[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 202 (Wednesday, October 20, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 56582-56590]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-27186]



[[Page 56581]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part II





Department of the Interior





_______________________________________________________________________



Fish and Wildlife Service



_______________________________________________________________________



50 CFR Part 17



Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing Helianthus 
paradoxus (Pecos Sunflower), Devils River Minnow and Astragalus 
desereticus (Deseret milk-vetch) as Threatened; Final Rules

  Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 20, 1999 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 56582]]



DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AE88


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of 
Threatened Status for the Plant Helianthus paradoxus (Pecos Sunflower)

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) determine 
Helianthus paradoxus (Pecos or puzzle sunflower) to be a threatened 
species under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended (Act). This species is dependent on desert wetlands for its 
survival. It is known from 22 sites in Cibola, Valencia, Guadalupe, and 
Chaves counties, New Mexico, and from 3 sites in Pecos and Reeves 
counties, Texas. Threats to this species include drying of wetlands 
from groundwater depletion, alteration of wetlands (e.g. wetland fills, 
draining, impoundment construction), competition from non-native plant 
species, excessive livestock grazing, mowing, and highway maintenance. 
This rule implements the Federal protection and recovery programs of 
the Act for this plant.

DATES: This rule is effective November 19, 1999.

ADDRESSES: The complete file for this rule is 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charlie McDonald, Botanist, at the 
above address (telephone 505-346-2525 ext. 112; facsimile 505-346-
2542).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Dr. S.W. Woodhouse, physician and naturalist, was the first person 
to collect Pecos sunflower on August 26, 1851, while on the Sitgreaves 
expedition to explore the Zuni River and the Lower Colorado. The 
location was given as ``Nay Camp, Rio Laguna'' (Sitgreaves 1853). The 
collection site is probably located somewhere near the Rio Laguna (now 
called the Rio San Jose) between Laguna Pueblo and Bluewater in Cibola 
County, New Mexico. Dr. John Torrey, a botanical expert at the New York 
Botanical Garden, identified this specimen as Helianthus petiolaris 
(prairie sunflower) (Sitgreaves 1853). It was not until 1958 that Dr. 
Charles Heiser named Helianthus paradoxus as a new species citing two 
known specimens, the type specimen collected September 11, 1947, by 
H.R. Reed west of Fort Stockton in Pecos County, Texas, and the 
Woodhouse specimen collected in New Mexico (Heiser 1958).
    Heiser's (1965) hybridization studies helped resolve doubts about 
the validity of Pecos sunflower as a true species. Prior to Heiser's 
studies there was some speculation the plant was a hybrid between 
Helianthus annuus (common sunflower) and the prairie sunflower. 
Heiser's studies demonstrated that Pecos sunflower is a fertile plant 
that breeds true. Heiser was able to produce hybrids between Pecos 
sunflower and both common sunflower and prairie sunflower, but these 
hybrids were of low fertility. These results support the validity of 
Pecos sunflower as a true species. In 1990, Rieseberg et al. published 
the results of molecular tests on the hypothesized hybrid origin of 
Pecos sunflower, using electrophoresis to test enzymes and restriction-
fragment analysis to test ribosomal and chloroplast DNA. This work 
identified Pecos sunflower as a true species of ancient hybrid origin 
