242003, 3891648; 242025, 
3891648; 242045, 3891648; 242071, 3891659; 242100, 3891656; 242122, 
3891641; 242135, 3891629; 242168, 3891604; 242175, 3891585; 242186, 
3891578; 242196, 3891570; 242215, 3891570; 242234, 3891570; 242252, 
3891554; 242288, 3891527; 242295, 3891507; 242295, 3891482; 242288, 
3891465; 242283, 3891452; 242239, 3891452; 242191, 3891452; 242178, 
3891441; 242171, 3891432; 242169, 3891409; 242172, 3891391; 242172, 
3891378; 242171, 3891358; 242169, 3891344; 242165, 3891323; 242155, 
3891303; 242154, 3891285; 242142, 3891252; 242141, 3891232; 242128, 
3891205; 242114, 3891194; 242097, 3891188; 242080, 3891180; 242062, 
3891179; 242052, 3891190; 242040, 3891204; 242023, 3891225; 241999, 
3891240; 241984, 3891255; 241975, 3891262; 241971, 3891278; 241972, 
3891293; 241964, 3891308; 241944, 3891322; 241911, 3891325; 241879, 
3891325; 241836, 3891326; 241811, 3891335; 241785, 3891350; 241768, 
3891359; 241755, 3891360; 241728, 3891356; 241706, 3891357; 241680, 
3891357; 241666, 3891373; 241662, 3891403; 241664, 3891455; 241666, 
3891502; 241666, 3891544; 241657, 3891574; 241650, 3891611; 241612, 
3891644; 241567, 3891688; thence returning to 241567, 3891788.
    (iii) Note: Map of subunits 1a and 1b for Helianthus paradoxus 
(Pecos sunflower) critical habitat follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 17789]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01AP08.339


[[Page 17790]]


    (7) Unit 3: Santa Rosa, Guadalupe County, New Mexico.
    (i) Subunit 3a for Helianthus paradoxus, Blue Hole Cienega/Blue 
Hole Fish Hatchery Ponds, Guadalupe County, New Mexico. From USGS 
1:24,000 quadrangle Santa Rosa, lands bounded by the following UTM 
NAD83 coordinates (meters E, meters N): 529408, 3865628; 529431, 
3865639; 529449, 3865654; 529468, 3865681; 529481, 3865715; 529491, 
3865773; 529491, 3865792; 529478, 3865810; 529467, 3865832; 529465, 
3865863; 529472, 3865903; 529484, 3865943; 529494, 3866006; 529507, 
3866073; 529505, 3866104; 529497, 3866123; 529484, 3866171; 529479, 
3866207; 529483, 3866245; 529489, 3866310; 529489, 3866366; 529640, 
3866364; 529771, 3866366; 529910, 3866363; 529980, 3866361; 529991, 
3866355; 529996, 3866347; 529991, 3866329; 529988, 3866289; 529980, 
3866217; 529967, 3866125; 529959, 3866012; 529957, 3865985; 529887, 
3865918; 529859, 3865879; 529876, 3865756; 529962, 3865656; 530041, 
3865519; 530099, 3865390; 530105, 3865209; 530091, 3865144; 529784, 
3865313; 529705, 3865355; 529593, 3865417; 529522, 3865456; 529550, 
3865504; 529505, 3865533; 529524, 3865564; thence returning to 529408, 
3865628. 529555, 3866753; 529618, 3866754; 529654, 3866751; 529702, 
3866748; 529706, 3866687; 529712, 3866651; 529713, 3866618; 529717, 
3866581; 529717, 3866559; 529652, 3866555; 529640, 3866558; 529638, 
3866609; 529634, 3866613; 529590, 3866609; 529556, 3866611; 529556, 
3866639; 529555, 3866683; thence returning to 529555, 3866753.
    (ii) Note: Map of Subunit 3a for Helianthus paradoxus (Pecos 
sunflower) critical habitat follows:

[[Page 17791]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01AP08.340


[[Page 17792]]


    (iii) Subunit 3b for Helianthus paradoxus, Westside Spring, 
Guadalupe County, New Mexico. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle Santa Rosa, 
lands bounded by the following UTM NAD83 coordinates (meters E, meters 
N): 527977, 3864746; 527990, 3864762; 527999, 3864783; 528009, 3864801; 
528033, 3864823; 528054, 3864837; 528079, 3864848; 528103, 3864852; 
528121, 3864843; 528125, 3864832; 528125, 3864813; 528123, 3864796; 
528118, 3864780; 528108, 3864756; 528095, 3864734; 528072, 3864717; 
528047, 3864697; 528018, 3864676; 527987, 3864654; 527961, 3864633; 
527932, 3864613; 527906, 3864594; 527886, 3864575; 527866, 3864561; 
527850, 3864551; 527836, 3864552; 527838, 3864566; 527852, 3864585; 
527869, 3864606; 527886, 3864626; 527903, 3864648; 527921, 3864672; 
527938, 3864694; 527957, 3864716; 527961, 3864722; 527975, 3864743; 
thence returning to 527977, 3864746.
    (iv) Note: Map of Subunit 3b for Helianthus paradoxus (Pecos 
sunflower) critical habitat follows:

[[Page 17793]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01AP08.341

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

[[Page 17794]]

