Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat for the Pecos Sunflower (Helianthus paradoxus), 14328-14366 [07-1396]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 58 (Tuesday, March 27, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14328-14366]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-1396]



[[Page 14327]]

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

Part II





Department of the Interior





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



50 CFR Part 17



 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Designation of 
Critical Habitat for the Pecos Sunflower (Helianthus paradoxus); 
Proposed Rule

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

[[Page 14328]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AV02


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

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 
designate critical habitat for the Pecos sunflower (Helianthus 
paradoxus) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). 
In total, approximately 1579.3 acres (ac) (639.1 hectares (ha)) fall 
within the boundaries of the proposed critical habitat designation. 
Proposed critical habitat is located in Chaves, Cibola, Guadalupe, 
Socorro, and Valencia Counties, New Mexico, and in Pecos County, Texas.

DATES: We will accept comments from all interested parties until May 
29, 2007. We must receive requests for public hearings, in writing, at 
the address shown in the ADDRESSES section by May 11, 2007.

ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and 
materials concerning this proposal by any one of several methods:
    1. Submit written comments and information by mail or hand-delivery 
to Wally ``J'' Murphy, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office, 2105 Osuna Rd NE, 
Albuquerque, NM 87113.
    2. Send comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to: R2FWE--AL@fws.gov.
    Please see the Public Comments Solicited section below for file 
format and other information about electronic filing.
    3. Fax your comments to 505/346-2542.
    4. Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    Comments and materials received, as well as supporting 
documentation used in the preparation of this proposed rule, will be 
available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business 
hours at the New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office, 2105 Osuna Rd 
NE, Albuquerque, NM 87113 (telephone 505/346-2525).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wally ``J'' Murphy, Field Supervisor, 
New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office, 2105 Osuna Rd NE, 
Albuquerque, NM 87113; telephone 505/346-2525; facsimile 505/346-2542. 
Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call 
the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Comments Solicited

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal will 
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, comments or 
suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, the 
scientific community, industry, or any other interested party 
concerning this proposed rule are hereby solicited. Comments 
particularly are sought concerning:
    (1) The reasons any habitat should or should not be determined to 
be critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 
et seq.), including whether the benefit of designation would outweigh 
any threats to the species caused by designation;
    (2) Specific information on the amount and distribution of 
Helianthus paradoxus habitat, what areas should be included in the 
designation that were occupied at the time of listing that contain 
features essential for the conservation of the species and why, and 
what areas that were not occupied at the listing are essential to the 
conservation of the species and why;
    (3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the 
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat;
    (4) Any foreseeable economic, national security, or other potential 
impacts resulting from the proposed designation and, in particular, any 
impacts on small entities;
    (5) Whether our approach to designating critical habitat could be 
improved or modified in any way to provide for greater public 
participation and understanding, or to assist us in accommodating 
public concerns and comments; and
    (6) The existence of any conservation or management plans being 
implemented by public or private land management agencies or owners 
that we should consider for exclusion from the designation pursuant to 
section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Please include information on any benefits 
(educational, regulatory, etc.) of including or excluding lands from 
this proposed designation.
    If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and materials 
concerning this proposal by any one of several methods (see ADDRESSES). 
Please include ``Attn: Helianthus paradoxus'' in your e-mail subject 
header and your name and return address in the body of your message. If 
you do not receive a confirmation from the system that we have received 
your message, contact us directly by calling our New Mexico Ecological 
Services Field Office at 505/346-2525. Please note that the e-mail 
address R2FWE--AL@fws.gov will be closed out at the termination of the 
public comment period.
    Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or 
other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be 
aware that your entire comment--including your personal identifying 
information--may be made publicly available at any time. While you can 
ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying 
information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be 
able to do so.

Role of Critical Habitat in Actual Practice of Administering and 
Implementing the Act

    Attention to and protection of habitat is paramount to successful 
conservation actions. The role that designation of critical habitat 
plays in protecting habitat of listed species, however, is often 
misunderstood. As discussed in more detail below in the discussion of 
exclusions under the Act's section 4(b)(2), there are significant 
limitations on the regulatory effect of designation under the Act's 
section 7(a)(2). In brief, (1) designation provides additional 
protection to habitat only where there is a Federal nexus; (2) the 
protection is relevant only when, in the absence of designation, 
destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat would take 
place (in other words, other statutory or regulatory protections, 
policies, or other factors relevant to agency decision-making would not 
prevent the destruction or adverse modification); and (3) designation 
of critical habitat triggers the prohibition of destruction or adverse 
modification of that habitat, but it does not require specific actions 
to restore or improve habitat.
    Currently, only 485 species, or 37 percent of the 1,310 listed 
species in the United States under the jurisdiction of the Service, 
have designated critical habitat. We address the habitat needs of all 
1,310 listed species through conservation mechanisms such as listing, 
section 7 consultations, the section 4 recovery planning process, the 
section 9 protective prohibitions of unauthorized take, section 6 
funding to the States, the section 10 incidental take permit process, 
and cooperative,