with the most likely hybrid parents being common sunflower and prairie 
sunflower.
    Pecos sunflower is an annual member of the sunflower family 
(Asteraceae). It grows 1.3-2.0 meters (m) (4.25-6.5 feet (ft)) tall and 
is branched at the top. The leaves are opposite on the lower part of 
the stem and alternate at the top. The leaves are lance-shaped with 
three prominent veins, and up to 17.5 centimeters (cm) (6.9 inches 
(in)) long by 8.5 cm (3.3 in) wide. The stem and leaf surfaces have a 
few short stiff hairs. The flower heads are 5.0-7.0 cm (2.0-2.8 in) in 
diameter with bright yellow rays. Flowering is from September to 
November. Pecos sunflower looks much like the common sunflower seen 
along roadsides throughout the west, but differs from common sunflower 
in having narrower leaves, fewer hairs on the stems and leaves, 
slightly smaller flower heads, and flowers later.
    Pecos sunflower grows in permanently saturated soils. Areas with 
these conditions are most commonly desert wetlands (cienegas) 
associated with springs, but may also include stream and lake margins. 
When plants grow around lakes, the lakes are usually impounded natural 
cienega habitats. Plants commonly associated with Pecos sunflower 
include Limonium limbatum (Transpecos sealavender), Samolus cuneatus 
(limewater brookweed), Flaveria chloraefolia, Scirpus olneyi (Olney 
bulrush), Phragmites australis (common reed), Distichlis sp. 
(saltgrass), Sporobolus airoides (alkali sacaton), Muhlenbergia 
asperifolia (alkali muhly), Juncus mexicanus (Mexican rush), Suaeda 
calceoliformis (Pursh seepweed), and Tamarix spp. (saltcedar) (Poole 
1992, Sivinski 1995). All of these species are good indicators of 
saline soils. Van Auken and Bush (1995) did studies that show Pecos 
sunflower grows in saline soils, but seeds germinate and establish best 
when high water tables reduce salinities near the soil's surface.
    Until 1990, Pecos sunflower was known from only three extant sites. 
Two sites were in Pecos County, Texas, and one site was in Chaves 
County, New Mexico (Seiler et al. 1981). Searches of suitable habitats 
in Pecos, Reeves, and Culbertson counties, Texas, during 1991 failed to 
locate any new Texas sites (Poole 1992). However, searches in New 
Mexico from 1991 through 1994 located a significant number of new sites 
(Sivinski 1995). In Texas one new site was reported in 1998 (Kargas 
1998).
    Pecos sunflower is presently known from 25 sites that occur in 5 
general areas. These areas are Pecos and Reeves counties, Texas, in the 
vicinity of Fort Stockton and Balmorhea; Chaves County, New Mexico, 
from Dexter to just north of Roswell; Guadalupe County, New Mexico, in 
the vicinity of Santa Rosa; Valencia County, New Mexico, along the 
lower part of the Rio San Jose; and Cibola County, New Mexico, in the 
vicinity of Grants. There are 3 sites in the Fort Stockton-Balmorhea 
area, 11 in the Dexter to Roswell area, 8 in the Santa Rosa area, 1 
along the lower Rio San Jose, and 2 in the Grants area.
    Most of the Pecos sunflower sites are limited to less than 2.0 
hectares (ha) (5.0 acres (ac)) of wetland habitat with some being only 
a fraction of a hectare. Two sites, one near Fort Stockton and one near 
Roswell, are considerably more extensive. The number of plants per site 
varies from less than 100 to several hundred thousand for the 2 more 
extensive sites. Because Pecos sunflower is an annual, the number of 
plants per site can fluctuate greatly from year to year with changes in 
water conditions. Pecos sunflower is totally dependent on the 
persistence of its wetland habitat for even large populations will 
disappear if the wetland dries out.
    Various Federal, State, Tribal, municipal, and private interests 
own and manage the Pecos sunflower sites. Managing Federal agencies 
include the Service, Bureau of Land Management,