    (8) Unit 4: Roswell/Dexter, Chaves County, New Mexico.
    (i) Subunit 4a for Helianthus paradoxus, Bitter Lake National 
Wildlife Refuge/City of Roswell Land, Chaves County, New Mexico. From 
USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle Bitter Lake, lands bounded by the following 
UTM NAD83 coordinates (meters E, meters N): 553433, 3705266; 553438, 
3705244; 553427, 3705221; 553405, 3705160; 553392, 3705130; 553391, 
3705126; 553381, 3705133; 553368, 3705185; 553355, 3705203; 553368, 
3705223; 553376, 3705270; 553375, 3705274; 553381, 3705283; 553418, 
3705283; thence returning to 553433, 3705266
    553416, 3704901; 553407, 3704896; 553357, 3704881; 553349, 3704867; 
553330, 3704867; 553303, 3704849; 553295, 3704769; 553285, 3704696; 
553304, 3704631; 553315, 3704558; 553332, 3704453; 553335, 3704381; 
553337, 3704374; 553334, 3704362; 553342, 3704308; 553370, 3704265; 
553400, 3704250; 553417, 3704226; 553422, 3704196; 553395, 3704176; 
553363, 3704198; 553314, 3704250; 553264, 3704275; 553234, 3704292; 
553221, 3704360; 553221, 3704364; 553217, 3704432; 553207, 3704447; 
553200, 3704508; 553191, 3704580; 553178, 3704613; 553167, 3704675; 
553165, 3704683; 553165, 3704758; 553176, 3704802; 553177, 3704821; 
553185, 3704828; 553206, 3704841; 553231, 3704889; 553258, 3704926; 
553294, 3704942; 553310, 3704972; 553314, 3705012; 553350, 3705042; 
553367, 3705040; 553384, 3705022; 553384, 3704997; 553424, 3705000; 
553438, 3704985; 553443, 3704945; thence returning to 553416, 3704901
    553595, 3704036; 553574, 3704029; 553551, 3704059; 553523, 3704061; 
553500, 3704101; 553500, 3704104; 553496, 3704123; 553516, 3704176; 
553544, 3704184; 553571, 3704161; 553592, 3704112; 553614, 3704059; 
thence returning to 553595, 3704036
    553958, 3704101; 553958, 3704066; 553977, 3704066; 553992, 3704051; 
553990, 3703994; 553984, 3703966; 553978, 3703928; 553967, 3703901; 
553965, 3703876; 553984, 3703856; 553997, 3703818; 554016, 3703798; 
554020, 3703781; 553997, 3703768; 553970, 3703778; 553959, 3703813; 
553949, 3703830; 553930, 3703830; 553907, 3703828; 553884, 3703808; 
553865, 3703775; 553842, 3703755; 553819, 3703745; 553792, 3703744; 
553779, 3703754; 553779, 3703787; 553779, 3703812; 553787, 3703830; 
553802, 3703837; 553797, 3703852; 553776, 3703860; 553757, 3703874; 
553761, 3703935; 553767, 3703962; 553771, 3704005; 553822, 3704048; 
553853, 3704075; 553895, 3704121; 553911, 3704143; 553945, 3704149; 
553966, 3704146; thence returning to 553958, 3704101
    554094, 3704475; 554107, 3704473; 554121, 3704488; 554151, 3704476; 
554195, 3704456; 554210, 3704423; 554269, 3704424; 554338, 3704434; 
554401, 3704449; 554479, 3704442; 554548, 3704423; 554592, 3704418; 
554622, 3704405; 554640, 3704421; 554661, 3704426; 554678, 3704416; 
554676, 3704391; 554725, 3704384; 554748, 3704369; 554760, 3704339; 
554744, 3704333; 554712, 3704333; 554691, 3704323; 554670, 3704323; 
554658, 3704290; 554639, 3704268; 554614, 3704270; 554607, 3704310; 
554588, 3704348; 554569, 3704363; 554534, 3704375; 554487, 3704385; 
554447, 3704389; 554418, 3704389; 554386, 3704389; 554351, 3704371; 
554313, 3704356; 554263, 3704348; 554238, 3704353; 554208, 3704363; 
554187, 3704385; 554164, 3704400; 554137, 3704400; 554118, 3704393; 
554124, 3704340; 554118, 3704297; 554097, 3704277; 554066, 3704272; 
554043, 3704284; 554043, 3704312; 554028, 3704344; 554004, 3704392; 
553989, 3704434; 553989, 3704500; 553995, 3704555; 554012, 3704575; 
554062, 3704555; 554094, 3704543; 554109, 3704503; thence returning to 
554094, 3704475
    555025, 3703999; 554991, 3703999; 554962, 3704029; 554951, 3704067; 
554959, 3704122; 554982, 3704144; 554995, 3704139; 554980, 3704069; 
555018, 3704024; thence returning to 555025, 3703999
    554437, 3703590; 554460, 3703560; 554454, 3703550; 554433, 3703545; 
554412, 3703540; 554404, 3703537; 554410, 3703517; 554421, 3703495; 
554423, 3703460; 554421, 3703430; 554405, 3703430; 554373, 3703450; 
554358, 3703492; 554339, 3703524; 554311, 3703547; 554284, 3703569; 
554261, 3703567; 554234, 3703571; 554231, 3703592; 554235, 3703627; 
554248, 3703662; 554256, 3703689; 554258, 3703732; 554266, 3703752; 
554302, 3703762; 554325, 3703785; 554358, 3703823; 554379, 3703808; 
554392, 3703785; 554394, 3703753; 554386, 3703733; 554390, 3703715; 
554407, 3703670; 554416, 3703638; thence returning to 554437, 3703590
    555874, 3704071; 555869, 3704052; 555873, 3703974; 555893, 3703927; 
555899, 3703877; 555918, 3703859; 555923, 3703809; 555889, 3703794; 
556064, 3702986; 556073, 3702873; 556031, 3702863; 555981, 3702792; 
555927, 3702732; 555889, 3702692; 555870, 3702734; 555928, 3702797; 
556003, 3702905; 556031, 3702923; 556028, 3702953; 555992, 3703018; 
555969, 3703018; 555942, 3703060; 555920, 3703110; 555843, 3703105; 
555839, 3703069; 555818, 3703039; 555817, 3702909; 555773, 3702746; 
555742, 3702738; 555704, 3702776; 555718, 3702818; 555775, 3702891; 
555768, 3702936; 555772, 3703079; 555767, 3703144; 555754, 3703169; 
555746, 3703124; 555715, 3703114; 555685, 3703106; 555671, 3703079; 
555671, 3703033; 555675, 3702996; 555659, 3702978; 555629, 3702956; 
555596, 3702958; 555577, 3702975; 555543, 3702955; 555495, 3702975; 
555476, 3702987; 555461, 3703025; 555450, 3703042; 555421, 3703045; 
555408, 3703034; 555392, 3703027; 555443, 3702956; 555489, 3702941; 
555502, 3702888; 555479, 3702865; 555500, 3702850; 555529, 3702820; 
555534, 3702780; 555532, 3702699; 555507, 3702669; 555474, 3702666; 
555452, 3702694; 555436, 3702692; 555419, 3702686; 555406, 3702691; 
555397, 3702754; 555406, 3702781; 555412, 3702839; 555370, 3702869; 
555333, 3702914; 555274, 3702966; 555216, 3702966; 555157, 3703003; 
555100, 3703033; 555053, 3703057; 555015, 3703110; 554971, 3703180; 
554958, 3703210; 554943, 3703230; 554916, 3703229; 554884, 3703245; 
554867, 3703264; 554867, 3703302; 554861, 3703332; 554825, 3703357; 
554787, 3703377; 554766, 3703416; 554745, 3703459; 554746, 3703494; 
554772, 3703522; 554801, 3703507; 554805, 3703482; 554829, 3703445; 
554867, 3703417; 554883, 3703395; 554913, 3703373; 554951, 3703383; 
554968, 3703400; 555003, 3703425; 555024, 3703431; 555054, 3703391; 
555072, 3703416; 555100, 3703429; 555125, 3703411; 555127, 3703381; 
555127, 3703371; 555169, 3703356; 555215, 3703364; 555245, 3703344; 
555266, 3703314; 555268, 3703282; 555254, 3703267; 555216, 3703266; 
555178, 3703266; 555166, 3703256; 555149, 3703241; 555138, 3703228; 
555178, 3703206; 555206, 3703191; 555225, 3703171; 555238, 3703139; 
555254, 3703149; 555280, 3703147; 555295, 3703109; 555326, 3703099; 
555328, 3703117; 555349, 3703137; 555374, 3703157; 555376, 3703192; 
555397, 3703232; 555422, 3703235; 555435, 3703210; 555437, 3703170; 
555416, 3703142; 555410, 3703125; 555427, 3703105; 555461, 3703095; 
555467, 3703072; 555524, 3703073; 555557, 3703063; 555580, 3703078; 
555610, 3703091; 555618, 3703138; 555630, 3703174; 555664, 3703191; 
555668, 3703214; 555640, 3703234; 555628, 3703271; 555629, 3703311; 
555663, 3703322; 555667, 3703357; 555688, 3703372; 555736, 3703387; 
555788, 3703397; 555820, 3703400;