[[Page 14329]]

nonregulatory efforts with private landowners. The Service believes 
that these measures may make the difference between extinction and 
survival for many species.
    In considering exclusions of areas proposed for designation, we 
evaluated the benefits of designation in light of Gifford Pinchot Task 
Force v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 378 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir 2004) 
(hereinafter Gifford Pinchot). In that case, the Ninth Circuit 
invalidated the Service's regulation defining ``destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat.'' In response, on December 9, 2004, 
the Director issued guidance to be considered in making section 7 
adverse modification determinations. This proposed critical habitat 
designation does not use the invalidated regulation in our 
consideration of the benefits of including areas. The Service will 
carefully manage future consultations that analyze impacts to 
designated critical habitat, particularly those that appear to be 
resulting in an adverse modification determination. Such consultations 
will be reviewed by the Regional Office prior to finalizing to ensure 
that an adequate analysis has been conducted that is informed by the 
Director's guidance.
    To the extent that designation of critical habitat provides 
protection, that protection can come at significant social and economic 
cost. In addition, the mere administrative process of designation of 
critical habitat is expensive, time-consuming, and controversial. The 
current statutory framework of critical habitat, combined with past 
judicial interpretations of the statute, make critical habitat the 
subject of excessive litigation. As a result, critical habitat 
designations are driven by litigation and courts rather than biology, 
and made at a time and under a timeframe that limits our ability to 
obtain and evaluate the scientific and other information required to 
make the designation most meaningful.
    In light of these circumstances, the Service believes that 
additional agency discretion would allow our focus to return to those 
actions that provide the greatest benefit to the species most in need 
of protection.

Procedural and Resource Difficulties in Designating Critical Habitat

    We have been inundated with lawsuits for our failure to designate 
critical habitat, and we face a growing number of lawsuits challenging 
critical habitat determinations once they are made. These lawsuits have 
subjected the Service to an ever-increasing series of court orders and 
court-approved settlement agreements, compliance with which now 
consumes nearly the entire listing program budget. This leaves the 
Service with little ability to prioritize its activities to direct 
scarce listing resources to the listing program actions with the most 
biologically urgent species conservation needs.
    The consequence of the critical habitat litigation activity is that 
limited listing funds are used to defend active lawsuits, to respond to 
Notices of Intent (NOIs) to sue relative to critical habitat, and to 
comply with the growing number of adverse court orders. As a result, 
listing petition responses, the Service's own proposals to list 
critically imperiled species, and final listing determinations on 
existing proposals are all significantly delayed.
    The accelerated schedules of court-ordered designations have left 
the Service with limited ability to provide for public participation or 
to ensure a defect-free rulemaking process before making decisions on 
listing and critical habitat proposals, due to the risks associated 
with noncompliance with judicially imposed deadlines. This in turn 
fosters a second round of litigation in which those who fear adverse 
impacts from critical habitat designations challenge those 
designations. The cycle of litigation appears endless and is expensive, 
thus diverting resources from conservation actions that may provide 
relatively more benefit to imperiled species.
    The costs resulting from the designation include legal costs, the 
cost of preparation and publication of the designation, the cost of 
analysis of the economic effects and of requesting and responding to 
public comment, and in some cases the costs of compliance with the 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4371 et seq.). These 
costs, which are not required for many other conservation actions, 
directly reduce the funds available for direct and tangible 
conservation actions.

Background

    It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to 
designation of critical habitat in this proposal. For more information 
on Helianthus paradoxus, refer to the final listing rule published in 
the Federal Register on October 20, 1999 (64 FR 56582) and the Pecos 
Sunflower Recovery Plan posted at https://www.ecos.fws.gov/docs/
recovery_plans/2005/050915.pdf.
    Helianthus paradoxus is a member of the Asteraceae family, 
described by Dr. Charles Heiser in 1958 as Helianthus paradoxus (Heiser 
1958, pp. 272-274). Genetic and morphological analyses have confirmed 
Helianthus paradoxus as a valid taxon (Rieseberg et al. 1990, pp. 1508-
1509; Lexer et al. 2003, p. 1999; Welch and Riesberg 2002, p. 477). A 
number of vernacular names for this plant, including Pecos sunflower, 
puzzle sunflower, and paradox sunflower, have appeared in printed 
literature, and all refer to Helianthus paradoxus. The Service has 
adopted `Pecos sunflower' as the standard common name for this species.
    H. paradoxus is a plant that grows on permanently wet, alkaline 
soils at spring seeps, wet meadows, stream courses, and pond margins. 
It is currently known from 12 populations in 5 widely spaced 
geographical areas in west-central and eastern New Mexico and adjacent 
Trans-Pecos Texas. These populations are all dependent upon wetlands 
that result from an elevated water table. The number of H. paradoxus 
per site varies from fewer than 100 to over one million. Because H. 
paradoxus is an annual, the number of plants per site can fluctuate 
greatly from year to year with changes in precipitation and depth to 
groundwater or in response to other physical and biological changes. 
Stands of H. paradoxus can change location within the habitat as well 
(Sivinski 1992, p. 125). If a wetland habitat dries out permanently, 
even a large population of H. paradoxus will disappear (Service 1999, 
p. 56582).
    Little is known about the historic distribution of H. paradoxus. 
The plant is associated with spring seeps and desert cienegas, and 
there is evidence these habitats were historically reduced or 
eliminated by aquifer depletion, or severely impacted by agricultural 
activities and encroachment by nonnative plants (Poole 1992, p. 2; 
Sivinski 1995, p. 11). H. paradoxus was known only from a single 
population near Fort Stockton, Pecos County, Texas, when it was 
proposed as a candidate species under the Act on December 15, 1980 (45 
FR 82480). This is a large population of several hundred thousand to 
one million plants at The Nature Conservancy's Diamond Y Spring 
Preserve and a smaller group of plants downstream at a nearby highway 
right-of-way. Between 1980 and 1994, field surveys for this plant found 
additional populations in New Mexico and Texas (Service 1999, p. 
56582). During this period, H. paradoxus was discovered in a second 
Texas site at The Nature Conservancy's Sandia Spring Preserve in the 
Balmorhea area of Reeves County, Texas. In addition, H. paradoxus was 
found at 11 spring seeps and cienegas in the Roswell/Dexter region of 
the Pecos River valley in Chaves County, New Mexico. Three of these 
wetlands support many thousands

