Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Ipomopsis polyantha, 18157-18172 [2012-7087]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 59 (Tuesday, March 27, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18157-18172]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7087]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2011-0040: 4500030114]
RIN 1018-AX75


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of 
Critical Habitat for Ipomopsis polyantha (Pagosa skyrocket), Penstemon 
debilis (Parachute beardtongue), and Phacelia submutica (DeBeque 
phacelia)

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Revised proposed rule; reopening of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the 
reopening of the public comment period on the July 27, 2011, proposed 
designation of critical habitat for Ipomopsis polyantha (Pagosa 
skyrocket), Penstemon debilis (Parachute beardtongue), and Phacelia 
submutica (DeBeque phacelia) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, 
as amended (Act). We also announce the availability of a draft economic 
analysis, a draft environmental assessment, and an amended required 
determinations section of the proposal. We also propose to revise 
critical habitat unit boundaries for Ipomopsis polyantha units 2 and 4, 
and for Phacelia submutica units 6, 7, and 9. Finally, we announce some 
potential additional areas being considered for exclusion from critical 
habitat for Penstemon debilis unit 3. We are reopening the comment 
period for the proposal to allow all interested parties an opportunity 
to comment simultaneously on the proposed rule, the associated draft 
economic analysis (DEA), and draft environmental assessment (Draft EA), 
and the amended required determinations section. If you submitted 
comments previously, you do not need to resubmit them because we have 
already incorporated them into the public record and will fully 
consider them in preparation of the final rule.

[[Page 18158]]


DATES: We will consider all comments received or postmarked on or 
before April 26, 2012. Comments submitted electronically using the 
Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES section, below) must be 
received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Search for docket FWS-R6-ES-2011-0040 and then follow the instructions 
for submitting comments.
     U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, 
Attn: FWS-R6-ES-2011-0040; Division of Policy and Directives 
Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, 
Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203.
    We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This 
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide 
us (see the Public Comments section below for more information).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Acting Western Colorado Supervisor, 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Colorado Ecological Services 
Office, 764 Horizon Drive, Suite B, Grand Junction, CO 81506-3946; 
telephone 970-243-2778; facsimile 970-245-6933. Persons who use a 
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal 
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Comments

    We will accept written comments and information during this 
reopened comment period on our proposed critical habitat for Ipomopsis 
polyantha, Penstemon debilis, and Phacelia submutica that was published 
in the Federal Register on July 27, 2011 (76 FR 45078), our DEA of the 
proposed designation, our Draft EA, our amendment of required 
determinations, our proposal to revise critical habitat unit boundaries 
for Ipomopsis polyantha units 2 and 4, and for Phacelia submutica units 
6, 7, and 9, and additional areas being considered for exclusion from 
critical habitat for Penstemon debilis unit 3 provided in this 
document. We will consider information and recommendations from all 
interested parties. We are particularly interested in comments 
concerning:
    (1) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as 
``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
seq.) including whether there are threats to these species from human 
activity, the degree of which can be expected to increase due to the 
designation, and whether that increase in threat outweighs the benefit 
of designation such that the designation of critical habitat may not be 
prudent;
    (2) Specific information on:
    (a) The amount and distribution of Ipomopsis polyantha, Penstemon 
debilis, and Phacelia submutica habitat;
    (b) What areas that are occupied and that contain features 
essential to the conservation of these species should be included in 
the designation and why;
    (c) Special management considerations or protection that may be 
needed in critical habitat areas we are proposing, including managing 
for the potential effects of climate change;
    (d) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential 
for the conservation of these species and why; and
    (e) Means to quantify the amount of natural and human-caused 
disturbance these species prefer or can tolerate.
    (3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the 
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
    (4) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of 
climate change on Ipomopsis polyantha, Penstemon debilis, and Phacelia 
submutica and proposed critical habitat.
    (5) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant 
impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final 
designation; in particular, any impacts on small entities or families, 
and the benefits of including or excluding areas that exhibit these 
impacts.
    (6) Whether any specific areas we are proposing for critical 
habitat designation should be considered for exclusion under section 
4(b)(2) of the Act, especially the Mount Callahan Natural Area, the 
Mount Callahan Saddle Natural Area, newly designated areas at the Mt. 
Logan mine, and other lands owned by OXY USA (Oxy) for Penstemon 
debilis, and whether the benefits of potentially excluding any specific 
area outweigh the benefits of including that area under section 4(b)(2) 
of the Act.
    (7) Information on the extent to which the description of potential 
economic impacts in the DEA is complete and accurate.
    (8) Whether the DEA makes appropriate assumptions regarding current 
practices and any regulatory changes that will likely occur if we 
designate critical habitat.
    (9) Whether the DEA correctly assesses the effect of regional costs 
associated with land use controls that may result from the designation 
of critical habitat.
    (10) Whether the DEA identifies all Federal, State, and local costs 
and benefits attributable to the proposed designation of critical 
habitat, and information on any costs that have been inadvertently 
overlooked.
    (11) Whether the Draft EA adequately presents the purpose of and 
need for the proposed action, the proposed action and alternatives, and 
the evaluation of the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the 
alternatives.
    (12) Whether our approach to designating critical habitat could be 
improved or modified in any way to provide for greater public 
participation and understanding, or to better accommodate public 
concerns and comments.
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning our proposed 
rule or the associated DEA and draft EA by one of the methods listed in 
ADDRESSES.
    If you submit a comment via https://www.regulations.gov, your entire 
comment--including your personal identifying information--will be 
posted on the Web site. If you submit a hardcopy comment that includes 
personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your 
document that we withhold this information from public review. However, 
we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all 
hardcopy comments on https://www.regulations.gov.
    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, DEA, and Draft 
EA, will be available for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment, during normal business hours, 
at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Colorado Ecological Services 
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). You may obtain copies of 
the proposed critical habitat, the DEA, and the Draft EA on the 
Internet at https://www.regulations.gov at docket number FWS-R6-ES-2011-
0040, or at https://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/plants/3ColoradoPlants/, or by mail from the Western Colorado 
Ecological Services Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Background

Previous Federal Actions

    It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to 
the proposed designation of critical habitat for Ipomopsis polyantha, 
Penstemon debilis, and Phacelia submutica. For more information on 
previous Federal actions concerning I. polyantha, P.