[[Page 56583]]

and National Park Service. Plants are located on one New Mexico State 
park. Plants are located on municipal property within the cities of 
Roswell and Santa Rosa. The Laguna Indian Tribe owns and manages one 
site. Seven different private individuals or organizations own sites or 
parts of sites. Some plants grow on State or Federal highway rights-of-
way.
    Five sites are on property managed principally for wildlife and 
endangered species conservation. Two major sites are on Bitter Lake 
National Wildlife Refuge near Roswell, New Mexico. The refuge has a 
series of 6 spring-fed impoundments totaling about 300 ha (750 ac). 
These impoundments are managed with high water levels in winter 
followed by a spring and summer drawdown that simulates a natural water 
cycle. This regime provides abundant habitat for Pecos sunflower that 
grows in almost solid stands at the edge of some impoundments. There is 
a small site with less than 100 plants on Dexter National Fish Hatchery 
near Dexter, New Mexico. Plants first appeared here several years ago 
after saltcedar was removed to restore a wetland.
    The Nature Conservancy of Texas owns and manages two sites, one 
near Fort Stockton, Texas, and the other near Balmorhea, Texas. Large 
desert springs are the principal features of both preserves. The spring 
near Fort Stockton harbors two species of endangered fish and three 
species of endemic snails, plus a large Pecos sunflower population that 
extends for about 1.2 kilometers (km) (0.75 miles (mi)) along the 
spring run. Two springs near Balmorhea, purchased in 1997, harbor a 
species of endangered fish and a population of several thousand Pecos 
sunflowers (Karges 1998).
    The loss or alteration of wetland habitats is the main threat to 
Pecos sunflower. The lowering of water tables through aquifer 
withdrawals for irrigated agriculture; diversion of water from wetlands 
for irrigation, livestock, or other uses; wetland filling; and invasion 
of saltcedar and other non-native species continues to destroy or 
degrade desert wetlands. Mowing of some municipal properties and 
highway rights-of-way regularly destroys some plants. Livestock will 
eat Pecos sunflowers, particularly if other green forage is scarce. 
There was some unregulated commercial sale of Pecos sunflowers in the 
past and some plant collection for breeding programs to improve 
commercial sunflowers. Pecos sunflower will naturally hybridize with 
common sunflower. There is concern about the extent to which 
backcrosses from hybrids could affect the genetic integrity of small 
Pecos sunflower populations.