[[Page 14330]]

of H. paradoxus, but the remainder are smaller, isolated occurrences. 
Springs and cienegas within and near the town of Santa Rosa in 
Guadalupe County, New Mexico, were found to have eight wetlands with H. 
paradoxus, one of which consisted of a few hundred thousand plants. 
Also discovered were two widely separated areas of spring seeps and 
cienegas in the Rio San Jose valley of western New Mexico, each 
supporting a medium-sized population of H. paradoxus. One occurs on the 
lower Rio San Jose in Valencia County and the other is in Cibola County 
in the vicinity of Grants. After the species was listed, two more 
populations were added to the total number of known populations: (1) A 
very large population near La Joya, in Socorro County, at the 
confluence of the Rio Grande and the Rio Puerco; and (2) a population 
on State lands in Chaves County in a marshy sink (Service 2005, p. 4).

Previous Federal Actions

    H. paradoxus was listed as a threatened species on October 20, 1999 
(64 FR 56582). At the time this plant was federally listed, the Service 
determined that the designation of critical habitat was not prudent 
because we believed publication of critical habitat maps would increase 
the degree of threats to the species by vandalism and commercial 
collection. On September 27, 2005, the Forest Guardians filed suit 
against the Service for failure to designate critical habitat for this 
species (Forest Guardians v. Hall 2005). On March 20, 2006, a 
settlement was reached that requires the Service to re-evaluate our 
original prudency determination. The settlement stipulated that, if 
prudent, a proposed rule would be submitted to the Federal Register for 
publication on or before March 16, 2007, and a final rule by March 16, 
2008. This proposed rule complies with the settlement agreement and 
with section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
    For more information on previous Federal actions concerning H. 
paradoxus, refer to the final listing rule published in the Federal 
Register on October 20, 1999 (64 FR 56582), and the Pecos Sunflower 
Recovery Plan, dated July 2005, prepared by the Fish and Wildlife 
Service.

Critical Habitat

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as--(i) the 
specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at 
the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found 
those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation 
of the species and (II) that may require special management 
considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the 
geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon 
a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of 
the species. Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means 
to use and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to 
bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point at 
which the measures provided under the Act are no longer necessary. Such 
methods and procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities 
associated with scientific resources management such as research, 
census, law enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, 
propagation, live trapping, and transplantation, and, in the 
extraordinary case where population pressures within a given ecosystem 
cannot be otherwise relieved, may include regulated taking.
    Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act 
through the prohibition against destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat with regard to actions carried out, funded, or 
authorized by a Federal agency. Section 7 of the Act requires 
consultation on Federal actions that are likely to result in the 
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. The 
designation of critical habitat does not affect land ownership or 
establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other 
conservation area. Such designation does not allow government or public 
access to private lands. Section 7 of the Act is a purely protective 
measure and does not require implementation of restoration, recovery, 
or enhancement measures.
    To be included in a critical habitat designation, the habitat 
within the area known at the time of listing to be occupied by the 
species must first have features that are essential to the conservation 
of the species. Critical habitat designations identify, to the extent 
known using the best scientific data available, habitat areas that 
provide essential life cycle needs of the species (areas on which are 
found the primary constituent elements (PCEs), as defined at 50 CFR 
424.12(b)).
    Habitat known at the time of listing to be occupied may be included 
in critical habitat only if the essential features thereon may require 
special management or protection. Thus, we do not include areas where 
existing management is sufficient to conserve the species. (As 
discussed below, such areas may also be excluded from critical habitat 
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.) Accordingly, when the best available 
scientific data do not demonstrate that the conservation needs of the 
species require additional areas, we will not designate critical 
habitat in areas outside the geographical area known at the time of 
listing to be occupied by the species. However, an area currently 
occupied by the species but was not known at the time of listing to be 
occupied will likely, but not always, be essential to the conservation 
of the species and, therefore, typically may be included in the 
critical habitat designation.
    The Service's Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered 
Species Act, published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 
34271), and Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658) 
and the associated Information Quality Guidelines issued by the 
Service, provide criteria, establish procedures, and provide guidance 
to ensure that decisions made by the Service represent the best 
scientific data available. They require Service biologists to the 
extent consistent with the Act and with the use of the best scientific 
data available, to use primary and original sources of information as 
the basis for recommendations to designate critical habitat. When 
determining which areas are critical habitat, a primary source of 
information is generally the listing package for the species. 
Additional information sources may include the recovery plan for the 
species, articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans 
developed by States and counties, scientific status surveys and 
studies, biological assessments, or other unpublished materials and 
expert opinion or personal knowledge. All information is used in 
accordance with the provisions of Section 515 of the Treasury and 
General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 
106-554; H.R. 5658) and the associated Information Quality Guidelines 
issued by the Service.
    Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on 
the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available. Habitat 
is often dynamic, and species may move from one area to another over 
time. Furthermore, we recognize that designation of critical habitat 
may not include all of the habitat areas that may eventually be 
determined to be necessary for the recovery of the species. For these 
reasons, critical habitat designations do not signal that habitat 
outside the designation is unimportant or may not be required for 
recovery.