[[Page 17795]]

555839, 3703388; 555870, 3703400; 555879, 3703448; 555870, 3703520; 
555848, 3703591; 555844, 3703628; 555844, 3703689; 555843, 3703739; 
555837, 3703781; 555811, 3703853; 555805, 3703883; 555798, 3703931; 
555781, 3703959; 555806, 3704001; 555806, 3704034; 555781, 3704042; 
555774, 3704066; 555778, 3704079; 555819, 3704076; thence returning to 
555874, 3704071
    556313, 3701253; 556267, 3701245; 556183, 3701262; 556218, 3701446; 
556444, 3701492; 556495, 3701492; 556501, 3701475; 556456, 3701332; 
556401, 3701266; thence returning to 556313, 3701253
    555609, 3701001; 555569, 3700991; 555565, 3701038; 555560, 3701104; 
555564, 3701144; 555585, 3701186; 555593, 3701242; 555599, 3701312; 
555578, 3701352; 555586, 3701422; 555600, 3701462; 555661, 3701485; 
555720, 3701505; 555722, 3701463; 555701, 3701390; 555706, 3701337; 
555744, 3701288; 555738, 3701255; 555702, 3701205; 555654, 3701154; 
555619, 3701106; 555615, 3701061; 555628, 3701031; thence returning to 
555609, 3701001
    555918, 3700885; 555889, 3700880; 555901, 3700925; 555916, 3700978; 
555959, 3701151; 555967, 3701214; 555988, 3701284; 555983, 3701329; 
555998, 3701382; 555995, 3701432; 556010, 3701452; 556022, 3701452; 
556033, 3701414; 556025, 3701367; 556006, 3701299; 555988, 3701214; 
555990, 3701154; thence returning to 555918, 3700885
    555523, 3701399; 555516, 3701460; 555499, 3701477; 555494, 3701490; 
555529, 3701523; 555592, 3701574; 555605, 3701596; 555618, 3701644; 
555623, 3701655; 555656, 3701703; 555657, 3701745; 555651, 3701788; 
555632, 3701838; 555635, 3701906; 555652, 3701959; 555658, 3702024; 
555674, 3702067; 555674, 3702111; 555682, 3702169; 555686, 3702234; 
555658, 3702275; 555631, 3702339; 555635, 3702422; 555637, 3702460; 
555580, 3702484; 555552, 3702484; 555498, 3702499; 555451, 3702531; 
555417, 3702563; 555402, 3702621; 555430, 3702639; 555451, 3702581; 
555489, 3702571; 555493, 3702529; 555512, 3702541; 555531, 3702559; 
555583, 3702557; 555613, 3702582; 555648, 3702595; 555720, 3702583; 
555785, 3702598; 555795, 3702626; 555816, 3702643; 555831, 3702614; 
555848, 3702601; 555928, 3702617; 556024, 3702617; 556064, 3702605; 
556083, 3702572; 556077, 3702525; 556100, 3702472; 556107, 3702442; 
556099, 3702365; 556093, 3702269; 556096, 3702162; 556128, 3702064; 
556116, 3702059; 556067, 3702089; 556058, 3702156; 556045, 3702241; 
556020, 3702241; 555955, 3702261; 555917, 3702304; 555893, 3702323; 
555895, 3702348; 555931, 3702334; 555969, 3702326; 555992, 3702381; 
556013, 3702411; 556046, 3702429; 556071, 3702462; 556036, 3702506; 
556016, 3702497; 555970, 3702481; 555918, 3702461; 555802, 3702456; 
555748, 3702478; 555704, 3702452; 555689, 3702410; 555694, 3702352; 
555713, 3702305; 555717, 3702260; 555743, 3702265; 555770, 3702298; 
555818, 3702348; 555856, 3702340; 555866, 3702318; 555862, 3702278; 
555818, 3702265; 555781, 3702212; 555754, 3702165; 555764, 3702137; 
555798, 3702112; 555832, 3702052; 555811, 3702035; 555729, 3702029; 
555725, 3701972; 555726, 3701926; 555747, 3701849; 555747, 3701806; 
555760, 3701709; 556110, 3701600; 556143, 3701598; 556157, 3701731; 
556110, 3701944; 556150, 3701961; 556208, 3701689; 556172, 3701536; 
556103, 3701012; 556079, 3701014; 556062, 3701049; 556064, 3701102; 
556089, 3701257; 556124, 3701392; 556144, 3701544; 555765, 3701651; 
555767, 3701618; 555724, 3701555; 555658, 3701533; 555637, 3701573; 
555614, 3701570; 555566, 3701535; 555541, 3701492; 555542, 3701422; 
thence returning to 555523, 3701399