Previous Federal Action

    Federal government actions on Pecos sunflower began with section 12 
of the Act, which directed the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution 
to prepare a report on plants considered to be endangered, threatened, 
or extinct in the United States. The presentation of this report, 
designated as House Document No. 94-51, occurred on January 9, 1975. On 
July 1, 1975, we published a notice in the Federal Register (40 FR 
27823) accepting the report as a petition within the context of section 
4(c)(2) (now section 4(b)(3)(A)) of the Act and announcing our intent 
to review the status of the plants in the report. As a consequence of 
this review, we published a proposed rule in the Federal Register on 
June 16, 1976 (41 FR 24523), to designate approximately 1,700 vascular 
plants as endangered species. A final rule on the proposal had not been 
published in 1978 when new amendments to the Act required that all 
proposals over 2 years old be withdrawn with a 1-year grace period 
provided for proposals already over 2 years old. We published a Federal 
Register notice on December 10, 1979 (44 FR 70796), withdrawing the 
June 16, 1976, proposed rule in addition to four other previously 
expired proposals.
    On December 15, 1980 (45 FR 82480), we published an updated notice 
of review of plants being considered for endangered or threatened 
designation. This notice included Helianthus paradoxus as a category 1 
species, which are those species for which we had on file substantial 
information on biological vulnerability and threats to support 
proposals to designate them as endangered or threatened. We retained 
Helianthus paradoxus as a category 1 species in subsequent notice of 
review of plants published in the Federal Register on September 27, 
1985 (50 FR 39526), February 21, 1990 (55 FR 6184), and September 30, 
1993 (58 FR 51143). Beginning with our February 28, 1996, candidate 
notice of review (61 FR 7596), we discontinued the designation of 
multiple categories of candidates, and only those taxa meeting the 
definition of former category 1 candidates are now considered 
candidates for listing purposes. We retained Helianthus paradoxus as a 
candidate species in our September 19, 1997, candidate notice of review 
(62 FR 49398).
    Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act requires the Secretary to make 
findings on pending petitions within 12 months of their receipt. 
Section 2(b)(1) of the 1982 amendments further requires that all 
petitions pending on October 13, 1982, be treated as though they were 
newly submitted on that date. This was the case for Helianthus 
paradoxus because of the acceptance of the 1975 Smithsonian report as a 
petition. On October 13, 1983, we made a petition finding that the 
listing of Helianthus paradoxus was warranted, but precluded by other 
pending listing actions, in accordance with section 4(b)(3)(B)(iii) of 
the Act. Notice of this finding was published on January 20, 1984 (49 
FR 2485). A warranted but precluded finding requires that the petition 
be recycled pursuant to section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act. This finding 
was reviewed annually from 1984 through 1997. Publication of a proposed 
rule in the Federal Register on April 1, 1998 (63 FR 15808), to 
designate Helianthus paradoxus as a threatened species constituted the 
final 1-year finding for the petitioned action.
    On June 15, 1998, we published a notice in the Federal Register (63 
FR 32635) announcing the reopening the comment period and the location 
of public hearings on the proposal. We held public hearings on July 8, 
9, and 13, 1998.
    The processing of this final rule conforms with our Listing 
Priority Guidance for Fiscal Years 1998 and 1999, published on May 8, 
1998 (63 FR 25502). The guidance clarifies the order in which we will 
process rulemakings giving highest priority (Tier 1) to processing 
emergency rules to add species to the Lists of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists); second priority (Tier 2) to 
processing final determinations on proposals to add species to the 
Lists, processing new listing proposals, processing administrative 
findings on petitions (to add species to the Lists, delist species, or 
reclassify listed species), and processing a limited number of proposed 
and final rules to delist or reclassify species; and third priority 
(Tier 3) to processing proposed and final rules designating critical 
habitat. Processing this final rule is a Tier 2 action.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    In our April 1, 1998, proposed rule and associated notifications, 
we solicited interested parties to submit factual reports or 
information to contribute to the development of a final rule. In 
addition, contacts were made and we solicited comments from appropriate 
State and Federal agencies and representatives, Tribal governments, 
county governments,