[[Page 14331]]

    Areas that support populations, but are outside the critical 
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to conservation 
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act and to the 
regulatory protections afforded by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy 
standard, as determined on the basis of the best available information 
at the time of the action. Federally funded or permitted projects 
affecting listed species outside their designated critical habitat 
areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some cases. Similarly, 
critical habitat designations made on the basis of the best available 
information at the time of designation will not control the direction 
and substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans, or 
other species conservation planning efforts if new information 
available to these planning efforts calls for a different outcome.

Methods

    As required by section 4(b) of the Act, we used the best scientific 
and commercial data available in determining areas that contain the 
features that are essential to the conservation of H. paradoxus, areas 
that are essential to the conservation of H. paradoxus, or both. In 
designating critical habitat for this species, we reviewed the Final 
Pecos Sunflower Recovery Plan and listing packages for the species, 
articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans developed by 
land managers, scientific status surveys and studies, biological 
assessments, and other unpublished materials, including expert opinion. 
We are proposing to designate habitat that we have determined contains 
the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of 
the species arranged in the quantity and spatial characteristics 
necessary for conservation (see ``Criteria Used To Identify Critical 
Habitat'' section below).
    We have also reviewed available information that pertains to the 
habitat requirements of this species. We reviewed information from 
knowledgeable biologists, including Hirsch 2006, Poole 2006, Sivinski 
2007, and Ulibarri 2006, and reviewed recommendations contained in 
State resource reports. We also reviewed the available literature 
pertaining to habitat requirements, historical localities, and current 
localities of the species in peer-reviewed articles such as Van Auken 
and Bush 1998. We used data in reports submitted during consultations 
under section 7 of the Act and in regional Geographic Information 
System (GIS) data layer coverages. Of particular importance, we 
reviewed databases, published literature, and field notes to determine 
the historical and current distribution of the species. Agency and 
researcher field notes and published literature contained additional 
information on surveys and species' detections, such as in performance 
reports under section 6 of the Act prepared by botanists in New Mexico 
and Texas (Poole 1992, pp. 1-6; Sivinski 1992, pp. 124-126; Sivinski 
1995, pp. 1-11).

Primary Constituent Elements

    In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at 
50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas to propose as critical 
habitat, we consider those physical and biological features (primary 
constituent elements (PCEs)) that are essential to the conservation of 
the species, and within areas occupied by the species at the time of 
listing, that may require special management considerations and 
protection. These include, but are not limited to: (1) Space for 
individual and population growth and for normal behavior; (2) food, 
water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological 
requirements; (3) cover or shelter; (4) sites for breeding, 
reproduction, and rearing (or development) of offspring; and (5) 
habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of 
the historic, geographical, and ecological distributions of a species.
    The specific PCEs required for H. paradoxus are derived from the 
physical and biological features that are essential to the conservation 
of the species, as described below and in the Background section of 
this proposal. We determined the PCEs for H. paradoxus from studies of 
habitat requirements (see ``Background'' and ``Methods'' sections 
above).

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

    H. paradoxus is an annual species that must re-establish 
populations of adult plants each year from seed produced during 
previous years' reproductive efforts. Habitats with suitable alkaline 
soils and perennially wet hydrologic conditions for all of the life 
functions of H. paradoxus are typically small areas around springs and 
ponds. Therefore, populations tend to grow in crowded patches of dozens 
or even thousands of individuals. Solitary individuals may be found 
around the periphery of the wetland, but dense, well-defined stands 
within suitable habitats are more typical. Aggregations of individuals 
may occur in different adjacent areas than the patches of dead stalks 
from the population of the previous year (Sivinski 1992, p. 125). This 
suggests seed dispersal or the presence of a persistent soil seed bank 
(Van Auken 2001). Patch densities and locations are determined by a 
combination of factors, including variations in seasonal soil moisture, 
salinity, oxygen, disturbance, and competing vegetation (Bush 2002, pp. 
1-2; Van Auken and Bush 1995, p. 15; Bush and Van Auken 1997, p. 417).
    Dense stands of H. paradoxus produce smaller, spindly plants, while 
more open stands have larger plants (Service 2005, p. 6). Likewise, 
experiments to remove competing vegetation, such as alkali sacaton 
(Sporobolus airoides) and saltgrass (Distichlis spicata), also produced 
larger H. paradoxus plants with more flowers per plant (Bush and Van 
Auken 1997, p. 417).
    Pollination vectors for H. paradoxus have not been studied. 
However, most plants in the aster family with ray-like flowers, such as 
H. paradoxus, attract a variety of insect pollinators (Service 2005, p. 
7). Seed production is greatly enhanced in H. paradoxus by 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). H. 
paradoxus blooms in the months of September and October. Flowering 
peaks the second week of September in the northern-most New Mexico 
populations. The peak flowering time for the southern-most population 
in West Texas is later in October. Seeds fill and mature during October 
and November and then require a 2- to 3-month after-ripening period 
before germination (Van Auken 2001, p. 157). A few seeds remain dormant 
for longer periods and appear to be insurance for species survival by 
remaining viable in the soil seed bank (Van Auken 2001). The duration 
of seed viability has not yet been studied.