[[Page 18159]]

debilis, and P. submutica, refer to the proposed designation of 
critical habitat published in the Federal Register on July 27, 2011 (76 
FR 45078). Approximately 9,641 acres (ac) (3,902 hectares (ha)) are 
being proposed for designation as critical habitat for I. polyantha. 
Approximately 19,155 ac (7,752 ha) are being proposed for designation 
as critical habitat for P. debilis. Approximately 25,484 ac (10,313 ha) 
are being proposed for designation as critical habitat for P. 
submutica. In total, approximately 54,280 ac (21,967 ha) are being 
proposed for designation as critical habitat for the three species. The 
proposed critical habitat is located in Archuleta, Garfield, and Mesa 
Counties, Colorado. The original proposal had a 60-day public comment 
period, ending September 26, 2011. We will submit for publication in 
the Federal Register a final critical habitat designation for I. 
polyantha, P. debilis, and P. submutica on or before the statutory 
deadline of July 27, 2012.
    For additional information on the biology of these species, see the 
July 27, 2011, final rule to list Ipomopsis polyantha as endangered, 
and to list Penstemon debilis, and Phacelia submutica as threatened (76 
FR 45054); as well as the July 27, 2011 proposed critical habitat rule 
(76 FR 45078).
    Section 3 of the Act defines critical habitat as the specific areas 
within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is 
listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or 
biological features essential to the conservation of the species and 
that may require special management considerations or protection; and 
specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at 
the time it is listed upon a determination that such areas are 
essential for the conservation of the species. If the proposed rule is 
made final, section 7 of the Act will prohibit destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat by any activity funded, authorized, or 
carried out by any Federal agency. Federal agencies proposing actions 
that affect critical habitat must consult with us on the effects of 
their proposed actions, under section 7(a)(2) of the Act.

Consideration of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate or revise 
critical habitat based upon the best scientific data available, after 
taking into consideration the economic impact, impact on national 
security, or any other relevant impact of specifying any particular 
area as critical habitat. We may exclude an area from critical habitat 
if we determine that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the 
benefits of including the area as critical habitat, provided such an 
exclusion will not result in the extinction of the species.
    When considering the benefits of inclusion for an area, we consider 
the additional regulatory benefits that area would receive from the 
protection from adverse modification or destruction as a result of 
actions with a Federal nexus (activities conducted, funded, permitted, 
or authorized by Federal agencies), the educational benefits of mapping 
areas containing essential features that aid in the recovery of the 
listed species, and any benefits that may result from the designation 
due to State or Federal laws that may apply to critical habitat.
    When considering the benefits of exclusion, we consider, among 
other things, whether exclusion of a specific area is likely to result 
in conservation; the continuation, strengthening, or encouragement of 
partnerships; or implementation of a management plan. In the case of 
Ipomopsis polyantha, Penstemon debilis, and Phacelia submutica, the 
benefits of critical habitat include public awareness of the presence 
of these species and the importance of habitat protection, and, where a 
Federal action exists, increased habitat protection for these species 
due to protection from adverse modification or destruction of critical 
habitat. In practice, situations with a Federal action occur primarily 
on Federal lands or for projects undertaken by Federal agencies.
    The final decision on whether to exclude any areas will be based on 
the best scientific data available at the time of the final 
designation, including information obtained during the comment period 
and information about the economic impact of designation. Accordingly, 
we have prepared a DEA concerning the proposed critical habitat 
designation, which is available for review and comment (see ADDRESSES).

Draft Economic Analysis

    The purpose of the DEA is to identify and analyze the potential 
economic impacts associated with the proposed critical habitat 
designation for Ipomopsis polyantha, Penstemon debilis, and Phacelia 
submutica. The DEA describes the economic impacts of all potential 
conservation efforts for I. polyantha, P. debilis, and P. submutica. 
Some of these costs will likely be incurred regardless of whether or 
not we designate critical habitat. The economic impact of the proposed 
critical habitat designation is analyzed by comparing scenarios both 
``with critical habitat'' and ``without critical habitat.'' The 
``without critical habitat'' scenario represents the baseline for the 
analysis, considering protections already in place for these species 
(e.g., under the Federal listing and other Federal, State, and local 
regulations). Therefore, the baseline represents the costs incurred 
regardless of whether critical habitat is designated. The ``with 
critical habitat'' scenario describes the incremental impacts 
associated specifically with the designation of critical habitat for 
these species. The incremental conservation efforts and associated 
impacts are those not expected to occur absent the designation of 
critical habitat for these species. In other words, the incremental 
costs are those attributable solely to the designation of critical 
habitat above and beyond the baseline costs; these are the costs we may 
consider in the final designation of critical habitat. The analysis 
looks retrospectively at baseline impacts incurred since these species 
were listed, and forecasts both baseline and incremental impacts likely 
to occur if we finalize the proposed critical habitat designation.
    The DEA provides estimated costs of the foreseeable potential 
economic impacts of the proposed critical habitat designation for 
Ipomopsis polyantha, Penstemon debilis, and Phacelia submutica over the 
next 20 years, which was determined to be the appropriate period for 
analysis because planning information was available for most activities 
to reasonably forecast activity levels for projects for a 20-year 
timeframe. The DEA identifies potential incremental costs as a result 
of the proposed critical habitat designation; these are those costs 
attributed to critical habitat over and above those baseline costs 
attributed to listing. The DEA quantifies economic impacts of 
conservation efforts for Ipomopsis polyantha, Penstemon debilis, and 
Phacelia submutica associated with the following categories of 
activity: (1) Energy development; (2) transportation projects; (3) 
agriculture and grazing; and (4) recreation.
    Because of uncertainty regarding the level and distribution of 
future oil and gas development, the DEA presents a low and high cost 
scenario for baseline and incremental economic impacts. Over the next 
20 years, potential baseline impacts in areas proposed for designation 
are estimated to be $3.85 million to $9.81 million (low and high cost 
scenarios; approximately $340,000 to $866,000 on an annualized basis), 
assuming a seven percent discount rate. Baseline impacts in areas 
considered for

[[Page 18160]]

exclusion are estimated to be $2.36 million. The DEA estimates that 
total potential incremental economic impacts associated with a critical 
habitat designation in areas proposed as critical habitat for all three 
species over the next 20 years will be $967,000 to $14.8 million (low 
and high cost scenarios; approximately $85,300 to $1.3 million on an 
annualized basis), assuming a 7-percent discount rate (Table 1). The 
largest contributor to potential incremental costs is impacts to oil 
and gas development, which represent approximately 90 percent of 
incremental impacts in the low-cost scenario and 99 percent of impacts 
in the high-cost scenario. Impacts to agriculture and grazing, 
recreation, and transportation projects combined represent less than 
ten percent of the incremental impacts in both scenarios analyzed.

