[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 59 (Tuesday, March 27, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18157-18172]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7087]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2011-0040: 4500030114]
RIN 1018-AX75
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of
Critical Habitat for Ipomopsis polyantha (Pagosa skyrocket), Penstemon
debilis (Parachute beardtongue), and Phacelia submutica (DeBeque
phacelia)
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Revised proposed rule; reopening of comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the
reopening of the public comment period on the July 27, 2011, proposed
designation of critical habitat for Ipomopsis polyantha (Pagosa
skyrocket), Penstemon debilis (Parachute beardtongue), and Phacelia
submutica (DeBeque phacelia) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973,
as amended (Act). We also announce the availability of a draft economic
analysis, a draft environmental assessment, and an amended required
determinations section of the proposal. We also propose to revise
critical habitat unit boundaries for Ipomopsis polyantha units 2 and 4,
and for Phacelia submutica units 6, 7, and 9. Finally, we announce some
potential additional areas being considered for exclusion from critical
habitat for Penstemon debilis unit 3. We are reopening the comment
period for the proposal to allow all interested parties an opportunity
to comment simultaneously on the proposed rule, the associated draft
economic analysis (DEA), and draft environmental assessment (Draft EA),
and the amended required determinations section. If you submitted
comments previously, you do not need to resubmit them because we have
already incorporated them into the public record and will fully
consider them in preparation of the final rule.
[[Page 18158]]
DATES: We will consider all comments received or postmarked on or
before April 26, 2012. Comments submitted electronically using the
Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES section, below) must be
received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Search for docket FWS-R6-ES-2011-0040 and then follow the instructions
for submitting comments.
U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing,
Attn: FWS-R6-ES-2011-0040; Division of Policy and Directives
Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive,
Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203.
We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see the Public Comments section below for more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Acting Western Colorado Supervisor,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Colorado Ecological Services
Office, 764 Horizon Drive, Suite B, Grand Junction, CO 81506-3946;
telephone 970-243-2778; facsimile 970-245-6933. Persons who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Comments
We will accept written comments and information during this
reopened comment period on our proposed critical habitat for Ipomopsis
polyantha, Penstemon debilis, and Phacelia submutica that was published
in the Federal Register on July 27, 2011 (76 FR 45078), our DEA of the
proposed designation, our Draft EA, our amendment of required
determinations, our proposal to revise critical habitat unit boundaries
for Ipomopsis polyantha units 2 and 4, and for Phacelia submutica units
6, 7, and 9, and additional areas being considered for exclusion from
critical habitat for Penstemon debilis unit 3 provided in this
document. We will consider information and recommendations from all
interested parties. We are particularly interested in comments
concerning:
(1) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as
``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.) including whether there are threats to these species from human
activity, the degree of which can be expected to increase due to the
designation, and whether that increase in threat outweighs the benefit
of designation such that the designation of critical habitat may not be
prudent;
(2) Specific information on:
(a) The amount and distribution of Ipomopsis polyantha, Penstemon
debilis, and Phacelia submutica habitat;
(b) What areas that are occupied and that contain features
essential to the conservation of these species should be included in
the designation and why;
(c) Special management considerations or protection that may be
needed in critical habitat areas we are proposing, including managing
for the potential effects of climate change;
(d) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential
for the conservation of these species and why; and
(e) Means to quantify the amount of natural and human-caused
disturbance these species prefer or can tolerate.
(3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
(4) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of
climate change on Ipomopsis polyantha, Penstemon debilis, and Phacelia
submutica and proposed critical habitat.
(5) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant
impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final
designation; in particular, any impacts on small entities or families,
and the benefits of including or excluding areas that exhibit these
impacts.
(6) Whether any specific areas we are proposing for critical
habitat designation should be considered for exclusion under section
4(b)(2) of the Act, especially the Mount Callahan Natural Area, the
Mount Callahan Saddle Natural Area, newly designated areas at the Mt.
Logan mine, and other lands owned by OXY USA (Oxy) for Penstemon
debilis, and whether the benefits of potentially excluding any specific
area outweigh the benefits of including that area under section 4(b)(2)
of the Act.
(7) Information on the extent to which the description of potential
economic impacts in the DEA is complete and accurate.
(8) Whether the DEA makes appropriate assumptions regarding current
practices and any regulatory changes that will likely occur if we
designate critical habitat.
(9) Whether the DEA correctly assesses the effect of regional costs
associated with land use controls that may result from the designation
of critical habitat.
(10) Whether the DEA identifies all Federal, State, and local costs
and benefits attributable to the proposed designation of critical
habitat, and information on any costs that have been inadvertently
overlooked.
(11) Whether the Draft EA adequately presents the purpose of and
need for the proposed action, the proposed action and alternatives, and
the evaluation of the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the
alternatives.
(12) Whether our approach to designating critical habitat could be
improved or modified in any way to provide for greater public
participation and understanding, or to better accommodate public
concerns and comments.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning our proposed
rule or the associated DEA and draft EA by one of the methods listed in
ADDRESSES.
If you submit a comment via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire
comment--including your personal identifying information--will be
posted on the Web site. If you submit a hardcopy comment that includes
personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your
document that we withhold this information from public review. However,
we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all
hardcopy comments on http://www.regulations.gov.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, DEA, and Draft
EA, will be available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment, during normal business hours,
at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Colorado Ecological Services
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). You may obtain copies of
the proposed critical habitat, the DEA, and the Draft EA on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at docket number FWS-R6-ES-2011-
0040, or at http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/plants/3ColoradoPlants/index.html, or by mail from the Western Colorado
Ecological Services Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Background
Previous Federal Actions
It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to
the proposed designation of critical habitat for Ipomopsis polyantha,
Penstemon debilis, and Phacelia submutica. For more information on
previous Federal actions concerning I. polyantha, P.
[[Page 18159]]
debilis, and P. submutica, refer to the proposed designation of
critical habitat published in the Federal Register on July 27, 2011 (76
FR 45078). Approximately 9,641 acres (ac) (3,902 hectares (ha)) are
being proposed for designation as critical habitat for I. polyantha.
Approximately 19,155 ac (7,752 ha) are being proposed for designation
as critical habitat for P. debilis. Approximately 25,484 ac (10,313 ha)
are being proposed for designation as critical habitat for P.
submutica. In total, approximately 54,280 ac (21,967 ha) are being
proposed for designation as critical habitat for the three species. The
proposed critical habitat is located in Archuleta, Garfield, and Mesa
Counties, Colorado. The original proposal had a 60-day public comment
period, ending September 26, 2011. We will submit for publication in
the Federal Register a final critical habitat designation for I.
polyantha, P. debilis, and P. submutica on or before the statutory
deadline of July 27, 2012.