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

    H. paradoxus habitat attributes usually are present in desert 
wetland areas that contain permanently saturated soils in the root zone 
(Service 2005, p. 6). These are most commonly desert springs and seeps 
that form wet meadows called ``cienegas.'' Nevertheless, H. paradoxus 
also can occur around the margins of lakes and creeks (Service 2005, p. 
6). When H.

[[Page 14332]]

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

Primary Constituent Elements for Helianthus Paradoxus

    Pursuant to the Act and its implementing regulations, we are 
required to identify the physical and biological features (PCEs) within 
the geographical area known to be occupied at the time of listing of H. 
paradoxus, that may require special management considerations or 
protections.
    Based on our current knowledge of the life history, biology, and 
ecology of the species and the requirements of the habitat to sustain 
the essential life history functions of the species, we have determined 
that H. paradoxus's PCEs are the desert wetland or riparian habitat 
components that provide:
    (1) Silty clay or fine sand soils that contain high organic 
content, are saline or alkaline, are permanently saturated within the 
root zone (top 50 cm of the soil profile), and have salinity levels 
ranging from 10 to 40 parts per thousand; and
    (2) Low proportion (less than 10 percent) of woody shrub or canopy 
cover directly around the plant.
    Critical habitat does not include manmade structures, such as 
buildings, aqueducts, runways, airports, roads, and other paved areas, 
and the land on which such structures are located within the boundaries 
of a final critical habitat designation that exist on the effective 
date of a final rule.
    This proposed designation is designed for the conservation of PCEs 
necessary to support the life history functions that are the basis for 
the proposal and the areas containing those PCEs. Because all of the 
species' life history functions require all of the PCEs, all proposed 
critical habitat units contain all PCEs.

Special Management Considerations or Protections

    When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the areas 
determined to be occupied at the time of listing and that contain the 
primary constituent elements may require special management 
considerations or protections. Threats to H. paradoxus include drying 
of wetlands from groundwater depletion, alteration of wetlands (e.g., 
wetland fills, draining, impoundment, and development), competition 
from nonnative plant species, overgrazing by livestock during H. 
paradoxus's flowering season, impacts from recreational activities, 
mowing, and highway maintenance.
    We believe each area included in this proposal requires special 
management or protections as described in our unit descriptions below.
    The loss or alteration of wetland habitat continues to be the main 
threat to H. paradoxus. The scattered distribution of cienegas makes 
them aquatic islands of unique habitat in an arid-land matrix 
(Hendrickson and Minckley 1984, p. 169). There is evidence these 
habitats have been historically, and are presently being, reduced or 
eliminated by aquifer depletion, and severely impacted by agricultural 
activities and encroachment by exotic plants (Poole 1992, pp. 1-2; 
Sivinski 1995, p. 11). The lowering of water tables through aquifer 
withdrawals for irrigation and municipal use, diversion of water from 
wetlands for agriculture and recreational uses, and wetland filling for 
conversion to dry land uses destroy or degrade desert wetlands.
    In Grants, New Mexico, H. paradoxus has been observed to occur in 
close proximity to building sites that may have contained suitable 
wetland habitat prior to filling (Service 2005, p. 8). A cienega 
containing H. paradoxus near Dexter, New Mexico, was dried when a 
wellhead was placed on the spring and the water diverted for other uses 
(Service 2005, p. 8). Springs that have fed H. paradoxus habitats have 
been converted to swimming pools and fishing ponds in the towns of 
Roswell and Santa Rosa, New Mexico (Service 2005, p. 8). Groundwater 
withdrawals for agriculture in Pecos and Reeves Counties in Texas have 
had an especially severe impact on desert springs (Service 2005, p. 8). 
Of the 61 historical desert springs in these two counties, only 13 were 
still flowing in 1980 (Brune 1981 in Poole 1992, p. 5). Beginning 
around 1946, groundwater levels fell as much as 400 ft (120 m) in Pecos 
County and 500 ft (150 m) in Reeves County. Groundwater pumping has 
lessened in recent years due to the higher cost of removing water from 
deeper aquifers, but rising water tables and resumption of spring flows 
are not expected (Poole 1992, p. 5). Texas water law provides no 
protection for the remaining springs that support H. paradoxus 
populations on The Nature Conservancy properties, which limits options 
for addressing this threat.
    Livestock will eat H. paradoxus when other green forage is scarce, 
and when the buds are developing and abundant (Service 1999, p. 56587). 
Cattle and horses tend to pull off the flower heads, which can reduce 
seed production (Bush and Van Auken 1997, p. 416). However, well-
managed grazing during non-flowering months may have a beneficial 
effect on H. paradoxus populations by decreasing the density and 
biomass of potentially competing plant species in these habitats. This 
sunflower germinates earlier than most associated plants and grows 
vigorously on wet, bare, highly insolated soils (Service 2005, p. 9). 
Actions that remove shading grass cover, such as grazing, appear to 
enhance growth and reproduction of sunflower plants that are later 
protected from grazing while they are reproductively maturing. 
Therefore, properly managed livestock grazing is not incompatible with 
H. paradoxus conservation. Livestock grazing operations that are not 
managed to protect H. paradoxus occur in populations in the Grants and 
Roswell areas of New Mexico (Service 2005, p. 9).
    The specific threats requiring special management or protections 
are described in the critical habitat unit descriptions below.