  Table 1--Incremental Impacts of Proposed Critical Habitat Designation for Ipomopsis polyantha, Penstemon debilis, and Phacelia submutica by Species,
                                                                   Unit, and Activity
                                                   [2012 dollars, assuming a 7-percent discount rate]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Oil & gas   Oil & gas                  Agriculture                Species   Subtotal -   Subtotal -
      Unit                Unit name           -low-      -high-    Transportation    & grazing  Recreation     mgmt        low-        high-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Areas Proposed for Designation
                                                         Ipomopsis polyantha (Pagosa Skyrocket)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.........................  Dyke..................          $0          $0        $9,370             $0          $0          $0      $9,370       $9,370
2.........................  O'Neal Hill Special              0           0             0              0       7,500           0       7,500        7,500
                             Botanical Area.
3.........................  Pagosa Springs........           0           0         3,330              0           0           0       3,330        3,330
4.........................  Eight Mile Mesa.......           0           0             0              0       7,500           0       7,500        7,500
                           -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Subtotal..............  ......................           0           0        12,700              0      15,000           0      27,700       27,700
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Penstemon debilis (Parachute Beardtongue)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.........................  Brush Mountain........      11,600     195,000             0              0           0           0      11,600      195,000
2.........................  Cow Ridge.............      35,500     599,000             0              0           0           0      35,500      599,000
3.........................  Mount Callahan........      10,900     184,000             0              0       2,130           0      13,000      186,000
4.........................  Anvil Points..........       8,470     143,000             0              0       2,130           0      10,600      145,000
                           -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Subtotal..............  ......................      66,400   1,120,000             0              0       4,250           0      70,600    1,120,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Phacelia submutica (Debeque Phacelia)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.........................  Sulphur Gulch.........      37,300     629,000             0          1,590       1,060           0      39,900      632,000
2.........................  Pyramid Rock..........     627,000  10,600,000             0          1,590       1,060           0     630,000   10,600,000
3.........................  Roan Creek............         398       6,720             0              0           0           0         398        6,720
4.........................  DeBeque...............      13,100     221,000             0          1,590       1,060           0      15,800      224,000
5.........................  Mount Logan...........           0           0             0          1,590       2,130           0       3,720        3,720
6.........................  Ashmead Draw..........      44,700     755,000             0          1,590       1,060           0      47,400      757,000
7.........................  Baugh Reservoir.......      18,200     307,000             0          1,590       1,060           0      20,800      310,000
8.........................  Horsethief Mountain...      60,200   1,020,000             0         43,600       5,820           0     110,000    1,070,000
9.........................  Anderson Gulch........       1,150      19,500             0              0           0           0       1,150       19,500
                           -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Subtotal..............  ......................     802,000  13,500,000             0         53,200      13,300           0     868,000   13,600,000
                           -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total.............  ......................     868,000  14,700,000        12,700         53,200      32,500           0     967,000   14,800,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Areas Considered for Exclusion
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Parachute Beardtongue
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.........................  Mount Callahan........           0           0             0              0           0           0           0            0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding.

    In the low cost scenario, proposed Unit 2 for Phacelia submutica 
has the highest incremental impacts (65 percent of total), followed by 
proposed Unit 8 for P. submutica (11 percent of total) and proposed 
Unit 6 for P. submutica (five percent of total). In the high cost 
scenario, these same three units (proposed Units 2, 8, and 4 for P. 
submutica) have the highest incremental impacts with 72 percent, seven 
percent, and five percent of the total incremental impacts, 
respectively.
    As stated earlier, we are seeking data and comments from the public 
on the DEA and the Draft EA, as well as all aspects of the proposed 
rule and our amended required determinations. We may revise the 
proposed rule or supporting documents to incorporate or address 
information we receive during the public comment period. In particular, 
we may exclude an area from critical habitat if we determine that the 
benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits of including the 
area, provided the exclusion will not result in the extinction of the 
species.

Draft Environmental Assessment; National Environmental Policy Act

    When the range of a species includes States within the U.S. Tenth 
Circuit Court of Appeals, pursuant to the ruling in Catron County Board 
of Commissioners v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 75 F .3d 1429 (10th 
Cir. 1996), we will complete an analysis under the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) (NEPA), on 
critical habitat designations. The range of Ipomopsis polyantha, 
Penstemon debilis, and Phacelia submutica is entirely within the State 
of Colorado, which is within the Tenth Circuit.
    The Draft EA presents the purpose of and need for critical habitat 
designation, the proposed action and alternatives, and an evaluation of 
the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the alternatives under 
the requirements of NEPA as implemented by the Council on Environmental 
Quality regulations (40 CFR 1500 et seq.) and according to the 
Department of the Interior's NEPA procedures.

[[Page 18161]]

    The Draft EA will be used by the Service to decide whether or not 
critical habitat will be designated as proposed; if the proposed action 
requires refinement, or if another alternative is appropriate; or if 
further analyses are needed through preparation of an environmental 
impact statement. If the proposed action is selected as described (or 
is changed minimally) and no further environmental analyses are needed, 
then a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) would be the 
appropriate conclusion of this process. A FONSI would then be prepared 
for the environmental assessment.

Proposed Changes to Critical Habitat Unit Boundaries

    In this document, we are proposing changes to some of the critical 
habitat units that were defined in the July 27, 2011, proposed 
designation of critical habitat for Ipomopsis polyantha, Penstemon 
debilis, and Phacelia submutica. We describe these changes below and 
provide updated critical habitat unit maps in this notice. Maps 
illustrating the changes from the previously proposed unit boundaries 
are available on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov at docket 
number FWS-R6-ES-2011-0040, or at https://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/plants/3ColoradoPlants/.

Ipomopsis polyantha

    We are proposing to modify our proposed critical habitat Units 2 
and 4 for Ipomopsis polyantha based on comments we have received from 
the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and based on field visits made during 
the summer of 2011. Changes in acreage are depicted in Table 2.

                   Table 2--Proposed Changes to Critical Habitat Units for Ipomopsis polyantha
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                             Size of proposed
         Critical habitat unit               Land ownership        Size of original unit         revision
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 2. O'Neal Hill Special Botanical   USFS--San Juan National   784 ac................  564 ac.
 Area.                                   Forest.                  (317 ha)..............  (228 ha).
Unit 4. Eight Mile Mesa...............  USFS--San Juan National   1,180 ac..............  1,146 ac.
                                         Forest.                  (478 ha)..............  (464 ha).
                                       -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total for All Units (Units 1 and 3      ........................  9,894 ac..............  9,641 ac.
 unchanged).                                                      (4,004 ha)............  (3,902 ha).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unit 2. O'Neal Hill Special Botanical Area

    We are proposing to reduce the size of Unit 2, the O'Neal Hill 
Botanical Area from 784 ac (317 ha) to 564 ac (228 ha). We are 
modifying this unit so that the thick pasture grass and riparian areas 
in the bottomlands that do not contain any of the primary constituent 
elements (PCEs) for Ipomopsis polyantha would no longer be included 
(USFS 2011, p. 1). We believe there is still enough area to provide 
protection for pollinators if this site is used as an introduction area 
in the future. This area is unoccupied and is owned by the USFS with 
279 ac (113 ha), or 49 percent of the unit within the O'Neal Hill 
Special Botanical Area that was designated to protect another Mancos 
shale endemic, Lesquerella pruinosa (Pagosa bladderpod). Because L. 
pruinosa is sometimes found growing with I. polyantha, we believe the 
site has high potential for introduction of I. polyantha. Aside from 
the changes described here, the unit description from our proposed 
critical habitat rule still applies (76 FR 45078).