[[Page 56584]]

municipal governments, scientific organizations, and other interested 
parties. We published legal notices soliciting comments in five 
newspapers--Albuquerque Journal on April 6, 1998, Cibola County Beacon, 
Grants, New Mexico, on April 8, 1998, Santa Rosa News on April 8, 1998, 
Roswell Daily Record on April 6, 1998, and The Pioneer, Fort Stockton, 
Texas, on April 8, 1998. In response to these notices we received 
several requests for a public hearing. On June 15, 1998 (63 FR 32635), 
we published a notice in the Federal Register announcing the dates and 
times for three scheduled public hearings, and notifying the public of 
the extension of the comment period until August 13, 1998. Newspaper 
notices announcing the public hearings and extended comment period 
appeared in the five newspapers listed above between June 24 and 26, 
1998.
    We received 14 written comments on the proposal. Seven commentors 
supported the proposed listing; these included two peer reviewers who 
also provided pertinent information included within this final rule, 
two State agencies, and three individuals. Seven commentors opposed the 
proposed listing; these included one State agency, one Indian Tribe, 
two private organizations, and three individuals.
    We received requests to hold a public hearing requests from the New 
Mexico Farm and Livestock Bureau; New Mexico County Farm and Livestock 
Bureaus in Colfax, Cibola-McKinley, and Santa Fe counties; Production 
Credit Association of New Mexico; Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers 
Association; and Davis Mountains Trans-Pecos Heritage Association. We 
held hearings on the proposed rule on July 8, 9, and 13, 1998, at Fort 
Stockton, Texas; Roswell, New Mexico; and Grants, New Mexico at which a 
total of 34 people attended. Of the five oral statements presented at 
the hearings, one statement supported the listing, two opposed the 
listing, and two were neutral.
    The following summary contains our response to the written comments 
we received during the comment period and to oral statements made 
during the public hearings. Comments on a similar topic are grouped by 
general issues.
    Issue 1: Survey efforts were inadequate to find all Pecos sunflower 
populations. Because Pecos sunflower is a species of hybrid origin, 
survey efforts should encompass the entire range where the two parental 
species overlap, which includes the plains region from Canada to 
Mexico.
    Response: The sunflowers are in a large genus with species 
distributed throughout North America. The taxonomy and distribution of 
these species has always attracted considerable interest, particularly 
the annual species most closely related to commercial sunflowers. Dr. 
Charles Heiser and his colleagues thoroughly investigated the annual 
sunflowers, examining thousands of specimens from 41 herbaria in the 
United States and Canada (Heiser et al. 1969). They found no specimens 
of Pecos sunflower other than those from near Fort Stockton, Texas, and 
the Rio San Jose in New Mexico. Other investigators such as Dr. Gerald 
Seiler of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Dr. R.C. Jackson of Texas 
Tech University, and Dr. Loren Rieseberg of Indiana University studied 
sunflowers throughout North America for years without finding Pecos 
sunflower beyond its present known range. Our present knowledge of the 
distribution and abundance of Pecos sunflower relies, in part, on the 
work of these earlier investigators.
    The Pecos sunflower is a large plant with bright yellow flowers 
that often grows in patches of thousands. Because its habitat is very 
specific and limited, it is unlikely that significant populations still 
remain unsurveyed after recent intensive efforts to survey for this 
species. However, even if other populations are found, they are likely 
to be subject to the same threats as the known populations.
    Issue 2: Listing is unwarranted until a determination is made 
regarding the species' population ecology, pollinators, seed 
dispersers, seed viability, seed germination, and seed bank.
    Response: While a comprehensive understanding of the life history 
and ecology of a species is useful when available, that level of 
knowledge is not required for listing. Listing a species as threatened 
or endangered is based on the five factors given in section 4(a)(1) of 
the Act. These factors and their application to Pecos sunflower are 
discussed in the ``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species'' section 
of this final rule.
    Issue 3: Evidence indicates that Pecos sunflower has always been a 
rare species with numbers that fluctuate with yearly water conditions. 
There is no documentation that the species is either significantly 
increasing or declining in the region as a whole. Listing is 
unwarranted until a determination is made on the status of the species.
    Response: Declines in rare plant species can be difficult to 
document when there are relatively few historical collections and the 
localities provided with the specimens are imprecise. However, several 
of the specimens collected in Pecos County, Texas, strongly indicate 
Pecos sunflower once grew in places where it no longer occurs. The site 
11 kilometers (or 7 miles (mi)) west of Fort Stockton where the type 
specimen (location of the population from which the plant was first 
described as a species) was collected in 1947 was reported to still 
have a remnant population in 1980 (Seiler et al. 1981), but since that 
time there are no reported findings of Pecos sunflowers. A specimen 
from ``Fort Stockton'' collected in 1943, is thought to be from around 
Comanche Springs, which is now dry and incapable of supporting Pecos 
sunflower. Although there is a reported collection from Escondido Creek 
occurring in the 1800s, the springs feeding this creek have been dry 
for many years, are no longer suitable habitat, and are no longer 
marked on topographic maps. One of the public hearing attendees who 
ranches in the Diamond Y area gave his recollection from 1949 of seeing 
a continuous stand of Pecos sunflowers along the then spring-fed draw 
(natural drainage basin) that runs into Diamond Y draw. The draw is now 
dry except for intermittent flows and Pecos sunflowers are absent.
    These records and statements provide good evidence the distribution 
and abundance of Pecos sunflower has declined in West Texas with the 
loss of spring-fed wetlands. The collection record is inadequate to 
document similar declines in New Mexico, but they are likely due to the 
alteration and loss of wetlands.
    Issue 4: There is no data indicating that livestock grazing is 
contributing to the decline of this species. The population on private 
land at Diamond Y Spring is grazed showing Pecos sunflower can co-exist 
with grazing.
    Response: In the proposed rule we identified livestock gazing as a 
threat to Pecos sunflower by stating, ``Livestock will eat Pecos 
sunflowers, particularly when other green forage is scarce.'' In the 
only study of grazing effects on the species, Bush and Van Auken (1997) 
found no significant differences between plants inside and outside 
cattle exclosures during a 1-year study. However, they are also careful 
to note that ``This experiment was completed during a relatively wet 
year, and perhaps there was enough forage available for the herbivores. 
In subsequent years during times of drought, we have observed severe 
herbivory of H. paradoxus and extreme differences in the stem length 
and