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

    We are proposing to designate critical habitat in areas that were 
known at the time of listing to be occupied and that contain sufficient 
PCEs to support life history functions essential for the conservation 
of the species. Lands are proposed for designation based on

[[Page 14333]]

sufficient PCEs being present to support the life history processes of 
the species. All lands contain all PCEs and support multiple life 
processes. We are also proposing critical habitat in areas that were 
not known at the time of listing to be occupied. However, we have 
determined that these areas are currently occupied and are essential to 
the conservation of the species.

Occupancy

    We consider an area to be currently occupied if H. paradoxus was 
found to be present by species experts within the last 2 years (Hirsch 
2006, p. 1; Poole 2006, p. 1; Ulibarri 2006, p. 1; Sivinski 2007, p. 
1).

Stability

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

Essential

    For areas not known to be occupied at the time of listing, the 
Service must demonstrate that these areas are essential to the 
conservation of the species in order to include them in a critical 
habitat designation. The H. paradoxus critical habitat units shown in 
Table 1 in New Mexico and west Texas are sufficiently distant (40 to 
100 miles (mi) (64 to 161 kilometers (km)) from one another to rule out 
frequent gene exchange by pollen vectors or seed dispersal. Therefore, 
we have determined that each of these populations, including any not 
known to be occupied at the time of listing, is essential to the 
conservation of the species because they ensure maintenance of the 
genetic diversity of H. paradoxus. The areas we are proposing for 
critical habitat designation include populations containing all of the 
known remaining genetic diversity within the species that are not 
currently under a management regime that would result in the 
conservation of H. paradoxus. These areas include representation of 
each major subbasin in the known historical range of the species 
(Service 2005, p. 4).
    In summary, this proposed critical habitat designation includes 
populations of H. paradoxus and habitats that possess the physical and 
biological features essential to the conservation of the species. We 
believe the proposal: (1) Maintains PCEs in areas where large 
populations of H. paradoxus are known to occur; (2) maintains the 
current distribution, thus preserving genetic variation throughout the 
range of H. paradoxus and minimizing the potential effects of local 
extinction; (3) minimizes fragmentation within populations by 
establishing contiguous occurrences and maintaining existing 
connectivity; (4) includes sufficient pollinators; and (5) protects the 
seed bank to ensure long-term persistence of the species.

Mapping

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

[[Page 14334]]

that contain sufficient PCEs to support life history functions 
essential for the conservation of the species. Lands are proposed for 
designation based on sufficient PCEs being present to support the life 
processes of the species. We are also proposing critical habitat in 
areas that were not known at the time of listing to be occupied. 
However, we have determined that these areas are currently occupied and 
are essential to the conservation of the species.

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation

    We are proposing five (5) units as critical habitat for H. 
paradoxus. The critical habitat areas described below constitute our 
best assessment currently of areas known at the time of listing to be 
occupied, that contain the primary constituent elements and may require 
special management, and those additional areas that were not known to 
be occupied at the time of listing but were found to be essential to 
the conservation of H. paradoxus. Table 1 shows the areas that were 
known at time of listing to be occupied, those areas that are currently 
occupied, and the threats requiring special management or protections.