Unit 4. Eight Mile Mesa

    We are proposing to reduce the size of Unit 4, Eight Mile Mesa, 
from 1,180 ac (478 ha) to 1,146 ac (464 ha). We are modifying this unit 
so that isolated patches that are separated from the large contiguous 
potential habitat by roads are not included (USFS 2011, p. 2). These 
isolated patches would not be suitable as potential introduction sites 
in the future because they are small and separated from the large block 
of contiguous habitat by roads. This unit is unoccupied and is owned by 
the USFS. Aside from the changes described here, the unit description 
from our proposed critical habitat rule still applies (76 FR 45078).

Phacelia submutica

    For Phacelia submutica, we are modifying three of the proposed 
critical habitat units, all of which are occupied: Ashmead Draw (Unit 
6), Baugh Reservoir (Unit 7), and Anderson Gulch (Unit 9). Changes to 
the acreages are depicted in Table 3. All three units have been made 
larger. The boundaries of all units were expanded based on 2011 field 
surveys in historical sites and in suitable habitat near these sites 
(Service 2011, pp. 1-12; CNHP 2011, pp. 1-3, spatial data).

                                       Table 3--Proposed Changes to Critical Habitat Units for Phacelia submutica
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Original proposed critical habitat                         Proposed revisions to critical habitat
                              --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Unit No./Unit name                   Land ownership by type                                        Land ownership by type
                              ------------------------------------------------  Size of unit ---------------------------------------------  Size of unit
                                   Federal          State          Private                       Federal         State         Private
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 6. Ashmead Draw.........  1,046 ac (423   ..............  174 ac (71 ha)  1,220 ac (494  1,110 ac (449  .............  166 ac (67     1,276 ac.
                                ha).                                            ha).           ha).                          ha).          (516 ha).
Unit 7. Baugh Reservoir......  19 ac.........  ..............  10 ac.........  28* ac (12     169 ac (68     .............  261 ac (106    430 ac.
                               (8 ha)........                  (4 ha)........   ha).           ha).                          ha).          (174 ha).
Unit 9. Anderson Gulch.......  ..............  173 ac (70 ha)  128 ac (52 ha)  301 ac (122    .............  192 ac (78     149 ac (60     341 ac.
                                                                                ha).                          ha).           ha).          (138 ha).

[[Page 18162]]

 
Total (all other units         21,800 ac       173 ac (70 ha)  3,014 ac        24,987 ac      22,013 (8,908  192 ac (78     3,278 ac       25,484 ac.
 unchanged).                    (8,822 ha).                     (1,220 ha).     (10,112 ha).   ha).           ha).           (1,327 ha).   (10,313 ha).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 23 ac (9 ha) of this 28 ac (12 ha) is still included in Unit 7, Baugh Reservoir.

Unit 6. Ashmead Draw

    We are proposing to increase the size of Unit 6, Ashmead Draw, from 
1,220 ac (494 ha) to 1,276 ac (516 ha). In the spring of 2011, we 
revisited a historical location we had used to delineate the unit in 
our proposed rule and found that the site extended slightly to the east 
of where it was previously mapped (Service 2011, pp. 1-4). To 
accommodate this situation, we are proposing the boundary changes 
described here. The unit comprises both Federal and private lands in 
Mesa County, Colorado. Eighty-seven percent of this unit is managed by 
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The entire unit is within the 
Westwide Energy corridor, and 87 percent is within several grazing 
allotments. This unit is currently occupied. Aside from the changes 
described here, the unit description from our proposed critical habitat 
rule still applies (76 FR 45078).

Unit 7. Baugh Reservoir

    We are proposing to increase the size of Unit 7, Baugh Reservoir, 
from 28 ac (12 ha) to 430 ac (174 ha). In the spring of 2011, we 
revisited the historical location we had used to delineate the unit in 
our proposed critical habitat rule and found that the site was actually 
south of where it was originally mapped. After visiting the site, we 
discovered more suitable habitat in the area than previously known. We 
located two additional sites nearby during subsequent field surveys 
(Service 2011, pp. 5-12). The unit is 61 percent privately owned and 39 
percent owned by the BLM. This unit is currently occupied. Several 
roads run through the unit close to Phacelia submutica sites. The 
entire unit is within the Westwide Energy corridor and one grazing 
allotment. Aside from the changes described here, the unit description 
from our proposed critical habitat rule still applies (76 FR 45078).

Unit 9. Anderson Gulch

    We are proposing to increase the size of Unit 9, Anderson Gulch, 
from 301 ac (122 ha) to 341 ac (138 ha). Surveys during the spring of 
2011 extended the known sites to the north (CNHP 2011, pp. 1-3, spatial 
data). To accommodate this situation, we are proposing the boundary 
changes described here. The unit comprises both State and private lands 
in Mesa County, Colorado. Within the unit, 56 percent of the lands are 
managed by the Colorado Division of Wildlife, within the Plateau Creek 
State Wildlife Area, and 44 percent is private. This unit is currently 
occupied. Aside from the changes described here, the unit description 
from our proposed critical habitat rule still applies (76 FR 45078).

Additional Areas Considered for Exclusion

Penstemon debilis Unit 3. Mount Callahan

    Three of the four viable (large and robust) populations of 
Penstemon debilis are on lands owned by Oxy, all within the proposed 
Unit 3 (Mount Callahan). Conservation of the species cannot occur 
without cooperation from Oxy. P. debilis populations protected through 
Colorado Natural Areas agreements may receive better protection than 
they would otherwise receive through the protections of the Act on 
private lands. Given this, and to facilitate our partnership, in our 
original critical habitat proposal we announced that we would consider 
the exclusion of areas on Oxy lands that are protected under a 
voluntary conservation agreement with the Colorado Natural Areas 
Program (CNAP).
    We are now considering excluding under section 4(b)(2) of the ESA 
additional lands for Penstemon debilis based on the efforts of the 
landowner (OXY) and a potential agreement with CNAP. Oxy is working 
with CNAP to expand their agreement to include the Mt. Logan Mine area 
so that all three viable Penstemon debilis populations on Oxy lands are 
protected (see figure below) (Oxy 2010, pp. 1-6). If designated, we 
also would consider excluding this area. For areas outside these 
Natural Areas, Oxy also is working to develop best management practices 
to protect adjacent habitat and the pollinators found in these adjacent 
habitats. If these best management practices are adequately described 
in their Natural Areas agreement, we also would consider excluding Oxy 
lands that are covered by these best management practices outside of 
suitable habitat (barren cliff areas). If further protections were 
provided for suitable habitat, we would consider this in our decision. 
We do not yet know where the boundaries of the potential Natural Area 
at Mt. Logan Mine would be so we have depicted this area with a 
generalized map. We also have delineated, to the best of our abilities, 
suitable habitat for P. debilis in the map of Unit 3.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 18163]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.127

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

[[Page 18164]]

Nonsubstantive Changes to Sec.  17.12(h)

    In the July 27, 2011, proposed rule, the table entries for the List 
of Endangered and Threatened Plants at Sec.  17.12(h) contained a small 
formatting error. The scientific names for Ipomopsis polyantha and 
Penstemon debilis were presented in Roman type; however, they should 
have been presented in italics. We are correcting this error in this 
revised proposed rule.