[[Page 56585]]

number of flowers (unpublished). Therefore, the effects of large 
grazers of H. paradoxus may be dependent on the availability of 
moisture and its effects on the grazers preferred forage plants.'' This 
agrees with our (the Service's) observations of grazing on Pecos 
sunflower. It is possible to have grazing at Pecos sunflower 
populations, as evidenced by the Diamond Y Spring site, but good 
grazing management is still needed to prevent or reduce damage to the 
populations.
    Issue 5: In addition to grazing by livestock, consider the effects 
of predation from wildlife species and insects. Additional studies are 
needed to determine elk damage to riparian areas in New Mexico.
    Response: Although we have not seen significant wildlife or insect 
predation on Pecos sunflower, such impacts are possible. Insects and 
their damage to maturing seeds can go undetected because the plants may 
otherwise appear perfectly normal. Elk in New Mexico usually occur at 
much higher elevations than the Pecos sunflower populations.
    Issue 6: Pecos sunflower can survive periods of natural drought. 
Threats associated with problem years having little or no rainfall 
should be attributed to natural causes.
    Response: We agree droughts occur naturally and contribute to poor 
growing conditions for Pecos sunflower during some years. We consider 
natural factors affecting the species under Factor E of the ``Summary 
of Factors Affecting the Species'' section of this final rule. The Act 
directs us to consider both natural factors and human-caused threats in 
determining whether a species is endangered or threatened.
    Issue 7: The statement that Pecos sunflowers grow on the dams of 
man-made impoundments appears to contradict the statement that the 
species is dependent on wetlands.
    Response: We acknowledge that the statement that Pecos sunflowers 
plants grow on dams does need some clarification. Plants found on dams 
grow in saturated soils either at the shoreline or where there is 
seepage through the dam. Pecos sunflowers do not grow on the dry upland 
portion of a dam.
    Issue 8: The focus on the loss of natural wetlands appears 
misplaced, especially when one of the largest known populations 
occupies created wetlands at Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge.
    Response: Our discussion emphasizes the loss of natural wetlands 
because these losses exceed the rate of wetland creation. The wetlands 
created at Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge simply replace former 
natural spring-fed wetlands and still rely on those springs for water. 
There is a high probability that Pecos sunflowers grew around the 
springs before the refuge impoundments were built.
    Issue 9: Hybridization is a natural event and should not be 
considered a threat.
    Response: Hybridization between Pecos sunflower and common 
sunflower may not be a totally natural occurrence. Substantial 
increases in the habitat of common sunflower can result from human land 
disturbances and the construction of road ditches. These disturbances 
have made it possible for common sunflower to grow much closer to Pecos 
sunflower than was possible in the past. Because of concerns about 
hybridization, personnel from the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 
have been removing common sunflowers from the road ditches near the 
Pecos sunflower population at Texas Highway 18 north of Fort Stockton. 
Even if such hybridization was completely natural, we still must 
consider the effects of Pecos sunflower potentially hybridizing with 
other species under Factor E of the ``Summary of Factors Affecting the 
Species'' section of this final rule.
    Issue 10: Because listing may increase collecting and vandalism 
through heightened attention to the species and because Pecos 
sunflowers will not be protected from collecting or destruction on 
private lands, listing will increase risks to the species rather than 
reducing them.
    Response: We believe the conservation measures for listed species 
described in the ``Available Conservation Measures'' section of this 
final rule greatly outweigh any risks associated with listing. We are 
also minimizing those potential risks through our ``not prudent'' 
finding for the designation of critical habitat (see discussion under 
Critical Habitat, below) and through outreach and education directed 
towards individual private landowners.
    Issue 11: Listing is not warranted because other management and 
protection measures are already removing threats to the species 
including: protective management on The Nature Conservancy's preserves 
and Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge, the presence of several 
federally listed fish species at some sites that already serve to 
protect the essential habitat, protection in New Mexico through State 
listing, a management agreement between the Texas Department of 
Transportation and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department for the 
population on Texas Highway 18, and various Federal agency policies 
that protect candidate species.
    Response: While these measures are important for conservation, the 
threats to the species have not been reduced or removed so that listing 
is no longer necessary. We find that enough Pecos sunflower populations 
lack sufficient protection to warrant listing the species as 
threatened.
    Issue 12: There are many conservation measures for Pecos sunflower 
that can be implemented without the need for Federal listing and these 
measures would be more effective than the protections provided under 
the Act. These include: State listing in Texas under chapter 88 of the 
Texas Parks and Wildlife Code; funding to hire a botanist to do 
surveys, develop a conservation strategy, and work with local 
landowners; horticultural propagation of Pecos sunflowers for 
introduction into unoccupied suitable habitats; purchase of lands 
through the New Mexico Natural Lands Protection Act or the Federal Land 
and Water Conservation Fund; development of a regional water plan for 
West Texas through recently passed State legislation; and conservation 
in the Rio Puerco watershed in New Mexico through a recently funded 
multi-agency watershed initiative.
    Response: We must base our listing determinations on current 
threats. For example, the general obligation bond to provide funding 
for the New Mexico Lands Protection Act was defeated in a recent 
general election leaving no funds for land acquisition. Listing the 
species as threatened and the subsequent drafting of a recovery plan 
will increase the likelihood that agencies, organizations, and 
individuals will be able to accomplish conservation measures for this 
species. We encourage further implementation of conservation measures 
for the Pecos sunflower, and we will consider delisting the species 
when it becomes sufficiently protected and recovered to ensure its 
continued survival.
    Issue 13: Because of the many actions on Tribal lands that are 
authorized, funded, or carried out by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, 
listing this species will place the largest section 7 consultation 
burden on the Laguna Tribe. This is contrary to the intent of 
Secretarial Order 3206 and Executive Order 13084 that strive to ensure 
Indian Tribes do not bear a disproportionate burden for the 
conservation of listed species.
    Response: Because only one of the 25 known sites for Pecos 
sunflower occurs on Tribal lands, we anticipate that most activities 
for the conservation of Pecos sunflower will be undertaken by other