For additional information on the biology of these species, see the
July 27, 2011, final rule to list Ipomopsis polyantha as endangered,
and to list Penstemon debilis, and Phacelia submutica as threatened (76
FR 45054); as well as the July 27, 2011 proposed critical habitat rule
(76 FR 45078).
Section 3 of the Act defines critical habitat as the specific areas
within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is
listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the species and
that may require special management considerations or protection; and
specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at
the time it is listed upon a determination that such areas are
essential for the conservation of the species. If the proposed rule is
made final, section 7 of the Act will prohibit destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat by any activity funded, authorized, or
carried out by any Federal agency. Federal agencies proposing actions
that affect critical habitat must consult with us on the effects of
their proposed actions, under section 7(a)(2) of the Act.
Consideration of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate or revise
critical habitat based upon the best scientific data available, after
taking into consideration the economic impact, impact on national
security, or any other relevant impact of specifying any particular
area as critical habitat. We may exclude an area from critical habitat
if we determine that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the
benefits of including the area as critical habitat, provided such an
exclusion will not result in the extinction of the species.
When considering the benefits of inclusion for an area, we consider
the additional regulatory benefits that area would receive from the
protection from adverse modification or destruction as a result of
actions with a Federal nexus (activities conducted, funded, permitted,
or authorized by Federal agencies), the educational benefits of mapping
areas containing essential features that aid in the recovery of the
listed species, and any benefits that may result from the designation
due to State or Federal laws that may apply to critical habitat.
When considering the benefits of exclusion, we consider, among
other things, whether exclusion of a specific area is likely to result
in conservation; the continuation, strengthening, or encouragement of
partnerships; or implementation of a management plan. In the case of
Ipomopsis polyantha, Penstemon debilis, and Phacelia submutica, the
benefits of critical habitat include public awareness of the presence
of these species and the importance of habitat protection, and, where a
Federal action exists, increased habitat protection for these species
due to protection from adverse modification or destruction of critical
habitat. In practice, situations with a Federal action occur primarily
on Federal lands or for projects undertaken by Federal agencies.
The final decision on whether to exclude any areas will be based on
the best scientific data available at the time of the final
designation, including information obtained during the comment period
and information about the economic impact of designation. Accordingly,
we have prepared a DEA concerning the proposed critical habitat
designation, which is available for review and comment (see ADDRESSES).
Draft Economic Analysis
The purpose of the DEA is to identify and analyze the potential
economic impacts associated with the proposed critical habitat
designation for Ipomopsis polyantha, Penstemon debilis, and Phacelia
submutica. The DEA describes the economic impacts of all potential
conservation efforts for I. polyantha, P. debilis, and P. submutica.
Some of these costs will likely be incurred regardless of whether or
not we designate critical habitat. The economic impact of the proposed
critical habitat designation is analyzed by comparing scenarios both
``with critical habitat'' and ``without critical habitat.'' The
``without critical habitat'' scenario represents the baseline for the
analysis, considering protections already in place for these species
(e.g., under the Federal listing and other Federal, State, and local
regulations). Therefore, the baseline represents the costs incurred
regardless of whether critical habitat is designated. The ``with
critical habitat'' scenario describes the incremental impacts
associated specifically with the designation of critical habitat for
these species. The incremental conservation efforts and associated
impacts are those not expected to occur absent the designation of
critical habitat for these species. In other words, the incremental
costs are those attributable solely to the designation of critical
habitat above and beyond the baseline costs; these are the costs we may
consider in the final designation of critical habitat. The analysis
looks retrospectively at baseline impacts incurred since these species
were listed, and forecasts both baseline and incremental impacts likely
to occur if we finalize the proposed critical habitat designation.
The DEA provides estimated costs of the foreseeable potential
economic impacts of the proposed critical habitat designation for
Ipomopsis polyantha, Penstemon debilis, and Phacelia submutica over the
next 20 years, which was determined to be the appropriate period for
analysis because planning information was available for most activities
to reasonably forecast activity levels for projects for a 20-year
timeframe. The DEA identifies potential incremental costs as a result
of the proposed critical habitat designation; these are those costs
attributed to critical habitat over and above those baseline costs
attributed to listing. The DEA quantifies economic impacts of
conservation efforts for Ipomopsis polyantha, Penstemon debilis, and
Phacelia submutica associated with the following categories of
activity: (1) Energy development; (2) transportation projects; (3)
agriculture and grazing; and (4) recreation.
Because of uncertainty regarding the level and distribution of
future oil and gas development, the DEA presents a low and high cost
scenario for baseline and incremental economic impacts. Over the next
20 years, potential baseline impacts in areas proposed for designation
are estimated to be $3.85 million to $9.81 million (low and high cost
scenarios; approximately $340,000 to $866,000 on an annualized basis),
assuming a seven percent discount rate. Baseline impacts in areas
considered for
[[Page 18160]]
exclusion are estimated to be $2.36 million. The DEA estimates that
total potential incremental economic impacts associated with a critical
habitat designation in areas proposed as critical habitat for all three
species over the next 20 years will be $967,000 to $14.8 million (low
and high cost scenarios; approximately $85,300 to $1.3 million on an
annualized basis), assuming a 7-percent discount rate (Table 1). The
largest contributor to potential incremental costs is impacts to oil
and gas development, which represent approximately 90 percent of
incremental impacts in the low-cost scenario and 99 percent of impacts
in the high-cost scenario. Impacts to agriculture and grazing,
recreation, and transportation projects combined represent less than
ten percent of the incremental impacts in both scenarios analyzed.
Table 1--Incremental Impacts of Proposed Critical Habitat Designation for Ipomopsis polyantha, Penstemon debilis, and Phacelia submutica by Species,
Unit, and Activity
[2012 dollars, assuming a 7-percent discount rate]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oil & gas Oil & gas Agriculture Species Subtotal - Subtotal -
Unit Unit name -low- -high- Transportation & grazing Recreation mgmt low- high-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Areas Proposed for Designation
Ipomopsis polyantha (Pagosa Skyrocket)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1......................... Dyke.................. $0 $0 $9,370 $0 $0 $0 $9,370 $9,370
2......................... O'Neal Hill Special 0 0 0 0 7,500 0 7,500 7,500
Botanical Area.