Required Determinations--Amended

    In our July 27, 2011, proposed rule (76 FR 45078), we indicated 
that we would defer our determination of compliance with several 
statutes and Executive Orders (EOs) until the information concerning 
potential economic impacts of the designation and potential effects on 
landowners and stakeholders became available in the DEA. We have now 
made use of the DEA data in making these determinations. In this 
document, we affirm the information in our proposed rule concerning 
E.O. 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), E.O. 12630 (Takings), E.O. 
13132 (Federalism), E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the Paperwork 
Reduction Act, E.O. 12866 and E.O. 12988 (Clarity of the Rule), and the 
President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, ``Government-to-Government 
Relations with Native American Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951). 
However, based on the DEA data, we are amending our required 
determinations concerning the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 
et seq.), E.O. 13211 (Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use), and the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as 
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996), whenever an agency must publish a notice of rulemaking for any 
proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public 
comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effects of 
the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small 
organizations, and small government jurisdictions). However, no 
regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of the agency 
certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Based on our DEA of the proposed 
designation, we provide our analysis for determining whether the 
proposed rule would result in a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Based on comments we receive, we 
may revise this determination as part of our final rulemaking.
    According to the Small Business Administration, small entities 
include small organizations, such as independent nonprofit 
organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions, including school 
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 
residents, as well as small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small 
businesses include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 
500 employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, 
retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual 
sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 
million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than 
$11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with 
annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic 
impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the 
types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under the 
rule, as well as the types of project modifications that may result. In 
general, the term ``significant economic impact'' is meant to apply to 
a typical small business firm's business operations.
    To determine if the proposed designation of critical habitat for 
Ipomopsis polyantha, Penstemon debilis, and Phacelia submutica would 
affect a substantial number of small entities, we considered the number 
of small entities affected within particular types of economic 
activities (e.g., energy development, transportation projects, 
agriculture and grazing, recreation). In order to determine whether it 
is appropriate for our agency to certify that this rule would not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities, we considered each industry or category individually. In 
estimating the numbers of small entities potentially affected, we also 
considered whether their activities have any Federal involvement. 
Critical habitat designation will not affect activities that do not 
have any Federal involvement; designation of critical habitat affects 
activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal 
agencies.
    Under the Act, designation of critical habitat only affects 
activities carried out, funded, or permitted by Federal agencies. If we 
finalize the proposed critical habitat designation, Federal agencies 
must consult with us under section 7 of the Act if their activities may 
affect designated critical habitat. Consultations to avoid the 
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat would be 
incorporated into the existing consultation process.
    Some kinds of activities are unlikely to have any Federal 
involvement and so would not result in any additional effects under the 
Act. If there is a Federal action, Federal agencies will be required to 
consult with us under section 7 of the Act on activities they fund, 
permit, or carry out that may affect critical habitat. If we conclude 
in a biological opinion that a proposed action is likely to destroy or 
adversely modify critical habitat, we can offer ``reasonable and 
prudent alternatives.'' Reasonable and prudent alternatives are 
alternative actions that can be implemented in a manner consistent with 
the scope of the Federal agency's legal authority and jurisdiction, 
that are economically and technologically feasible, and that would 
avoid destroying or adversely modifying critical habitat.
    Within the proposed critical habitat designation, the types of 
actions or authorized activities that we have identified as potential 
concerns and that may be subject to consultation under section 7 if 
there is a Federal action includes: Energy development (oil and gas); 
transportation projects; agriculture and grazing; and recreation. As 
discussed in Appendix A of the DEA of the activities addressed in the 
analysis, only oil and gas, transportation, and recreational activities 
are expected to experience incremental, administrative consultation 
costs that may be borne by small businesses.
    Any existing and planned projects, land uses, and activities that 
could affect the proposed critical habitat but have no Federal 
involvement would not require section 7 consultation with the Service, 
so they are not restricted by the requirements of the Act. Federal 
agencies may need to reinitiate a previous consultation if 
discretionary involvement or control over the Federal action has been 
retained or is authorized by law and the activities may affect critical 
habitat.
    In the DEA, we evaluated the potential economic effects on small 
entities resulting from implementation of conservation actions related 
to the proposed designation of critical habitat for Ipomopsis 
polyantha, Penstemon debilis, and Phacelia submutica. Please refer to 
our DEA of the proposed critical habitat designation for a more 
detailed discussion of potential economic impacts; we will summarize 
key points of the analysis below.
    The DEA, and its associated initial regulatory flexibility 
analysis, estimate that total potential incremental

[[Page 18165]]

economic impacts in areas proposed as critical habitat for all three 
species over the next 20 years will be $967,000 to $14.8 million, 
assuming a 7-percent discount rate. The largest contributor to the 
incremental costs is impacts to oil and gas development, which 
represent approximately 90 percent of incremental impacts in the low-
cost scenario and 99 percent of impacts in the high-cost scenario. 
Incremental impacts to oil and gas development range from $868,000 to 
$14.7 million, assuming a 7-percent discount rate. These impacts are 
related to future oil and gas development that occurs in areas greater 
than 100 meters from known Phacelia submutica occurrences and greater 
than 1,000 meters from known Penstemon debilis occurrences. Similar to 
the baseline impacts, the large range in incremental impacts is due to 
uncertainty regarding the level and distribution of future oil and gas 
development.
    Incremental impacts to transportation projects are estimated to be 
$12,700, assuming a 7-percent discount rate. Incremental impacts to 
recreational activities are estimated to be $32,500, assuming a 7-
percent discount rate. The incremental impacts to transportation and 
recreational activities are limited to the administrative cost of 
consultation. Incremental impacts to agriculture and grazing are 
estimated to be $53,200, assuming a 7-percent discount rate.
    Small entities represent 60 percent of all entities in the oil and 
gas development industry that may be affected. The analysis expects 
conservation efforts for the three plants to affect companies that are 
involved with drilling for oil and gas and that lease or plan to lease 
Federal lands. Although we predict that drilling activity will not be 
precluded by the designation, we anticipate requesting that drilling 
companies undertake project modifications to reduce potential impacts 
to the habitat. The costs of implementing these project modifications 
are one impact of the regulation. In addition, affected companies will 
incur administrative costs associated with the section 7 consultation 
process.
    The DEA estimates that between 0.23 and 5.1 projects are undertaken 
in the study area (total number of projects divided by 20 years). We 
multiply these projects by the percentage of small entities in these 
counties, or approximately 60 percent, to identify the annual number of 
projects likely to be undertaken by small entities (0.14 to 3.06 
projects annually). Some of these projects will only incur incremental 
administrative costs because they are located close to existing plants. 
In these cases, the project modification costs will be incurred 
regardless of the designation of critical habitat. Projects 
experiencing the highest annual incremental costs are located in 
unoccupied areas. We multiply the per-project costs in these unoccupied 
areas by the total number of annual projects undertaken by small 
entities and then divide by the number of affected small entities to 
estimate per-entity costs. These impacts are then compared to average 
annual sales per small business in the sector. On average, annual 
incremental impacts per small drilling company represent 0.01 to 0.27 
percent of small developers' annual average sales.
    In summary, less than two to four small entities may be affected 
annually by the proposed rule. These entities will likely experience 
costs equivalent to less than 1 percent of annual revenues. 
Importantly, these estimates assume each well pad is drilled by a 
separate entity. In the case that one small company drills more well 
pads than predicted, impacts to that company are underestimated, and 
the annual number of affected entities is overstated.

