Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Helianthus Paradoxus (Pecos Sunflower), 17762-17807 [E8-5811]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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



[[Page 17761]]

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

Part III





Department of the Interior





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



Fish and Wildlife Service



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



50 CFR Part 17



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

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

[[Page 17762]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

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


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

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

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

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

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

Previous Federal Actions

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

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

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

Peer Review

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

Peer Reviewer Comments

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

[[Page 17763]]

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

Comments From the Public

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

[[Page 17764]]

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

[[Page 17765]]

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

Comments Related to the Draft Economic Analysis

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

[[Page 17766]]

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

Comments From the State

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

Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule

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

Critical Habitat

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

[[Page 17767]]

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

Primary Constituent Elements

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

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

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

[[Page 17768]]

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

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

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

Primary Constituent Elements for Helianthus paradoxus

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

Special Management Considerations or Protections

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

[[Page 17769]]

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

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

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

Occupancy

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

Stability

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

Essential Areas

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

[[Page 17770]]

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

Mapping

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

Final Critical Habitat Designation

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

      Table 1.--Threats and Occupancy in Areas Containing Physical and Biological Features Essential to the
                                      Conservation of Helianthus paradoxus
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------