3......................... Pagosa Springs........ 0 0 3,330 0 0 0 3,330 3,330
4......................... Eight Mile Mesa....... 0 0 0 0 7,500 0 7,500 7,500
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.............. ...................... 0 0 12,700 0 15,000 0 27,700 27,700
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Penstemon debilis (Parachute Beardtongue)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1......................... Brush Mountain........ 11,600 195,000 0 0 0 0 11,600 195,000
2......................... Cow Ridge............. 35,500 599,000 0 0 0 0 35,500 599,000
3......................... Mount Callahan........ 10,900 184,000 0 0 2,130 0 13,000 186,000
4......................... Anvil Points.......... 8,470 143,000 0 0 2,130 0 10,600 145,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.............. ...................... 66,400 1,120,000 0 0 4,250 0 70,600 1,120,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phacelia submutica (Debeque Phacelia)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1......................... Sulphur Gulch......... 37,300 629,000 0 1,590 1,060 0 39,900 632,000
2......................... Pyramid Rock.......... 627,000 10,600,000 0 1,590 1,060 0 630,000 10,600,000
3......................... Roan Creek............ 398 6,720 0 0 0 0 398 6,720
4......................... DeBeque............... 13,100 221,000 0 1,590 1,060 0 15,800 224,000
5......................... Mount Logan........... 0 0 0 1,590 2,130 0 3,720 3,720
6......................... Ashmead Draw.......... 44,700 755,000 0 1,590 1,060 0 47,400 757,000
7......................... Baugh Reservoir....... 18,200 307,000 0 1,590 1,060 0 20,800 310,000
8......................... Horsethief Mountain... 60,200 1,020,000 0 43,600 5,820 0 110,000 1,070,000
9......................... Anderson Gulch........ 1,150 19,500 0 0 0 0 1,150 19,500
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.............. ...................... 802,000 13,500,000 0 53,200 13,300 0 868,000 13,600,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............. ...................... 868,000 14,700,000 12,700 53,200 32,500 0 967,000 14,800,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Areas Considered for Exclusion
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parachute Beardtongue
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3......................... Mount Callahan........ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding.
In the low cost scenario, proposed Unit 2 for Phacelia submutica
has the highest incremental impacts (65 percent of total), followed by
proposed Unit 8 for P. submutica (11 percent of total) and proposed
Unit 6 for P. submutica (five percent of total). In the high cost
scenario, these same three units (proposed Units 2, 8, and 4 for P.
submutica) have the highest incremental impacts with 72 percent, seven
percent, and five percent of the total incremental impacts,
respectively.
As stated earlier, we are seeking data and comments from the public
on the DEA and the Draft EA, as well as all aspects of the proposed
rule and our amended required determinations. We may revise the
proposed rule or supporting documents to incorporate or address
information we receive during the public comment period. In particular,
we may exclude an area from critical habitat if we determine that the
benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits of including the
area, provided the exclusion will not result in the extinction of the
species.
Draft Environmental Assessment; National Environmental Policy Act
When the range of a species includes States within the U.S. Tenth
Circuit Court of Appeals, pursuant to the ruling in Catron County Board
of Commissioners v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 75 F .3d 1429 (10th
Cir. 1996), we will complete an analysis under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) (NEPA), on
critical habitat designations. The range of Ipomopsis polyantha,
Penstemon debilis, and Phacelia submutica is entirely within the State
of Colorado, which is within the Tenth Circuit.
The Draft EA presents the purpose of and need for critical habitat
designation, the proposed action and alternatives, and an evaluation of
the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the alternatives under
the requirements of NEPA as implemented by the Council on Environmental
Quality regulations (40 CFR 1500 et seq.) and according to the
Department of the Interior's NEPA procedures.
[[Page 18161]]
The Draft EA will be used by the Service to decide whether or not
critical habitat will be designated as proposed; if the proposed action
requires refinement, or if another alternative is appropriate; or if
further analyses are needed through preparation of an environmental
impact statement. If the proposed action is selected as described (or
is changed minimally) and no further environmental analyses are needed,
then a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) would be the
appropriate conclusion of this process. A FONSI would then be prepared
for the environmental assessment.
Proposed Changes to Critical Habitat Unit Boundaries
In this document, we are proposing changes to some of the critical
habitat units that were defined in the July 27, 2011, proposed
designation of critical habitat for Ipomopsis polyantha, Penstemon
debilis, and Phacelia submutica. We describe these changes below and
provide updated critical habitat unit maps in this notice. Maps
illustrating the changes from the previously proposed unit boundaries
are available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at docket
number FWS-R6-ES-2011-0040, or at http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/plants/3ColoradoPlants/index.html.
Ipomopsis polyantha
We are proposing to modify our proposed critical habitat Units 2
and 4 for Ipomopsis polyantha based on comments we have received from
the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and based on field visits made during
the summer of 2011. Changes in acreage are depicted in Table 2.
Table 2--Proposed Changes to Critical Habitat Units for Ipomopsis polyantha
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Size of proposed
Critical habitat unit Land ownership Size of original unit revision
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 2. O'Neal Hill Special Botanical USFS--San Juan National 784 ac................ 564 ac.
Area. Forest. (317 ha).............. (228 ha).
Unit 4. Eight Mile Mesa............... USFS--San Juan National 1,180 ac.............. 1,146 ac.
Forest. (478 ha).............. (464 ha).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total for All Units (Units 1 and 3 ........................ 9,894 ac.............. 9,641 ac.
unchanged). (4,004 ha)............ (3,902 ha).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 2. O'Neal Hill Special Botanical Area
We are proposing to reduce the size of Unit 2, the O'Neal Hill
Botanical Area from 784 ac (317 ha) to 564 ac (228 ha). We are
modifying this unit so that the thick pasture grass and riparian areas
in the bottomlands that do not contain any of the primary constituent
elements (PCEs) for Ipomopsis polyantha would no longer be included
(USFS 2011, p. 1). We believe there is still enough area to provide
protection for pollinators if this site is used as an introduction area
in the future. This area is unoccupied and is owned by the USFS with
279 ac (113 ha), or 49 percent of the unit within the O'Neal Hill
Special Botanical Area that was designated to protect another Mancos
shale endemic, Lesquerella pruinosa (Pagosa bladderpod). Because L.
pruinosa is sometimes found growing with I. polyantha, we believe the
site has high potential for introduction of I. polyantha. Aside from
the changes described here, the unit description from our proposed
critical habitat rule still applies (76 FR 45078).