                          Table 1.--Threats and Occupancy in Areas Containing Features
                                  Essential to the Conservation of H. Paradoxus
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Threats requiring
       Geographic area/unit           special management    Known to be  occupied at      Currently  occupied
                                        or protections         the time of listing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Unit 1. West-Central New Mexico
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subunit 1a. Rancho del Padre        Water withdrawal,      Yes.......................  Yes.
 Spring Cienega.                     wetland filling and
                                     development,
                                     incompatible
                                     livestock management.
Subunit 1b. Grants Salt Flat        Wetland filling and    Yes.......................  Yes.
 Wetland.                            development,
                                     encroachment by
                                     nonnative
                                     vegetation,incompati
                                     ble 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 Wildlife Management   Encroachment by        No........................  Yes.
 Area.                               nonnative vegetation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Unit 3. Santa Rosa
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subunit 3a. Blue Hole Cienega /     Encroachment by        Yes.......................  Yes.
 Blue 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.......  Next to major road,    No........................  Yes.
                                     water withdrawal,
                                     wetland filling and
                                     development,
                                     encroachment by
                                     nonnative vegetation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Unit 4. Roswell/Dexter
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subunit 4a. Bitter Lake National    Threats on Refuge      Yes.......................  Yes.
 Wildlife Refuge/ City of Roswell    lands have been
 Land.                               addressed by CCP; on
                                     City land, water
                                     withdrawal, wetland
                                     filling and
                                     development,
                                     incompatible
                                     livestock management.
Subunit 4b. Bitter Lake National    Threats have been      Yes.......................  Yes.
 Wildlife Refuge Farm.               addressed by CCP.
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 proposed critical 
habitat unit is shown in Table 2.

[[Page 14335]]



                           Table 2.--Critical Habitat Units Proposed for H. Paradoxus
               [Area estimates reflect all land within proposed critical habitat unit boundaries.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Acres (Hectares) for non-
      Geographic area/unit         Land ownership       inclusion and  proposed      Proposed critical  habitat
                                                               exclusion                  acres  (hectares)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Unit 1. West-Central New Mexico
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subunit 1a. Rancho del Padre     Private and Tribal  .............................  25.5 (10.3)
 Spring Cienega.
Subunit 1b. Grants Salt Flat     Private...........  .............................  62.5 (25.3)
 Wetland.
Subunit 1c. Pueblo of Laguna...  Tribal............  undefined....................  undefined
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Unit 2. La Joya
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
La Joya State Wildlife           State of New        .............................  854.3 (345.7)
 Management Area.                 Mexico.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Unit 3. Santa Rosa
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subunit 3a. Blue Hole Cienega/   State of New        .............................  133.9 (54.2)
 Blue Hole Fish Hatchery Ponds.   Mexico and City
                                  of Roswell.
Subunit 3b. Westside Spring....  Private...........  .............................  6.4 (2.6)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Unit 4. Roswell/Dexter
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subunit 4a. Bitter Lake          U.S. Fish and       3,480 (1408.3)...............  92.2 (37.3)
 National Wildlife Refuge/City    Wildlife Service
 of Roswell Land.                 and City of
                                  Roswell.
Subunit 4b. Bitter Lake          U.S. Fish and       686.2 (277.7)................  0 (0)
 National Wildlife Refuge Farm.   Wildlife Service.
Subunit 4c. Oasis Dairy........  Private...........  .............................  103.9 (42.0)
Subunit 4d. Lea Lake at          State of New        .............................  19.5 (7.9)
 Bottomless Lakes State Park.     Mexico.
Subunit 4e. Dexter Cienega.....  Private...........  .............................  41.4 (16.8)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Unit 5. West Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diamond Y Spring...............  Private...........  .............................  239.7 (97.0)
                                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Acres (Hectares).....  ..................  4,166.2 (3094.3).............  1,579.3 (639.1)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Below, we present brief descriptions of all subunits, and reasons 
why they do or do not meet the definition of critical habitat for H. 
paradoxus (see ``Criteria Used to Identify Critical Habitat'' section 
above).

Unit 1: West-Central New Mexico

    Subunit 1a is located at Rancho del Padre Spring Cienega. This 
subunit is 25.5 ac (10.3 ha) in Cibola County, New Mexico. The subunit 
consists of an area of Rancho del Padre Spring Cienega from the spring 
on the south side of I-40 then northeast approximately 0.5 mi (0.8 km) 
to the Rio San Jose.
    This population consists of large patches of several thousand 
plants on areas owned by two private landowners (22.6 ac (9.1 ha)) and 
the Pueblo of Acoma (2.9 ac (1.2 ha). This site was known to be 
occupied at the time of listing and has been visited or observed from a 
public right-of-way by species experts during four or more seasons. 
These experts have found the site occupied by H. paradoxus on every 
visit (Sivinski 2007a, p. 3). This unit is currently occupied, contains 
all of the PCEs, and is threatened by water withdrawal, wetland filling 
and development, and livestock grazing during H. paradoxus's growing 
and flowering season. Therefore, special management or protections may 
be required to minimize these threats. At this time, we are not aware 
of any management plans that address H. paradoxus in this area.
    In January 2007, we found that the Pueblo of Acoma owned the land 
that contained part of this population. Although we are not aware of 
any management plans that address H. paradoxus in this area, if the 
Pueblo or other landowners request, we will provide technical 
assistance on management of the species and the development of a 
management plan. We will consult with the Pueblo and other landowners 
during the proposal period to evaluate whether these lands should be 
considered for exclusion in the final designation. As such, we may 
consider excluding this area, including lands owned by the Pueblo of 
Acoma, from the final critical habitat designation pursuant to section 
4(b)(2) of the Act (see ``Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act'' 
section below for additional information).
    Subunit 1b is located at Grants Salt Flat Wetland. This subunit is 
62.5 ac (25.3 ha) in Cibola County, New Mexico. The subunit consists of 
an area of wet alkaline playa between railroad tracks and I-40 and west 
of Hwy 122 (Road from Interstate to downtown Grants). Playas are nearly 
level areas at the bottom of undrained desert basins that are sometimes 
covered in water.
    This population consists of large patches of several thousand 
plants mostly on private property. This site was known to be occupied 
at the time of listing and has been visited or observed from a public 
right-of-way by species experts during four or more seasons. These 
experts have found the site occupied by H. paradoxus on every visit 
(Sivinski 2007). This unit is currently occupied, contains all of the 
PCEs, and is threatened by wetland filling and development, 
encroachment by nonnative vegetation, and livestock management not 
compatible with H. paradoxus physiology. Therefore, special management 
or protections may be required to minimize these threats. At this time, 
we are not aware of any management plans that address H. paradoxus in 
this area.