Executive Order 13211--Energy Supply, Distribution, and Use

    E.O. 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly 
Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use, requires agencies to 
prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. 
The Office of Management and Budget's guidance for implementing this 
Executive order outlines nine outcomes that may constitute ``a 
significant adverse effect'' when compared to no regulatory action. 
Critical habitat designation for the three plants is anticipated to 
affect oil and gas activities. However, the Service is more likely to 
recommend a series of project modifications that will allow for work 
within critical habitat, rather than complete avoidance of critical 
habitat. Therefore, reductions in oil and natural gas production are 
not anticipated. Furthermore, given the small fraction of projects 
affected, less than one to approximately two per year, project 
modification costs are not anticipated to increase the cost of energy 
production or distribution in the United States in excess of 1 percent. 
Thus, none of the nine threshold levels of impact listed above is 
exceeded. Therefore, designation of critical habitat is not expected to 
lead to any adverse outcomes (such as a reduction in oil and natural 
gas production or distribution), and a Statement of Energy Effects is 
not required.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 
et seq.), we make the following findings:
    (a) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a 
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation 
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal 
governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.'' 
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose 
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal governments,'' with 
two exceptions. First, it excludes ``a condition of federal 
assistance.'' Second, it excludes ``a duty arising from participation 
in a voluntary Federal program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a 
then-existing Federal program under which $500,000,000 or more is 
provided annually to State, local, and Tribal governments under 
entitlement authority,'' if the provision would ``increase the 
stringency of conditions of assistance'' or ``place caps upon, or 
otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's responsibility to provide 
funding'' and the State, local, or Tribal governments ``lack 
authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of enactment, these 
entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families with Dependent 
Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services 
Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, 
Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family Support Welfare 
Services; and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal private sector 
mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an enforceable duty 
upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of Federal assistance; 
or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal 
program.''
    The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally 
binding duty on non-Federal government entities or private parties. 
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must 
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive 
Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require 
approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be 
indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally 
binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of

[[Page 18166]]

critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to 
the extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because 
they receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal 
aid program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor 
would critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement 
programs listed above on to State governments.
    (b) As discussed in the DEA of the proposed designation of critical 
habitat for Ipomopsis polyantha, Penstemon debilis, and Phacelia 
submutica, we do not believe that the rule would significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments because it would not produce a 
Federal mandate of $100 million or greater in any year; that is, it is 
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act. The DEA concludes that incremental impacts may occur due to 
project modifications and administrative costs of consultation that may 
need to be made for oil and gas, transportation, grazing, and 
recreational activities; however, these are not expected to affect 
small governments to the extent described above. Consequently, we do 
not believe that the proposed critical habitat designation would 
significantly or uniquely affect small government entities. As such, a 
Small Government Agency Plan is not required.

References Cited

    A complete list of all references we cited in the proposed rule and 
in this document is available on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov or by contacting the Colorado Ecological Services 
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Authors

    The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the 
Western Colorado Ecological Services Office.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we propose to further amend part 17, subchapter B of 
chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as proposed to 
be amended at 76 FR 45078, July 27, 2011, as follows:

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

    1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.


Sec.  17.12  [Amended]

    2. In Sec.  17.12(h), amend the entries for ``Ipomopsis polyantha'' 
and ``Penstemon debilis'' under ``Flowering Plants'' in the List of 
Endangered and Threatened Plants by removing the words ``Ipomopsis 
polyantha'' and ``Penstemon debilis'' and adding in their place the 
words ``Ipomopsis polyantha'' and ``Penstemon debilis''.
    3. In Sec.  17.96, in paragraph (a), amend the entry for ``Phacelia 
submutica (DeBeque phacelia)'' by revising units 6, 7, and 9, and the 
entry for ``Ipomopsis polyantha (Pagosa skyrocket)'' by revising units 
2 and 4, to read as follows:


Sec.  17.96  Critical habitat--plants.