    555288, 3700536; 555303, 3700526; 555328, 3700548; 555353, 3700584; 
555418, 3700647; 555458, 3700675; 555483, 3700650; 555452, 3700597; 
555414, 3700567; 555385, 3700506; 555364, 3700474; 555367, 3700413; 
555346, 3700373; 555310, 3700328; 555292, 3700330; 555256, 3700353; 
555241, 3700410; 555240, 3700488; 555265, 3700578; 555287, 3700676; 
555292, 3700709; 555310, 3700731; 555305, 3700859; 555333, 3700862; 
555347, 3700892; 555351, 3700942; 555347, 3700990; 555384, 3701020; 
555376, 3700957; 555360, 3700889; 555335, 3700779; 555315, 3700669; 
555309, 3700598; thence returning to 555288, 3700536
    555350, 3700060; 555304, 3700042; 555289, 3700077; 555289, 3700112; 
555303, 3700140; 555303, 3700180; 555303, 3700238; 555317, 3700275; 
555367, 3700283; 555401, 3700283; 555481, 3700266; 555571, 3700244; 
555645, 3700242; 555668, 3700217; 555666, 3700175; 555629, 3700167; 
555572, 3700144; 555503, 3700139; 555412, 3700121; 555373, 3700090; 
thence returning to 555350, 3700060
    555001, 3699914; 555002, 3699921; 555022, 3699943; 555027, 3699947; 
555034, 3699952; 555060, 3699982; 555061, 3699986; 555075, 3700001; 
555102, 3700066; 555146, 3700086; 555111, 3700006; 555077, 3699946; 
555057, 3699916; 555046, 3699875; 555055, 3699843; 555090, 3699881; 
555149, 3699889; 555193, 3699874; 555215, 3699836; 555221, 3699779; 
555194, 3699718; 555159, 3699683; 555096, 3699660; 555043, 3699657; 
554970, 3699619; 554928, 3699597; 554901, 3699541; 554874, 3699506; 
554836, 3699516; 554836, 3699554; 554854, 3699639; 554886, 3699684; 
554917, 3699702; 554986, 3699735; 555030, 3699780; 555036, 3699823; 
555019, 3699868; thence returning to 555001, 3699914
    555370, 3699131; 555265, 3699038; 555219, 3699005; 555145, 3698991; 
555135, 3698968; 555141, 3698887; 555147, 3698776; 555128, 3698655; 
555115, 3698547; 555108, 3698488; 555140, 3698489; 555200, 3698486; 
555326, 3698477; 555381, 3698445; 555431, 3698383; 555467, 3698285; 
555489, 3698168; 555479, 3698109; 555441, 3698064; 555361, 3698056; 
555252, 3698052; 555219, 3698029; 555181, 3698023; 555110, 3698036; 
555105, 3697925; 555084, 3697833; 555002, 3697764; 554926, 3697724; 
554898, 3697741; 554917, 3697774; 554958, 3697842; 555015, 3697895; 
555031, 3697960; 555052, 3698084; 555073, 3698195; 555064, 3698375; 
555059, 3698746; 555069, 3698952; 555104, 3699014; 555145, 3699050; 
555077, 3699033; 555022, 3699020; 554935, 3698980; 554867, 3698941; 
554799, 3698882; 554741, 3698917; 554686, 3698969; 554675, 3699021; 
554628, 3699021; 554626, 3699057; 554675, 3699076; 554781, 3699107; 
554926, 3699114; 555068, 3699121; 555197, 3699112; 555298, 3699129; 
555372, 3699183; 555411, 3699219; 555464, 3699247; 555505, 3699299; 
555536, 3699390; 555582, 3699520; 555602, 3699608; 555643, 3699774; 
555662, 3699837; 555693, 3699932; 555718, 3699972; 555743, 3700068; 
555793, 3700100; 555806, 3700088; 555751, 3700010; 555678, 3699734; 
555605, 3699483; 555533, 3699282; 555477, 3699202; 555370, 3699131; 
555194, 3698098; 555246, 3698098; 555293, 3698118; 555344, 3698131; 
555372, 3698158; 555407, 3698223; 555407, 3698272; 555401, 3698337; 
555360, 3698363; 555313, 3698415; 555217, 3698418; 555138, 3698437; 
555102, 3698443; 555111, 3698352; 555112, 3698101; 555151, 3698097; 
thence returning to 555194, 3698098
    554173, 3698864; 554194, 3698881; 554233, 3698942; 554256, 3698968; 
554293, 3698994; 554371, 3699029; 554390, 3699052; 554398, 3699065; 
554441, 3699113; 554443, 3699135; 554453, 3699147; 554505, 3699202; 
554535, 3699258; 554580, 3699323; 554617, 3699364; 554678, 3699411;