Unit 4. Eight Mile Mesa
We are proposing to reduce the size of Unit 4, Eight Mile Mesa,
from 1,180 ac (478 ha) to 1,146 ac (464 ha). We are modifying this unit
so that isolated patches that are separated from the large contiguous
potential habitat by roads are not included (USFS 2011, p. 2). These
isolated patches would not be suitable as potential introduction sites
in the future because they are small and separated from the large block
of contiguous habitat by roads. This unit is unoccupied and is owned by
the USFS. Aside from the changes described here, the unit description
from our proposed critical habitat rule still applies (76 FR 45078).
Phacelia submutica
For Phacelia submutica, we are modifying three of the proposed
critical habitat units, all of which are occupied: Ashmead Draw (Unit
6), Baugh Reservoir (Unit 7), and Anderson Gulch (Unit 9). Changes to
the acreages are depicted in Table 3. All three units have been made
larger. The boundaries of all units were expanded based on 2011 field
surveys in historical sites and in suitable habitat near these sites
(Service 2011, pp. 1-12; CNHP 2011, pp. 1-3, spatial data).
Table 3--Proposed Changes to Critical Habitat Units for Phacelia submutica
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original proposed critical habitat Proposed revisions to critical habitat
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit No./Unit name Land ownership by type Land ownership by type
------------------------------------------------ Size of unit --------------------------------------------- Size of unit
Federal State Private Federal State Private
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 6. Ashmead Draw......... 1,046 ac (423 .............. 174 ac (71 ha) 1,220 ac (494 1,110 ac (449 ............. 166 ac (67 1,276 ac.
ha). ha). ha). ha). (516 ha).
Unit 7. Baugh Reservoir...... 19 ac......... .............. 10 ac......... 28* ac (12 169 ac (68 ............. 261 ac (106 430 ac.
(8 ha)........ (4 ha)........ ha). ha). ha). (174 ha).
Unit 9. Anderson Gulch....... .............. 173 ac (70 ha) 128 ac (52 ha) 301 ac (122 ............. 192 ac (78 149 ac (60 341 ac.
ha). ha). ha). (138 ha).
[[Page 18162]]
Total (all other units 21,800 ac 173 ac (70 ha) 3,014 ac 24,987 ac 22,013 (8,908 192 ac (78 3,278 ac 25,484 ac.
unchanged). (8,822 ha). (1,220 ha). (10,112 ha). ha). ha). (1,327 ha). (10,313 ha).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 23 ac (9 ha) of this 28 ac (12 ha) is still included in Unit 7, Baugh Reservoir.
Unit 6. Ashmead Draw
We are proposing to increase the size of Unit 6, Ashmead Draw, from
1,220 ac (494 ha) to 1,276 ac (516 ha). In the spring of 2011, we
revisited a historical location we had used to delineate the unit in
our proposed rule and found that the site extended slightly to the east
of where it was previously mapped (Service 2011, pp. 1-4). To
accommodate this situation, we are proposing the boundary changes
described here. The unit comprises both Federal and private lands in
Mesa County, Colorado. Eighty-seven percent of this unit is managed by
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The entire unit is within the
Westwide Energy corridor, and 87 percent is within several grazing
allotments. This unit is currently occupied. Aside from the changes
described here, the unit description from our proposed critical habitat
rule still applies (76 FR 45078).
Unit 7. Baugh Reservoir
We are proposing to increase the size of Unit 7, Baugh Reservoir,
from 28 ac (12 ha) to 430 ac (174 ha). In the spring of 2011, we
revisited the historical location we had used to delineate the unit in
our proposed critical habitat rule and found that the site was actually
south of where it was originally mapped. After visiting the site, we
discovered more suitable habitat in the area than previously known. We
located two additional sites nearby during subsequent field surveys
(Service 2011, pp. 5-12). The unit is 61 percent privately owned and 39
percent owned by the BLM. This unit is currently occupied. Several
roads run through the unit close to Phacelia submutica sites. The
entire unit is within the Westwide Energy corridor and one grazing
allotment. Aside from the changes described here, the unit description
from our proposed critical habitat rule still applies (76 FR 45078).
Unit 9. Anderson Gulch
We are proposing to increase the size of Unit 9, Anderson Gulch,
from 301 ac (122 ha) to 341 ac (138 ha). Surveys during the spring of
2011 extended the known sites to the north (CNHP 2011, pp. 1-3, spatial
data). To accommodate this situation, we are proposing the boundary
changes described here. The unit comprises both State and private lands
in Mesa County, Colorado. Within the unit, 56 percent of the lands are
managed by the Colorado Division of Wildlife, within the Plateau Creek
State Wildlife Area, and 44 percent is private. This unit is currently
occupied. Aside from the changes described here, the unit description
from our proposed critical habitat rule still applies (76 FR 45078).
Additional Areas Considered for Exclusion
Penstemon debilis Unit 3. Mount Callahan
Three of the four viable (large and robust) populations of
Penstemon debilis are on lands owned by Oxy, all within the proposed
Unit 3 (Mount Callahan). Conservation of the species cannot occur
without cooperation from Oxy. P. debilis populations protected through
Colorado Natural Areas agreements may receive better protection than
they would otherwise receive through the protections of the Act on
private lands. Given this, and to facilitate our partnership, in our
original critical habitat proposal we announced that we would consider
the exclusion of areas on Oxy lands that are protected under a
voluntary conservation agreement with the Colorado Natural Areas
Program (CNAP).
We are now considering excluding under section 4(b)(2) of the ESA
additional lands for Penstemon debilis based on the efforts of the
landowner (OXY) and a potential agreement with CNAP. Oxy is working
with CNAP to expand their agreement to include the Mt. Logan Mine area
so that all three viable Penstemon debilis populations on Oxy lands are
protected (see figure below) (Oxy 2010, pp. 1-6). If designated, we
also would consider excluding this area. For areas outside these
Natural Areas, Oxy also is working to develop best management practices
to protect adjacent habitat and the pollinators found in these adjacent
habitats. If these best management practices are adequately described
in their Natural Areas agreement, we also would consider excluding Oxy
lands that are covered by these best management practices outside of
suitable habitat (barren cliff areas). If further protections were
provided for suitable habitat, we would consider this in our decision.