[[Page 14336]]

    Subunit 1c is located at the Pueblo of Laguna. This subunit's 
acreage is undefined in Valencia County, New Mexico. The subunit 
consists of an area along the Rio San Jose, South Garcia, New Mexico.
    At this site, H. paradoxus plants are located in patches at springs 
along the Rio San Jose. Each patch consists of several hundred to 
several thousand plants, and a few scattered plants grow along the 
river (Sivinski 1995, p. 4). The entire site belongs to the Pueblo of 
Laguna. This site was known to be occupied at the time of listing, is 
currently occupied, contains all of the PCEs, and is threatened by 
water withdrawal, encroachment by nonnative vegetation, and livestock 
grazing during the H. paradoxus's growing and flowering season. The 
Pueblo is developing a management plan for H. paradoxus. On the basis 
of this plan and our partnership with the Pueblo of Laguna, we 
anticipate excluding this area from the final critical habitat 
designation pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see ``Application 
of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act'' section below for additional 
information).

Unit 2: La Joya

    Unit 2 is located in the La Joya State Wildlife Management Area. 
This unit is 854.3 ac (345.7 ha) in Socorro County, New Mexico. This 
population is located about 7 mi (11 km) south of Bernardo within 
Socorro County near the confluence of the Rio Grande and the Rio 
Puerco. The La Joya population is bounded to the west by I-25 and to 
the east by the Unit 7 Drain. The north boundary is adjacent to River 
Mile 126 of the Rio Grande and the south boundary is adjacent to River 
Mile 123.
    One of the largest populations of H. paradoxus occurs on the Rio 
Grande at La Joya. This Rio Grande population consists of 100,000 to 
1,000,000 plants and occurs on the La Joya State Waterfowl Management 
Area (Service 2005, p. 4). It is within the La Joya Unit of the Ladd S. 
Gordon Waterfowl Complex. This property is owned by the New Mexico 
State Game Commission. It is managed by the New Mexico Department of 
Game and Fish for migratory waterfowl habitat, which is compatible with 
preservation of wetlands for H. paradoxus.
    This area was not known to be occupied at the time of listing. It 
was discovered in 2004. This site has been found to be occupied every 
year since then by one of the largest populations of H. paradoxus in 
the range of the species (Hirsch 2006, p. 1). This unit is currently 
occupied by a stable population (Blue Earth Ecological Consultants, 
Inc. 2007c, p. 3), contains all of the PCEs, and is threatened by 
encroachment of nonnative vegetation.
    We have determined this site to be essential to the conservation of 
the species because it is currently occupied by a stable, very large 
population of H. paradoxus, and is sufficiently distant (over 40 mi (64 
km)) from other populations to serve as an additional locality that 
contributes to the conservation of genetic variation. This population 
may prevent extirpation of the species resulting from encroachment of 
nonnative species, degradation of habitat, or a catastrophic event 
because it is the sole representative located in an area distinct from 
any other population in the range of the species. As such, it may 
contain genetic variation not found anywhere else in the range of the 
species. Because the water source for this population is very stable, 
this population can be expected to persist in very large numbers every 
year.

Unit 3: Santa Rosa

    Subunit 3a is located at Blue Hole Cienega/Blue Hole Fish Hatchery 
Ponds. This subunit is 127.6 ac (51.6 ha) in Guadalupe County, New 
Mexico. The Blue Hole Fish Hatchery Ponds population of H. paradoxus is 
part of the same population as and nearly contiguous with the Blue Hole 
Cienega in Santa Rosa, New Mexico. The Blue Hole Fish Hatchery Ponds is 
immediately north of Blue Hole Road and the Blue Hole Cienega is 
immediately south.
    This subunit was known to be occupied at the time of listing and 
has been visited by species experts during four or more seasons. These 
experts found the subunit to be occupied by H. paradoxus on every visit 
(Sivinski 2007a, p. 2). This subunit is currently occupied (Blue Earth 
Ecological Consultants, Inc. 2006, p.1), contains all of the PCEs, and 
is threatened by encroachment by nonnative vegetation, wetland filling, 
and park maintenance activities. Therefore, special management or 
protections may be required to minimize these threats. At this time, we 
are not aware of any management plans that address H. paradoxus in this 
area.
    The part of this population at Blue Hole Cienega consists of 
100,000 to 1,000,000 plants and is the largest population of H. 
paradoxus in the upper Pecos River basin. A non-traditional section 6 
grant was awarded to t