[[Page 17796]]

554686, 3699422; 554706, 3699446; 554722, 3699481; 554742, 3699513; 
554779, 3699548; 554807, 3699521; 554799, 3699483; 554788, 3699431; 
554787, 3699378; 554787, 3699305; 554781, 3699248; 554773, 3699228; 
554743, 3699235; 554741, 3699280; 554749, 3699323; 554716, 3699305; 
554693, 3699305; 554655, 3699277; 554623, 3699247; 554586, 3699227; 
554556, 3699206; 554532, 3699153; 554511, 3699118; 554488, 3699091; 
554463, 3699061; 554404, 3698997; 554363, 3698958; 554328, 3698912; 
554290, 3698875; 554244, 3698830; 554214, 3698820; 554184, 3698790; 
554159, 3698758; 554113, 3698718; 554089, 3698718; 554094, 3698760; 
554129, 3698800; 554170, 3698839; thence returning to 554173, 3698864
    554637, 3698460; 554599, 3698456; 554568, 3698486; 554568, 3698561; 
554581, 3698652; 554608, 3698675; 554649, 3698678; 554704, 3698646; 
554721, 3698610; 554719, 3698539; 554661, 3698493; thence returning to 
554637, 3698460
    554661, 3698079; 554623, 3698078; 554584, 3698124; 554559, 3698153; 
554565, 3698205; 554584, 3698244; 554622, 3698271; 554657, 3698261; 
554679, 3698245; 554699, 3698209; 554707, 3698102; 554694, 3698095; 
thence returning to 554661, 3698079
    553963, 3697638; 553988, 3697664; 554001, 3697681; 554018, 3697690; 
554031, 3697706; 554053, 3697715; 554075, 3697746; 554071, 3697770; 
554083, 3697824; 554088, 3697928; 554103, 3698069; 554141, 3698190; 
554162, 3698275; 554154, 3698350; 554110, 3698411; 554096, 3698450; 
554049, 3698483; 554040, 3698494; 554016, 3698568; 554016, 3698577; 
554081, 3698561; 554136, 3698519; 554164, 3698496; 554169, 3698477; 
554186, 3698454; 554202, 3698412; 554205, 3698383; 554225, 3698350; 
554233, 3698314; 554433, 3698273; 554433, 3698247; 554258, 3698285; 
554258, 3698223; 554242, 3698174; 554191, 3698105; 554185, 3698056; 
554172, 3698001; 554153, 3697932; 554156, 3697903; 554186, 3697903; 
554216, 3697900; 554227, 3697877; 554211, 3697867; 554164, 3697867; 
554167, 3697838; 554129, 3697837; 554148, 3697795; 554149, 3697727; 
554204, 3697714; 554207, 3697691; 554196, 3697649; 554245, 3697649; 
554319, 3697649; 554426, 3697650; 554464, 3697634; 554511, 3697618; 
554584, 3697622; 554604, 3697596; 554618, 3697537; 554602, 3697459; 
554577, 3697397; 554509, 3697376; 554454, 3697422; 554399, 3697490; 
554308, 3697574; 554270, 3697558; 554144, 3697538; 554054, 3697527; 
553997, 3697579; thence returning to 553963, 3697638
    554100, 3697209; 554053, 3697208; 553998, 3697292; 553962, 3697351; 
553962, 3697429; 553967, 3697533; 554005, 3697507; 554038, 3697455; 
554044, 3697413; 554047, 3697361; 554066, 3697335; 554105, 3697260; 
thence returning to 554100, 3697209
    554694, 3697638; 554707, 3697616; 554746, 3697616; 554770, 3697636; 
554819, 3697626; 554850, 3697594; 554899, 3697529; 554992, 3697177; 
554959, 3697148; 554912, 3697164; 554813, 3697404; 554815, 3697483; 
554787, 3697486; 554736, 3697489; 554705, 3697515; 554658, 3697583; 
554663, 3697648; thence returning to 554694, 3697638
    555818, 3696814; 555704, 3696812; 555673, 3696811; 555685, 3696845; 
555721, 3696842; 555806, 3696836; thence returning to 555818, 3696814
    554053, 3697208; 554100, 3697209; 554338, 3697211; 554336, 3696805; 
554330, 3696733; 554330, 3696665; 554327, 3696605; 554268, 3696635; 
554205, 3696666; 554127, 3696699; 554092, 3696768; 554089, 3696787; 
554084, 3696811; 554048, 3696856; 554021, 3696861; 553990, 3696861; 
553957, 3696849; 553925, 3696849; 553881, 3696851; 553847, 3696860; 
553809, 3696885; 553793, 3696903; 553765, 3696930; 553751, 3696954; 
553740, 3696972; 553738, 3696995; 553733, 3697019; 553718, 3697038; 
553716, 3697053; 553710, 3697067; 553702, 3697088; 553691, 3697115; 
553689, 3697128; 553684, 3697150; 553673, 3697170; 553652, 3697201; 
553624, 3697231; 553617, 3697248; 553614, 3697266; 553601, 3697291; 
553600, 3697304; 553580, 3697324; 553571, 3697335; 553567, 3697359; 
553567, 3697381; 553569, 3697402; 553577, 3697416; 553587, 3697427; 
553601, 3697453; 553627, 3697474; 553647, 3697485; 553663, 3697495; 
553689, 3697518; 553709, 3697535; 553731, 3697546; 553765, 3697552; 
553808, 3697556; 553866, 3697558; 553895, 3697563; 553916, 3697574; 
553923, 3697590; 553930, 3697605; 553934, 3697207; thence returning to 
554053, 3697208
    (ii) Note: Map of Subunit 4a for Helianthus paradoxus (Pecos 
sunflower) critical habitat follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 17797]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01AP08.342