We do not yet know where the boundaries of the potential Natural Area
at Mt. Logan Mine would be so we have depicted this area with a
generalized map. We also have delineated, to the best of our abilities,
suitable habitat for P. debilis in the map of Unit 3.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 18163]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.127
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
[[Page 18164]]
Nonsubstantive Changes to Sec. 17.12(h)
In the July 27, 2011, proposed rule, the table entries for the List
of Endangered and Threatened Plants at Sec. 17.12(h) contained a small
formatting error. The scientific names for Ipomopsis polyantha and
Penstemon debilis were presented in Roman type; however, they should
have been presented in italics. We are correcting this error in this
revised proposed rule.
Required Determinations--Amended
In our July 27, 2011, proposed rule (76 FR 45078), we indicated
that we would defer our determination of compliance with several
statutes and Executive Orders (EOs) until the information concerning
potential economic impacts of the designation and potential effects on
landowners and stakeholders became available in the DEA. We have now
made use of the DEA data in making these determinations. In this
document, we affirm the information in our proposed rule concerning
E.O. 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), E.O. 12630 (Takings), E.O.
13132 (Federalism), E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the Paperwork
Reduction Act, E.O. 12866 and E.O. 12988 (Clarity of the Rule), and the
President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, ``Government-to-Government
Relations with Native American Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951).
However, based on the DEA data, we are amending our required
determinations concerning the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.), E.O. 13211 (Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use), and the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996), whenever an agency must publish a notice of rulemaking for any
proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public
comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effects of
the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small
organizations, and small government jurisdictions). However, no
regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of the agency
certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Based on our DEA of the proposed
designation, we provide our analysis for determining whether the
proposed rule would result in a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Based on comments we receive, we
may revise this determination as part of our final rulemaking.
According to the Small Business Administration, small entities
include small organizations, such as independent nonprofit
organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions, including school
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000
residents, as well as small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small
businesses include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than
500 employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees,
retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual
sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5
million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than
$11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with
annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic
impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the
types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under the
rule, as well as the types of project modifications that may result. In
general, the term ``significant economic impact'' is meant to apply to
a typical small business firm's business operations.
To determine if the proposed designation of critical habitat for
Ipomopsis polyantha, Penstemon debilis, and Phacelia submutica would
affect a substantial number of small entities, we considered the number
of small entities affected within particular types of economic
activities (e.g., energy development, transportation projects,
agriculture and grazing, recreation). In order to determine whether it
is appropriate for our agency to certify that this rule would not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities, we considered each industry or category individually. In
estimating the numbers of small entities potentially affected, we also
considered whether their activities have any Federal involvement.
Critical habitat designation will not affect activities that do not
have any Federal involvement; designation of critical habitat affects
activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal
agencies.
Under the Act, designation of critical habitat only affects
activities carried out, funded, or permitted by Federal agencies. If we
finalize the proposed critical habitat designation, Federal agencies
must consult with us under section 7 of the Act if their activities may
affect designated critical habitat. Consultations to avoid the
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat would be
incorporated into the existing consultation process.
Some kinds of activities are unlikely to have any Federal
involvement and so would not result in any additional effects under the
Act. If there is a Federal action, Federal agencies will be required to
consult with us under section 7 of the Act on activities they fund,
permit, or carry out that may affect critical habitat. If we conclude
in a biological opinion that a proposed action is likely to destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat, we can offer ``reasonable and
prudent alternatives.'' Reasonable and prudent alternatives are
alternative actions that can be implemented in a manner consistent with
the scope of the Federal agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
that are economically and technologically feasible, and that would
avoid destroying or adversely modifying critical habitat.
Within the proposed critical habitat designation, the types of
actions or authorized activities that we have identified as potential
concerns and that may be subject to consultation under section 7 if
there is a Federal action includes: Energy development (oil and gas);
transportation projects; agriculture and grazing; and recreation. As
discussed in Appendix A of the DEA of the activities addressed in the
analysis, only oil and gas, transportation, and recreational activities
are expected to experience incremental, administrative consultation
costs that may be borne by small businesses.
Any existing and planned projects, land uses, and activities that
could affect the proposed critical habitat but have no Federal
involvement would not require section 7 consultation with the Service,
so they are not restricted by the requirements of the Act. Federal
agencies may need to reinitiate a previous consultation if
discretionary involvement or control over the Federal action has been
retained or is authorized by law and the activities may affect critical
habitat.
In the DEA, we evaluated the potential economic effects on small
entities resulting from implementation of conservation actions related
to the proposed designation of critical habitat for Ipomopsis
polyantha, Penstemon debilis, and Phacelia submutica. Please refer to
our DEA of the proposed critical habitat designation for a more
detailed discussion of potential economic impacts; we will summarize
key points of the analysis below.
The DEA, and its associated initial regulatory flexibility
analysis, estimate that total potential incremental
[[Page 18165]]
economic impacts in areas proposed as critical habitat for all three
species over the next 20 years will be $967,000 to $14.8 million,
assuming a 7-percent discount rate. The largest contributor to the
incremental costs is impacts to oil and gas development, which
represent approximately 90 percent of incremental impacts in the low-
cost scenario and 99 percent of impacts in the high-cost scenario.
Incremental impacts to oil and gas development range from $868,000 to
$14.7 million, assuming a 7-percent discount rate. These impacts are
related to future oil and gas development that occurs in areas greater
than 100 meters from known Phacelia submutica occurrences and greater
than 1,000 meters from known Penstemon debilis occurrences. Similar to
the baseline impacts, the large range in incremental impacts is due to
uncertainty regarding the level and distribution of future oil and gas
development.
Incremental impacts to transportation projects are estimated to be
$12,700, assuming a 7-percent discount rate. Incremental impacts to
recreational activities are estimated to be $32,500, assuming a 7-
percent discount rate. The incremental impacts to transportation and
recreational activities are limited to the administrative cost of
consultation. Incremental impacts to agriculture and grazing are
estimated to be $53,200, assuming a 7-percent discount rate.
Small entities represent 60 percent of all entities in the oil and
gas development industry that may be affected. The analysis expects
conservation efforts for the three plants to affect companies that are
involved with drilling for oil and gas and that lease or plan to lease
Federal lands. Although we predict that drilling activity will not be
precluded by the designation, we anticipate requesting that drilling
companies undertake project modifications to reduce potential impacts
to the habitat. The costs of implementing these project modifications
are one impact of the regulation. In addition, affected companies will
incur administrative costs associated with the section 7 consultation
process.
The DEA estimates that between 0.23 and 5.1 projects are undertaken
in the study area (total number of projects divided by 20 years). We
multiply these projects by the percentage of small entities in these
counties, or approximately 60 percent, to identify the annual number of
projects likely to be undertaken by small entities (0.14 to 3.06
projects annually). Some of these projects will only incur incremental
administrative costs because they are located close to existing plants.