    (a) Flowering plants.
* * * * *
    Family Hydrophyllaceae: Phacelia submutica (DeBeque phacelia)
* * * * *
    (11) Unit 6: Mesa County, Colorado.
    (i) Land bounded by the following UTM NAD83, zone 13N coordinates 
(E,N): 224560.31, 4351994.12; 224551.61, 4351993.51; 224545.14, 
4351993.94; 224534.23, 4351994.73; 224343.42, 4352006.84; 224341.20, 
4352007.01; 224332.52, 4352007.77; 224315.35, 4352010.79; 224306.93, 
4352013.05; 224298.61, 4352015.67; 224290.55, 4352019.01; 224282.65, 
4352022.70; 224267.56, 4352031.41; 224260.42, 4352036.41; 224253.50, 
4352041.72; 224247.06, 4352047.61; 224240.90, 4352053.78; 224229.70, 
4352067.13; 224224.70, 4352074.27; 224220.01, 4352081.63; 224215.98, 
4352089.37; 224212.30, 4352097.26; 224208.96, 4352105.32; 224206.34, 
4352113.64; 224204.08, 4352122.06; 224201.05, 4352139.23; 224200.29, 
4352147.91; 224199.93, 4352154.95; 224629.91, 4354119.91; 224136.18, 
4355951.10; 224136.42, 4355958.96; 224137.28, 4355966.78; 224138.75, 
4355974.51; 224140.82, 4355982.09; 224143.49, 4355989.49; 224146.73, 
4355996.66; 224167.76, 4356038.72; 224169.66, 4356042.35; 225797.71, 
4358990.45; 225803.34, 4358999.46; 225808.33, 4359006.60; 225819.54, 
4359019.96; 225825.70, 4359026.12; 225832.13, 4359032.01; 225839.05, 
4359037.32; 225846.19, 4359042.32; 225861.29, 4359051.04; 225869.19, 
4359054.72; 225877.25, 4359058.06; 225885.57, 4359060.68; 225893.99, 
4359062.94; 225911.15, 4359065.97; 225919.84, 4359066.73; 225928.55, 
4359067.11; 225937.27, 4359066.73; 225945.95, 4359065.97; 225963.12, 
4359062.94; 225971.53, 4359060.68; 225979.85, 4359058.06; 225987.91, 
4359054.72; 225995.81, 4359051.04; 226010.91, 4359042.32; 226018.05, 
4359037.32; 226024.97, 4359032.01; 226031.40, 4359026.12; 226037.56, 
4359019.96; 226048.77, 4359006.60; 226053.77, 4358999.46; 226058.46, 
4358992.11; 226062.48, 4358984.37; 226066.17, 4358976.47; 226069.51, 
4358968.41; 226072.13, 4358960.09; 226074.38, 4358951.67; 226077.41, 
4358934.50; 226078.17, 4358925.82; 226078.55, 4358917.11; 226078.17, 
4358908.39; 226077.41, 4358899.71; 226075.73, 4358888.22; 224674.17, 
4352093.97; 224672.83, 4352088.29; 224671.70, 4352084.08; 224665.74, 
4352067.70; 224663.89, 4352063.75; 224659.87, 4352056.01; 224655.18, 
4352048.65; 224652.68, 4352045.08; 224647.37, 4352038.16; 224641.48, 
4352031.73; 224638.39, 4352028.65; 224625.04, 4352017.44; 224621.47, 
4352014.94; 224614.11, 4352010.26; 224606.38, 4352006.23; 224602.43, 
4352004.39; 224594.37, 4352001.05; 224585.93, 4351998.98; 224577.53, 
4351996.65; 224568.97, 4351995.03; 224560.31, 4351994.12; and returning 
to 224560.31, 4351994.12.
* * * * *
    (12) Unit 7: Mesa County, Colorado.
    (i) Land bounded by the following UTM NAD83, zone 13N coordinates 
(E,N): 223172.45, 4348678.18; 223164.10, 4348677.06; 223155.69, 
4348676.65; 223147.28, 4348676.96; 223138.92, 4348677.98; 223130.67, 
4348679.70; 223122.61, 4348682.12; 223114.77, 4348685.22; 223107.23, 
4348688.97; 223105.08, 4348690.05; 221446.80, 4349594.77; 221439.42, 
4349599.22; 221432.45, 4349604.28; 221425.95, 4349609.93; 221419.95, 
4349616.11; 221414.51, 4349622.79; 221409.67, 4349629.91; 221405.45, 
4349637.43; 221401.90, 4349645.27; 221399.04, 4349653.40; 221396.88, 
4349661.74; 221395.45, 4349670.23; 221394.76, 4349678.82; 221394.81, 
4349687.43; 221395.60, 4349696.01; 221397.13, 4349704.49; 221399.38, 
4349712.80; 221402.33, 4349720.89; 221405.97, 4349728.70; 221410.27, 
4349736.16; 221415.20, 4349743.23; 221420.72, 4349749.84; 221426.78, 
4349755.96; 221433.35, 4349761.53; 221440.38, 4349766.52; 221528.06, 
4349823.24; 221530.29, 4349824.64; 222690.07, 4350532.12; 222697.89, 
4350536.43; 222706.07, 4350540.02; 222714.53, 4350542.87; 222723.22,

[[Page 18167]]

4350544.95; 222732.06, 4350546.24; 222740.97, 4350546.75; 222749.90, 
4350546.45; 222758.76, 4350545.36; 222767.49, 4350543.49; 222776.02, 
4350540.84; 222784.28, 4350537.44; 222792.21, 4350533.32; 222799.73, 
4350528.51; 222806.80, 4350523.04; 222813.34, 4350516.97; 222819.32, 
4350510.34; 222824.69, 4350503.20; 222829.40, 4350495.61; 222833.41, 
4350487.63; 222836.69, 4350479.32; 222839.22, 4350470.76; 223249.33, 
4348810.93; 223251.95, 4348800.61; 223253.68, 4348792.17; 223254.68, 
4348783.61; 223254.94, 4348774.99; 223254.45, 4348766.39; 223253.22, 
4348757.86; 223251.26, 4348749.46; 223248.58, 4348741.27; 223245.20, 
4348733.34; 223241.15, 4348725.74; 223236.45, 4348718.51; 223231.15, 
4348711.71; 223225.28, 4348705.40; 223218.89, 4348699.62; 223212.02, 
4348694.41; 223204.73, 4348689.82; 223197.07, 4348685.87; 223189.10, 
4348682.60; 223180.87, 4348680.03; 223172.45, 4348678.18; and returning 
to 223172.45, 4348678.18.
* * * * *
    (14) Unit 9: Mesa County, Colorado.
    (i) Land bounded by the following UTM NAD83, zone 13N coordinates 
(E,N): 238464.91, 4347092.87; 238447.55, 4347091.35; 238440.44, 
4347091.83; 238436.82, 4347092.11; 238430.10, 4347092.73; 236172.30, 
4347409.84; 236160.33, 4347412.28; 236156.12, 4347413.40; 236147.80, 
4347416.03; 236139.74, 4347419.37; 236135.79, 4347421.21; 236120.70, 
4347429.92; 236117.13, 4347432.42; 236110.20, 4347437.73; 236103.77, 
4347443.63; 236100.69, 4347446.71; 236089.49, 4347460.06; 236086.99, 
4347463.63; 236082.30, 4347470.99; 236078.27, 4347478.73; 236076.43, 
4347482.68; 236074.59, 4347486.87; 236049.56, 4347547.66; 236045.44, 
4347559.85; 236044.31, 4347564.06; 236042.42, 4347572.58; 236041.28, 
4347581.23; 236040.90, 4347585.57; 236040.90, 4347603.00; 236041.28, 
4347607.34; 236042.42, 4347615.99; 236044.31, 4347624.51; 236045.44, 
4347628.72; 236051.40, 4347645.10; 236053.24, 4347649.05; 236061.96, 
4347664.14; 236064.46, 4347667.71; 236069.77, 4347674.63; 236075.66, 
4347681.07; 236078.74, 4347684.15; 236085.17, 4347690.04; 236092.10, 
4347695.35; 236095.67, 4347697.85; 236110.76, 4347706.57; 236114.71, 
4347708.41; 236131.09, 4347714.37; 236135.30, 4347715.50; 236143.82, 
4347717.39; 236152.47, 4347718.52; 236156.81, 4347718.90; 236160.40, 
4347719.15; 238092.65, 4347818.34; 238097.77, 4347818.47; 238114.80, 
4347817.01; 238597.16, 4347733.65; 238602.61, 4347732.55; 238604.85, 
4347732.03; 238617.20, 4347728.33; 238729.89, 4347686.46; 238741.46, 
4347681.30; 238745.08, 4347679.41; 238748.68, 4347677.43; 238761.06, 
4347668.98; 238778.98, 4347654.68; 238784.95, 4347649.51; 238790.51, 
4347643.88; 238795.59, 4347637.84; 238800.19, 4347631.41; 238804.26, 
4347624.63; 238807.79, 4347617.56; 238809.34, 4347614.11; 238812.48, 
4347606.26; 238814.95, 4347598.18; 238816.72, 4347589.91; 238817.79, 
4347581.52; 238818.15, 4347573.07; 238818.15, 4347568.42; 238817.82, 
4347560.33; 238816.84, 4347552.30; 238815.21, 4347544.37; 238812.95, 
4347536.59; 238810.06, 4347529.03; 238808.51, 4347525.41; 238803.20, 
4347514.80; 238798.23, 4347507.04; 238536.17, 4347136.70; 238531.84, 
4347131.01; 238527.10, 4347125.65; 238521.99, 4347120.64; 238516.54, 
4347116.00; 238510.78, 4347111.77; 238507.54, 4347109.57; 238501.31, 
4347105.66; 238497.71, 4347104.41; 238490.32, 4347100.70; 238482.63, 
4347097.65; 238474.70, 4347095.31; 238470.96, 4347094.36; 238464.91, 
4347092.87; and returning to 238464.91, 4347092.87.
    (ii) Note: Map of Units 6, 7, 8, and 9 of critical habitat for 
Phacelia submutica follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 18168]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.128