[[Page 17798]]


    (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):
    554219, 3693892; 554261, 3693848; 554290, 3693737; 554276, 3693659; 
554328, 3693532; 554323, 3693504; 554263, 3693526; 554239, 3693587; 
554188, 3693676; 554137, 3693648; 554104, 3693647; 554076, 3693664; 
554043, 3693675; 553974, 3693685; 553899, 3693735; 553894, 3693846; 
553880, 3693868; 553819, 3693867; 553805, 3693906; 553795, 3694011; 
553790, 3694128; 553813, 3694156; 553873, 3694161; 553929, 3694167; 
553962, 3694129; 554013, 3694101; 554088, 3694085; 554134, 3694080; 
554172, 3693991; 554172, 3693941; thence returning to 554219, 3693892
    554157, 3694858; 554177, 3694762; 554220, 3694579; 554243, 3694507; 
554244, 3694402; 554268, 3694280; 554333, 3694198; 554423, 3694059; 
554517, 3693894; 554521, 3693849; 554520, 3693841; 554523, 3693831; 
554526, 3693799; 554536, 3693678; 554593, 3693578; 554612, 3693512; 
554598, 3693423; 554599, 3693312; 554618, 3693223; 554614, 3693102; 
554633, 3693030; 554641, 3692940; 554656, 3692862; 554698, 3692810; 
554741, 3692755; 554779, 3692758; 554831, 3692771; 554894, 3692789; 
554945, 3692809; 554981, 3692819; 555025, 3692810; 555052, 3692782; 
555097, 3692737; 555141, 3692720; 555186, 3692687; 555247, 3692665; 
555335, 3692663; 555405, 3692671; 555472, 3692679; 555550, 3692695; 
555641, 3692707; 555702, 3692705; 555794, 3692681; 555854, 3692646; 
555873, 3692601; 555862, 3692568; 555841, 3692555; 555772, 3692585; 
555736, 3692630; 555656, 3692647; 555576, 3692652; 555510, 3692634; 
555430, 3692621; 555384, 3692596; 555336, 3692588; 555254, 3692595; 
555165, 3692617; 555093, 3692657; 555034, 3692714; 554983, 3692742; 
554951, 3692741; 554897, 3692706; 554832, 3692680; 554735, 3692690; 
554653, 3692737; 554578, 3692832; 554578, 3692882; 554582, 3692965; 
554565, 3692998; 554559, 3693035; 554553, 3693196; 554548, 3693345; 
554547, 3693423; 554570, 3693478; 554579, 3693523; 554542, 3693600; 
554504, 3693683; 554471, 3693788; 554419, 3693910; 554400, 3694009; 
554348, 3694075; 554287, 3694158; 554231, 3694252; 554217, 3694308; 
554206, 3694451; 554173, 3694574; 554164, 3694602; 554154, 3694634; 
554131, 3694713; 554142, 3694747; 554118, 3694756; 554107, 3694795; 
554098, 3694876; thence returning to 554157, 3694858
    (iv) Note: Map of subunit 4b for Helianthus paradoxus (Pecos 
sunflower) critical habitat follows:

[[Page 17799]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01AP08.343

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

[[Page 17800]]