In these cases, the project modification costs will be incurred
regardless of the designation of critical habitat. Projects
experiencing the highest annual incremental costs are located in
unoccupied areas. We multiply the per-project costs in these unoccupied
areas by the total number of annual projects undertaken by small
entities and then divide by the number of affected small entities to
estimate per-entity costs. These impacts are then compared to average
annual sales per small business in the sector. On average, annual
incremental impacts per small drilling company represent 0.01 to 0.27
percent of small developers' annual average sales.
In summary, less than two to four small entities may be affected
annually by the proposed rule. These entities will likely experience
costs equivalent to less than 1 percent of annual revenues.
Importantly, these estimates assume each well pad is drilled by a
separate entity. In the case that one small company drills more well
pads than predicted, impacts to that company are underestimated, and
the annual number of affected entities is overstated.
Executive Order 13211--Energy Supply, Distribution, and Use
E.O. 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly
Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use, requires agencies to
prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions.
The Office of Management and Budget's guidance for implementing this
Executive order outlines nine outcomes that may constitute ``a
significant adverse effect'' when compared to no regulatory action.
Critical habitat designation for the three plants is anticipated to
affect oil and gas activities. However, the Service is more likely to
recommend a series of project modifications that will allow for work
within critical habitat, rather than complete avoidance of critical
habitat. Therefore, reductions in oil and natural gas production are
not anticipated. Furthermore, given the small fraction of projects
affected, less than one to approximately two per year, project
modification costs are not anticipated to increase the cost of energy
production or distribution in the United States in excess of 1 percent.
Thus, none of the nine threshold levels of impact listed above is
exceeded. Therefore, designation of critical habitat is not expected to
lead to any adverse outcomes (such as a reduction in oil and natural
gas production or distribution), and a Statement of Energy Effects is
not required.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
et seq.), we make the following findings:
(a) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal
governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.''
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal governments,'' with
two exceptions. First, it excludes ``a condition of federal
assistance.'' Second, it excludes ``a duty arising from participation
in a voluntary Federal program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a
then-existing Federal program under which $500,000,000 or more is
provided annually to State, local, and Tribal governments under
entitlement authority,'' if the provision would ``increase the
stringency of conditions of assistance'' or ``place caps upon, or
otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's responsibility to provide
funding'' and the State, local, or Tribal governments ``lack
authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of enactment, these
entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families with Dependent
Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services
Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care,
Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family Support Welfare
Services; and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal private sector
mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an enforceable duty
upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of Federal assistance;
or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal
program.''
The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally
binding duty on non-Federal government entities or private parties.
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive
Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require
approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be
indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally
binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of
[[Page 18166]]
critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to
the extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because
they receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal
aid program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor
would critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement
programs listed above on to State governments.
(b) As discussed in the DEA of the proposed designation of critical
habitat for Ipomopsis polyantha, Penstemon debilis, and Phacelia
submutica, we do not believe that the rule would significantly or
uniquely affect small governments because it would not produce a
Federal mandate of $100 million or greater in any year; that is, it is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act. The DEA concludes that incremental impacts may occur due to
project modifications and administrative costs of consultation that may
need to be made for oil and gas, transportation, grazing, and
recreational activities; however, these are not expected to affect
small governments to the extent described above. Consequently, we do
not believe that the proposed critical habitat designation would
significantly or uniquely affect small government entities. As such, a
Small Government Agency Plan is not required.
References Cited
A complete list of all references we cited in the proposed rule and
in this document is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or by contacting the Colorado Ecological Services
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the
Western Colorado Ecological Services Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to further amend part 17, subchapter B of
chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as proposed to
be amended at 76 FR 45078, July 27, 2011, as follows:
PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
Sec. 17.12 [Amended]
2. In Sec. 17.12(h), amend the entries for ``Ipomopsis polyantha''
and ``Penstemon debilis'' under ``Flowering Plants'' in the List of
Endangered and Threatened Plants by removing the words ``Ipomopsis
polyantha'' and ``Penstemon debilis'' and adding in their place the
words ``Ipomopsis polyantha'' and ``Penstemon debilis''.
3. In Sec. 17.96, in paragraph (a), amend the entry for ``Phacelia
submutica (DeBeque phacelia)'' by revising units 6, 7, and 9, and the
entry for ``Ipomopsis polyantha (Pagosa skyrocket)'' by revising units
2 and 4, to read as follows:
Sec. 17.96 Critical habitat--plants.
(a) Flowering plants.
* * * * *
Family Hydrophyllaceae: Phacelia submutica (DeBeque phacelia)
* * * * *
(11) Unit 6: Mesa County, Colorado.