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

[[Page 18169]]

* * * * *
Family Polemoniaceae: Ipomopsis polyantha (Pagosa skyrocket)
* * * * *
    (7) Unit 2: Archuleta County, Colorado.
    (i) Land bounded by the following UTM NAD83, zone 13N coordinates 
(E,N): 306219.79, 4143158.27; 306228.72, 4143313.61; 307003.79, 
4143989.39; 307211.97, 4144018.22; 307840.95, 4143816.88; 308210.39, 
4143809.74; 308215.75, 4143886.66; 308293.59, 4143872.46; 308346.60, 
4143847.52; 309004.29, 4143385.20; 309534.52, 4142892.90; 309558.00, 
4142861.72; 309548.26, 4142623.97; 309546.44, 4142621.82; 309498.44, 
4142571.81; 309318.44, 4142432.81; 309132.45, 4142298.80; 309124.45, 
4142295.80; 309054.45, 4142279.80; 309046.45, 4142278.80; 309016.45, 
4142278.80; 308991.49, 4142282.38; 308922.13, 4142364.20; 308858.63, 
4142428.49; 308830.85, 4142479.29; 308822.12, 4142519.77; 308830.05, 
4142563.43; 308856.25, 4142645.19; 308853.87, 4142696.78; 308836.40, 
4142745.99; 308782.18, 4142812.18; 308714.17, 4142804.73; 308676.86, 
4142811.08; 308653.05, 4142836.48; 308626.85, 4142854.74; 308606.22, 
4142884.90; 308539.54, 4142924.59; 308456.99, 4142965.07; 308362.53, 
4142957.92; 308341.10, 4142927.76; 308301.41, 4142926.97; 308278.40, 
4142907.12; 308241.88, 4142909.50; 308220.45, 4142925.38; 308203.78, 
4142965.07; 308185.36, 4142971.60; 308169.65, 4142988.02; 308126.10, 
4143042.28; 308033.92, 4143066.67; 307948.29, 4143076.16; 307909.78, 
4143060.13; 307844.10, 4143097.25; 307829.82, 4143133.66; 307754.15, 
4143153.65; 307732.02, 4143122.24; 307707.74, 4143147.94; 307632.07, 
4143137.23; 307597.80, 4143170.07; 307574.32, 4143187.15; 307556.42, 
4143182.30; 307489.41, 4143186.52; 307474.33, 4143216.69; 307399.12, 
4143231.89; 307363.99, 4143263.52; 307348.91, 4143288.12; 307325.10, 
4143278.60; 307285.41, 4143283.36; 307256.84, 4143311.14; 307229.85, 
4143317.49; 307186.99, 4143286.54; 307149.68, 4143300.82; 307152.86, 
4143331.78; 307128.25, 4143327.02; 307117.93, 4143292.89; 307098.88, 
4143346.07; 307074.40, 4143334.28; 307056.81, 4143323.05; 307037.76, 
4143341.31; 307018.71, 4143328.61; 306995.69, 4143365.91; 306972.34, 
4143356.44; 306943.07, 4143368.01; 306883.21, 4143353.82; 306781.41, 
4143329.68; 306785.35, 4143297.65; 306772.65, 4143280.19; 306771.86, 
4143247.64; 306763.12, 4143238.91; 306678.98, 4143190.32; 306628.81, 
4143188.23; 306534.05, 4143193.11; 306467.85, 4143210.53; 306379.36, 
4143213.32; 306319.43, 4143206.35; 306279.02, 4143188.23; 306253.93, 
4143163.15; 306219.79, 4143158.27; and returning to 306219.79, 
4143158.27.
    (ii) Note: Map of Unit 2 of critical habitat for Ipomopsis 
polyantha follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 18170]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.129

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

[[Page 18171]]

* * * * *
    (9) Unit 4: Archuleta County, Colorado.
    (i) Land bounded by the following UTM NAD83, zone 13N coordinates 
(E,N): 325341.89, 4116396.61; 325387.72, 4117588.25; 326991.87, 
4117571.07; 326986.14, 4116780.45; 328165.61, 4116660.32; 328052.33, 
4116301.10; 327816.85, 4116316.40; 327799.67, 4115921.09; 327392.90, 
4115932.55; 327375.84, 4115058.23; 327212.37, 4115018.58; 327107.67, 
4114981.94; 327017.91, 4114906.40; 326959.34, 4114892.94; 326963.22, 
4115164.85; 326567.91, 4115187.77; 326562.18, 4115588.81; 326172.61, 
4115594.53; 326161.15, 4115204.96; 325777.30, 4115210.69; 325576.78, 
4115199.23; 325737.20, 4115554.43; 325754.39, 4115795.05; 325668.45, 
4115886.72; 325324.70, 4115995.57; 325341.89, 4116396.61; and returning 
to 325341.89, 4116396.61.
    (ii) Note: Map of Units 3 and 4 of critical habitat for Ipomopsis 
polyantha follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 18172]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27MR12.130

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
* * * * *

    Dated: March 15, 2012.
Eileen Sobeck,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2012-7087 Filed 3-26-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P