    (v) Subunit 4c for Helianthus paradoxus, Oasis Dairy Subunit, 
Chaves County, New Mexico. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangles Bottomless 
Lakes and South Spring, lands bounded by the following UTM NAD83 
coordinates (meters E, meters N):
    559225, 3688383; 559265, 3688370; 559292, 3688339; 559312, 3688333; 
559335, 3688294; 559348, 3688262; 559355, 3688228; 559377, 3688207; 
559420, 3688160; 559431, 3688128; 559436, 3688078; 559458, 3688030; 
559492, 3687977; 559523, 3687927; 559548, 3687893; 559579, 3687870; 
559595, 3687851; 559617, 3687819; 559638, 3687777; 559649, 3687709; 
559647, 3687656; 559636, 3687605; 559608, 3687555; 559584, 3687497; 
559559, 3687483; 559533, 3687486; 559506, 3687488; 559486, 3687523; 
559475, 3687573; 559474, 3687634; 559481, 3687686; 559480, 3687729; 
559469, 3687782; 559446, 3687826; 559433, 3687871; 559412, 3687924; 
559385, 3687977; 559365, 3688014; 559345, 3688040; 559325, 3688077; 
559305, 3688122; 559282, 3688159; 559238, 3688182; 559204, 3688219; 
559184, 3688267; 559184, 3688314; 559199, 3688359; thence returning to 
559225, 3688383.
    558767, 3686447; 558771, 3686449; 558790, 3686451; 558823, 3686444; 
558852, 3686446; 558879, 3686451; 558899, 3686458; 558917, 3686464; 
558932, 3686466; 558952, 3686459; 558963, 3686453; 558977, 3686433; 
558986, 3686422; 558997, 3686411; 559012, 3686407; 559030, 3686392; 
559038, 3686377; 559038, 3686361; 559035, 3686343; 559031, 3686291; 
559031, 3686253; 559026, 3686238; 559014, 3686223; 558985, 3686205; 
558960, 3686191; 558934, 3686182; 558915, 3686177; 558884, 3686164; 
558866, 3686152; 558839, 3686137; 558817, 3686127; 558804, 3686124; 
558795, 3686123; 558772, 3686135; 558745, 3686144; 558722, 3686150; 
558700, 3686157; 558678, 3686161; 558650, 3686157; 558621, 3686154; 
558589, 3686153; 558561, 3686152; 558534, 3686153; 558498, 3686144; 
558467, 3686137; 558439, 3686122; 558415, 3686108; 558398, 3686086; 
558385, 3686058; 558380, 3686024; 558387, 3685985; 558396, 3685944; 
558404, 3685914; 558408, 3685894; 558404, 3685879; 558387, 3685862; 
558363, 3685843; 558338, 3685818; 558318, 3685805; 558305, 3685787; 
558290, 3685762; 558284, 3685734; 558286, 3685712; 558292, 3685684; 
558294, 3685662; 558288, 3685634; 558286, 3685609; 558276, 3685584; 
558262, 3685566; 558253, 3685552; 558232, 3685540; 558208, 3685531; 
558183, 3685532; 558148, 3685542; 558126, 3685553; 558099, 3685568; 
558086, 3685583; 558073, 3685608; 558071, 3685633; 558079, 3685654; 
558095, 3685671; 558115, 3685672; 558132, 3685672; 558150, 3685666; 
558163, 3685655; 558192, 3685654; 558209, 3685658; 558221, 3685671; 
558221, 3685689; 558221, 3685714; 558220, 3685738; 558211, 3685759; 
558209, 3685781; 558207, 3685799; 558218, 3685819; 558232, 3685829; 
558250, 3685836; 558262, 3685843; 558270, 3685859; 558275, 3685880; 
558273, 3685888; 558255, 3685909; 558253, 3685931; 558252, 3685946; 
558256, 3685956; 558259, 3685975; 558260, 3685989; 558258, 3686009; 
558256, 3686024; 558250, 3686035; 558240, 3686046; 558233, 3686056; 
558223, 3686065; 558221, 3686071; 558220, 3686078; 558224, 3686092; 
558227, 3686102; 558227, 3686119; 558219, 3686147; 558215, 3686174; 
558216, 3686193; 558228, 3686212; 558243, 3686232; 558267, 3686257; 
558281, 3686271; 558297, 3686283; 558315, 3686290; 558338, 3686302; 
558355, 3686314; 558368, 3686325; 558393, 3686346; 558406, 3686362; 
558423, 3686381; 558432, 3686397; 558438, 3686423; 558437, 3686445; 
558425, 3686461; 558410, 3686475; 558392, 3686490; 558373, 3686507; 
558364, 3686529; 558413, 3686519; 558466, 3686502; 558514, 3686488; 
558558, 3686475; 558601, 3686470; 558635, 3686457; 558667, 3686443; 
558689, 3686445; 558720, 3686431; thence returning to 558767, 3686447.
    (vi) Note: Map of Subunit 4c for Helianthus paradoxus (Pecos 
sunflower) critical habitat follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 17801]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01AP08.344

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

[[Page 17802]]

    (vii) Subunit 4d for Helianthus paradoxus, Lea Lake at Bottomless 
Lakes State Park, Chaves County, New Mexico. From USGS 1:24,000 
quadrangle Bottomless Lakes, lands bounded by the following UTM NAD83 
coordinates (meters E, meters N):
    562371, 3687020; 562381, 3687019; 562402, 3687011; 562419, 3686993; 
562437, 3686976; 562464, 3686956; 562476, 3686950; 562499, 3686947; 
562515, 3686938; 562519, 3686919; 562520, 3686895; 562511, 3686875; 
562495, 3686857; 562483, 3686851; 562471, 3686849; 562453, 3686850; 
562442, 3686836; 562432, 3686814; 562420, 3686784; 562409, 3686747; 
562410, 3686718; 562402, 3686690; 562391, 3686663; 562366, 3686642; 
562325, 3686637; 562286, 3686639; 562276, 3686652; 562230, 3686695; 
562216, 3686715; 562203, 3686732; 562200, 3686752; 562201, 3686770; 
562203, 3686791; 562208, 3686818; 562221, 3686835; 562225, 3686852; 
562222, 3686868; 562216, 3686888; 562217, 3686914; 562230, 3686939; 
562250, 3686958; 562270, 3686978; 562293, 3686992; 562323, 3687006; 
562351, 3687016; thence returning to 562371, 3687020.
    (viii) Note: Map of Subunit 4d for Helianthus paradoxus (Pecos 
sunflower) critical habitat follows:

[[Page 17803]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01AP08.345


[[Page 17804]]


    (ix) Subunit 4e for Helianthus paradoxus, Dexter Cienega, Chaves 
County, New Mexico. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle Dexter East, lands 
bounded by the following UTM NAD83 coordinates (meters E, meters N):
    559316, 3678509; 559316, 3678510; 559329, 3678521; 559339, 3678530; 
559355, 3678547; 559372, 3678557; 559402, 3678565; 559412, 3678566; 
559432, 3678560; 559452, 3678542; 559471, 3678532; 559508, 3678527; 
559525, 3678528; 559567, 3678532; 559595, 3678535; 559622, 3678521; 
559635, 3678495; 559645, 3678472; 559648, 3678443; 559642, 3678414; 
559630, 3678392; 559622, 3678376; 559606, 3678361; 559582, 3678344; 
559549, 3678334; 559519, 3678314; 559493, 3678303; 559464, 3678290; 
559439, 3678280; 559410, 3678271; 559381, 3678263; 559358, 3678260; 
559329, 3678249; 559293, 3678233; 559265, 3678223; 559234, 3678215; 
559205, 3678201; 559177, 3678193; 559160, 3678178; 559132, 3678157; 
559111, 3678136; 559083, 3678118; 559048, 3678097; 559012, 3678082; 
558980, 3678067; 558948, 3678058; 558915, 3678047; 558884, 3678045; 
558855, 3678046; 558830, 3678054; 558801, 3678062; 558776, 3678067; 
558754, 3678070; 558732, 3678071; 558714, 3678078; 558703, 3678089; 
558702, 3678101; 558703, 3678116; 558711, 3678128; 558728, 3678126; 
558757, 3678122; 558776, 3678124; 558812, 3678130; 558833, 3678134; 
558843, 3678141; 558856, 3678145; 558869, 3678166; 558895, 3678186; 
558906, 3678205; 558926, 3678207; 558948, 3678215; 558966, 3678227; 
558976, 3678240; 558995, 3678256; 559017, 3678272; 559038, 3678284; 
559074, 3678307; 559099, 3678323; 559124, 3678334; 559157, 3678352; 
559185, 3678364; 559210, 3678373; 559242, 3678378; 559260, 3678389; 
559269, 3678401; 559268, 3678424; 559272, 3678437; 559285, 3678457; 
559299, 3678486; thence returning to 559316, 3678509.
    (x) Note: Map of Subunit 4e for Helianthus paradoxus (Pecos 
sunflower) critical habitat follows:

[[Page 17805]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01AP08.346


[[Page 17806]]


    (9) Unit 5: West Texas-Diamond Y Springs, Pecos County, Texas.
    (i) Unit 5 for Helianthus paradoxus, West Texas--Diamond Y Spring, 
Pecos County, Texas. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangles Diamond Y Spring 
and Fort Stockton West, lands bounded by the following UTM NAD83 
coordinates (meters E, meters N):
    698884, 3432181; 698826, 3432165; 698791, 3432139; 698736, 3432128; 
698662, 3432110; 698622, 3432104; 698558, 3432087; 698508, 3432029; 
698495, 3431944; 698484, 3431889; 698482, 3431809; 698466, 3431762; 
698429, 3431714; 698368, 3431658; 698333, 3431624; 698304, 3431582; 
698291, 3431529; 698275, 3431500; 698238, 3431492; 698183, 3431494; 
698143, 3431534; 698111, 3431608; 698106, 3431682; 698132, 3431764; 
698180, 3431828; 698222, 3431883; 698217, 3431955; 698246, 3432042; 
698267, 3432103; 698288, 3432156; 698299, 3432225; 698275, 3432262; 
698196, 3432251; 698069, 3432206; 697987, 3432198; 697936, 3432214; 
697876, 3432223; 697820, 3432243; 697774, 3432254; 697727, 3432259; 
697728, 3432663; 697784, 3432632; 697855, 3432612; 697932, 3432595; 
698003, 3432587; 698052, 3432577; 698116, 3432570; 698179, 3432573; 
698264, 3432570; 698313, 3432580; 698359, 3432591; 698402, 3432587; 
698462, 3432584; 698507, 3432584; 698550, 3432584; 698596, 3432591; 
698652, 3432605; 698702, 3432630; 698772, 3432665; 698814, 3432700; 
698860, 3432736; 698920, 3432796; 699002, 3432859; 699062, 3432895; 
699125, 3432930; 699204, 3432951; 699241, 3432959; 699347, 3432935; 
699405, 3432877; 699416, 3432816; 699427, 3432729; 699411, 3432697; 
699352, 3432634; 699310, 3432560; 699281, 3432504; 699265, 3432456; 
699265, 3432409; 699270, 3432345; 699263, 3432289; 699233, 3432258; 
699186, 3432213; 699128, 3432200; 699080, 3432194; 699011, 3432202; 
698934, 3432197; thence returning to 698884, 3432181
    (ii) Note: Map of Unit 5 for Helianthus paradoxus (Pecos sunflower) 
critical habitat follows:

[[Page 17807]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01AP08.347

* * * * *

    Dated: March 17, 2008.
David M. Verhey,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. E8-5811 Filed 3-31-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C