(i) Land bounded by the following UTM NAD83, zone 13N coordinates
(E,N): 224560.31, 4351994.12; 224551.61, 4351993.51; 224545.14,
4351993.94; 224534.23, 4351994.73; 224343.42, 4352006.84; 224341.20,
4352007.01; 224332.52, 4352007.77; 224315.35, 4352010.79; 224306.93,
4352013.05; 224298.61, 4352015.67; 224290.55, 4352019.01; 224282.65,
4352022.70; 224267.56, 4352031.41; 224260.42, 4352036.41; 224253.50,
4352041.72; 224247.06, 4352047.61; 224240.90, 4352053.78; 224229.70,
4352067.13; 224224.70, 4352074.27; 224220.01, 4352081.63; 224215.98,
4352089.37; 224212.30, 4352097.26; 224208.96, 4352105.32; 224206.34,
4352113.64; 224204.08, 4352122.06; 224201.05, 4352139.23; 224200.29,
4352147.91; 224199.93, 4352154.95; 224629.91, 4354119.91; 224136.18,
4355951.10; 224136.42, 4355958.96; 224137.28, 4355966.78; 224138.75,
4355974.51; 224140.82, 4355982.09; 224143.49, 4355989.49; 224146.73,
4355996.66; 224167.76, 4356038.72; 224169.66, 4356042.35; 225797.71,
4358990.45; 225803.34, 4358999.46; 225808.33, 4359006.60; 225819.54,
4359019.96; 225825.70, 4359026.12; 225832.13, 4359032.01; 225839.05,
4359037.32; 225846.19, 4359042.32; 225861.29, 4359051.04; 225869.19,
4359054.72; 225877.25, 4359058.06; 225885.57, 4359060.68; 225893.99,
4359062.94; 225911.15, 4359065.97; 225919.84, 4359066.73; 225928.55,
4359067.11; 225937.27, 4359066.73; 225945.95, 4359065.97; 225963.12,
4359062.94; 225971.53, 4359060.68; 225979.85, 4359058.06; 225987.91,
4359054.72; 225995.81, 4359051.04; 226010.91, 4359042.32; 226018.05,
4359037.32; 226024.97, 4359032.01; 226031.40, 4359026.12; 226037.56,
4359019.96; 226048.77, 4359006.60; 226053.77, 4358999.46; 226058.46,
4358992.11; 226062.48, 4358984.37; 226066.17, 4358976.47; 226069.51,
4358968.41; 226072.13, 4358960.09; 226074.38, 4358951.67; 226077.41,
4358934.50; 226078.17, 4358925.82; 226078.55, 4358917.11; 226078.17,
4358908.39; 226077.41, 4358899.71; 226075.73, 4358888.22; 224674.17,
4352093.97; 224672.83, 4352088.29; 224671.70, 4352084.08; 224665.74,
4352067.70; 224663.89, 4352063.75; 224659.87, 4352056.01; 224655.18,
4352048.65; 224652.68, 4352045.08; 224647.37, 4352038.16; 224641.48,
4352031.73; 224638.39, 4352028.65; 224625.04, 4352017.44; 224621.47,
4352014.94; 224614.11, 4352010.26; 224606.38, 4352006.23; 224602.43,
4352004.39; 224594.37, 4352001.05; 224585.93, 4351998.98; 224577.53,
4351996.65; 224568.97, 4351995.03; 224560.31, 4351994.12; and returning
to 224560.31, 4351994.12.
* * * * *
(12) Unit 7: Mesa County, Colorado.
(i) Land bounded by the following UTM NAD83, zone 13N coordinates
(E,N): 223172.45, 4348678.18; 223164.10, 4348677.06; 223155.69,
4348676.65; 223147.28, 4348676.96; 223138.92, 4348677.98; 223130.67,
4348679.70; 223122.61, 4348682.12; 223114.77, 4348685.22; 223107.23,
4348688.97; 223105.08, 4348690.05; 221446.80, 4349594.77; 221439.42,
4349599.22; 221432.45, 4349604.28; 221425.95, 4349609.93; 221419.95,
4349616.11; 221414.51, 4349622.79; 221409.67, 4349629.91; 221405.45,
4349637.43; 221401.90, 4349645.27; 221399.04, 4349653.40; 221396.88,
4349661.74; 221395.45, 4349670.23; 221394.76, 4349678.82; 221394.81,
4349687.43; 221395.60, 4349696.01; 221397.13, 4349704.49; 221399.38,
4349712.80; 221402.33, 4349720.89; 221405.97, 4349728.70; 221410.27,
4349736.16; 221415.20, 4349743.23; 221420.72, 4349749.84; 221426.78,
4349755.96; 221433.35, 4349761.53; 221440.38, 4349766.52; 221528.06,
4349823.24; 221530.29, 4349824.64; 222690.07, 4350532.12; 222697.89,
4350536.43; 222706.07, 4350540.02; 222714.53, 4350542.87; 222723.22,
[[Page 18167]]
4350544.95; 222732.06, 4350546.24; 222740.97, 4350546.75; 222749.90,
4350546.45; 222758.76, 4350545.36; 222767.49, 4350543.49; 222776.02,
4350540.84; 222784.28, 4350537.44; 222792.21, 4350533.32; 222799.73,
4350528.51; 222806.80, 4350523.04; 222813.34, 4350516.97; 222819.32,
4350510.34; 222824.69, 4350503.20; 222829.40, 4350495.61; 222833.41,
4350487.63; 222836.69, 4350479.32; 222839.22, 4350470.76; 223249.33,
4348810.93; 223251.95, 4348800.61; 223253.68, 4348792.17; 223254.68,
4348783.61; 223254.94, 4348774.99; 223254.45, 4348766.39; 223253.22,
4348757.86; 223251.26, 4348749.46; 223248.58, 4348741.27; 223245.20,
4348733.34; 223241.15, 4348725.74; 223236.45, 4348718.51; 223231.15,
4348711.71; 223225.28, 4348705.40; 223218.89, 4348699.62; 223212.02,
4348694.41; 223204.73, 4348689.82; 223197.07, 4348685.87; 223189.10,
4348682.60; 223180.87, 4348680.03; 223172.45, 4348678.18; and returning
to 223172.45, 4348678.18.
* * * * *
(14) Unit 9: Mesa County, Colorado.
(i) Land bounded by the following UTM NAD83, zone 13N coordinates
(E,N): 238464.91, 4347092.87; 238447.55, 4347091.35; 238440.44,
4347091.83; 238436.82, 4347092.11; 238430.10, 4347092.73; 236172.30,
4347409.84; 236160.33, 4347412.28; 236156.12, 4347413.40; 236147.80,
4347416.03; 236139.74, 4347419.37; 236135.79, 4347421.21; 236120.70,
4347429.92; 236117.13, 4347432.42; 236110.20, 4347437.73; 236103.77,
4347443.63; 236100.69, 4347446.71; 236089.49, 4347460.06; 236086.99,
4347463.63; 236082.30, 4347470.99; 236078.27, 4347478.73; 236076.43,
4347482.68; 236074.59, 4347486.87; 236049.56, 4347547.66; 236045.44,
4347559.85; 236044.31, 4347564.06; 236042.42, 4347572.58; 236041.28,
4347581.23; 236040.90, 4347585.57; 236040.90, 4347603.00; 236041.28,
4347607.34; 236042.42, 4347615.99; 236044.31, 4347624.51; 236045.44,
4347628.72; 236051.40, 4347645.10; 236053.24, 4347649.05; 236061.96,
4347664.14; 236064.46, 4347667.71; 236069.77, 4347674.63; 236075.66,
4347681.07; 236078.74, 4347684.15; 236085.17, 4347690.04; 236092.10,
4347695.35; 236095.67, 4347697.85; 236110.76, 4347706.57; 236114.71,
4347708.41; 236131.09, 4347714.37; 236135.30, 4347715.50; 236143.82,
4347717.39; 236152.47, 4347718.52; 236156.81, 4347718.90; 236160.40,
4347719.15; 238092.65, 4347818.34; 238097.77, 4347818.47; 238114.80,
4347817.01; 238597.16, 4347733.65; 238602.61, 4347732.55; 238604.85,
4347732.03; 238617.20, 4347728.33; 238729.89, 4347686.46; 238741.46,
4347681.30; 238745.08, 4347679.41; 238748.68, 4347677.43; 238761.06,
4347668.98; 238778.98, 4347654.68; 238784.95, 4347649.51; 238790.51,
4347643.88; 238795.59, 4347637.84; 238800.19, 4347631.41; 238804.26,
4347624.63; 238807.79, 4347617.56; 238809.34, 4347614.11; 238812.48,
4347606.26; 238814.95, 4347598.18; 238816.72, 4347589.91; 238817.79,
4347581.52; 238818.15, 4347573.07; 238818.15, 4347568.42; 238817.82,
4347560.33; 238816.84, 4347552.30; 238815.21, 4347544.37; 238812.95,
4347536.59; 238810.06, 4347529.03; 238808.51, 4347525.41; 238803.20,
4347514.80; 238798.23, 4347507.04; 238536.17, 4347136.70; 238531.84,
4347131.01; 238527.10, 4347125.65; 238521.99, 4347120.64; 238516.54,
4347116.00; 238510.78, 4347111.77; 238507.54, 4347109.57; 238501.31,
4347105.66; 238497.71, 4347104.41; 238490.32, 4347100.70; 238482.63,
4347097.65; 238474.70, 4347095.31; 238470.96, 4347094.36; 238464.91,
4347092.87; and returning to 238464.91, 4347092.87.
(ii) Note: Map of Units 6, 7, 8, and 9 of critical habitat for
Phacelia submutica follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 18168]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.128
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
[[Page 18169]]
* * * * *
Family Polemoniaceae: Ipomopsis polyantha (Pagosa skyrocket)
* * * * *
(7) Unit 2: Archuleta County, Colorado.
(i) Land bounded by the following UTM NAD83, zone 13N coordinates
(E,N): 306219.79, 4143158.27; 306228.72, 4143313.61; 307003.79,
4143989.39; 307211.97, 4144018.22; 307840.95, 4143816.88; 308210.39,
4143809.74; 308215.75, 4143886.66; 308293.59, 4143872.46; 308346.60,
4143847.52; 309004.29, 4143385.20; 309534.52, 4142892.90; 309558.00,
4142861.72; 309548.26, 4142623.97; 309546.44, 4142621.82; 309498.44,
4142571.81; 309318.44, 4142432.81; 309132.45, 4142298.80; 309124.45,
4142295.80; 309054.45, 4142279.80; 309046.45, 4142278.80; 309016.45,
4142278.80; 308991.49, 4142282.38; 308922.13, 4142364.20; 308858.63,
4142428.49; 308830.85, 4142479.29; 308822.12, 4142519.77; 308830.05,
4142563.43; 308856.25, 4142645.19; 308853.87, 4142696.78; 308836.40,
4142745.99; 308782.18, 4142812.18; 308714.17, 4142804.73; 308676.86,
4142811.08; 308653.05, 4142836.48; 308626.85, 4142854.74; 308606.22,
4142884.90; 308539.54, 4142924.59; 308456.99, 4142965.07; 308362.53,
4142957.92; 308341.10, 4142927.76; 308301.41, 4142926.97; 308278.40,
4142907.12; 308241.88, 4142909.50; 308220.45, 4142925.38; 308203.78,
4142965.07; 308185.36, 4142971.60; 308169.65, 4142988.02; 308126.10,
4143042.28; 308033.92, 4143066.67; 307948.29, 4143076.16; 307909.78,
4143060.13; 307844.10, 4143097.25; 307829.82, 4143133.66; 307754.15,
4143153.65; 307732.02, 4143122.24; 307707.74, 4143147.94; 307632.07,
4143137.23; 307597.80, 4143170.07; 307574.32, 4143187.15; 307556.42,
4143182.30; 307489.41, 4143186.52; 307474.33, 4143216.69; 307399.12,
4143231.89; 307363.99, 4143263.52; 307348.91, 4143288.12; 307325.10,
4143278.60; 307285.41, 4143283.36; 307256.84, 4143311.14; 307229.85,
4143317.49; 307186.99, 4143286.54; 307149.68, 4143300.82; 307152.86,
4143331.78; 307128.25, 4143327.02; 307117.93, 4143292.89; 307098.88,
4143346.07; 307074.40, 4143334.28; 307056.81, 4143323.05; 307037.76,
4143341.31; 307018.71, 4143328.61; 306995.69, 4143365.91; 306972.34,
4143356.44; 306943.07, 4143368.01; 306883.21, 4143353.82; 306781.41,
4143329.68; 306785.35, 4143297.65; 306772.65, 4143280.19; 306771.86,
4143247.64; 306763.12, 4143238.91; 306678.98, 4143190.32; 306628.81,
4143188.23; 306534.05, 4143193.11; 306467.85, 4143210.53; 306379.36,
4143213.32; 306319.43, 4143206.35; 306279.02, 4143188.23; 306253.93,
4143163.15; 306219.79, 4143158.27; and returning to 306219.79,
4143158.27.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit 2 of critical habitat for Ipomopsis
polyantha follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 18170]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.129
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
[[Page 18171]]
* * * * *
(9) Unit 4: Archuleta County, Colorado.
(i) Land bounded by the following UTM NAD83, zone 13N coordinates
(E,N): 325341.89, 4116396.61; 325387.72, 4117588.25; 326991.87,
4117571.07; 326986.14, 4116780.45; 328165.61, 4116660.32; 328052.33,
4116301.10; 327816.85, 4116316.40; 327799.67, 4115921.09; 327392.90,
4115932.55; 327375.84, 4115058.23; 327212.37, 4115018.58; 327107.67,
4114981.94; 327017.91, 4114906.40; 326959.34, 4114892.94; 326963.22,
4115164.85; 326567.91, 4115187.77; 326562.18, 4115588.81; 326172.61,
4115594.53; 326161.15, 4115204.96; 325777.30, 4115210.69; 325576.78,
4115199.23; 325737.20, 4115554.43; 325754.39, 4115795.05; 325668.45,
4115886.72; 325324.70, 4115995.57; 325341.89, 4116396.61; and returning
to 325341.89, 4116396.61.
(ii) Note: Map of Units 3 and 4 of critical habitat for Ipomopsis
polyantha follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 18172]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.130
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
* * * * *
Dated: March 15, 2012.
Eileen Sobeck,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2012-7087 Filed 3-26-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P