[[Page 56586]]

agencies, organizations, and individuals. The one site on Tribal lands 
probably occupies only a few acres and is in a remote undeveloped part 
of the reservation. It is unlikely there will be many actions at this 
site that will require section 7 consultation. If consultation is 
needed, we will seek to find ways to both conserve the listed species 
and complete the action. Our hope is that we can help Pecos sunflower 
to recover through voluntary efforts and cooperation with other Federal 
agencies, States, local and Tribal governments and private landowners 
and conservation groups.
    Issue 14: Listing Pecos sunflower will have negative economic 
impacts on the farmers, ranchers, and communities where it occurs.
    Response: We believe the listing of the Pecos sunflower as 
threatened will not force private landowners to change any existing 
land practices. We anticipate that any economic impacts of listing will 
be minimal due to the small number of populations that are involved. 
The Act requires listing determinations to be made solely on the basis 
of the best available scientific and commercial information regarding 
the species' status without reference to possible economic or other 
impacts of the determination. Economic considerations may only be 
considered in the designation of critical habitat and in recovery 
planning and implementation.
    Issue 15: Designation of critical habitat would help farmers and 
ranchers manage the species by showing them where it occurs.
    Response: As with every Federal listing, we conduct intensive 
outreach to inform landowners if the species occurs on their land. We 
believe that information about the location of populations is best 
handled through direct contact with individual landowners. The reasons 
for our ``not prudent'' finding for the designation of critical habitat 
are given in the ``Critical Habitat'' section of this final rule.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and regulations (50 
CFR part 424) promulgated to implement the listing provisions of the 
Act set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal lists. 
We determine a species to be endangered or threatened due to one or 
more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1). These factors 
and their application to Helianthus paradoxus Heiser (Pecos sunflower) 
are as follows:

A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment 
of its Habitat or Range

    Wetland habitats in the desert Southwest are both ecologically 
important and economically valuable. Wetlands cover only about 195,000 
ha (482,000 ac) (0.6 percent) of New Mexico (Fretwell et al. 1996). 
This is a reduction of about 33 percent from the wetland acreage that 
existed 200 years ago (Dahl 1990). Wetlands in Texas cover 3,077,000 ha 
(7,600,000 ac), a decline of about 52 percent from the State's original 
wetland acreage (Dahl 1990). The loss of springs in western Texas may 
be a better indicator of wetland losses that affect Pecos sunflower 
than estimates for the State as a whole. Within the historical range of 
Pecos sunflower in Pecos and Reeves counties, only 13 of 61 (21 
percent) springs remain flowing (Brune 1981 in Poole 1992).
    The lowering of water tables due to groundwater withdrawals for 
irrigated agriculture, municipalities, and other uses has reduced 
available habitat for Pecos sunflower, particularly in Texas. Beginning 
around 1946, groundwater levels fell as much as 120 m (400 ft) in Pecos 
County and 150 m (500 ft) in Reeves County due to heavy pumping for 
irrigation. As a result, most of the springs in these counties have 
gone dry. Groundwater pumping has lessened in recent decades due to the 
higher cost of removing water from deeper aquifers in the ground, but 
rising water tables or resumption of spring flows are not expected 
(Brune 1981 in Poole 1992). Diamond Y Spring, which has a large Pecos 
Sunflower population, remains flowing largely because it comes from a 
saline strata unsuitable for agricultural or municipal uses.
    Texas water law provides no protection for remaining springs. The 
law is based on the right of first capture that lets any water user 
pump as much groundwater as can be put to a beneficial use without 
regard to overall effects on the aquifer. Recently passed Texas 
legislation directs the development of regional water plans in the 
State, but it is too soon to know if this planning effort will have any 
beneficial effects for Pecos sunflower.
    Groundwater pumping affected Pecos sunflower habitats in Chaves 
County, New Mexico, but water tables are now rising due to State-
directed efforts at monitoring and conservation. These efforts are the 
result of a court ruling that requires New Mexico to deliver larger 
volumes of Pecos River water to Texas than in the past. There are 
presently no major groundwater withdrawals taking place in the vicinity 
of the other Pecos sunflower sites in New Mexico.
    The introduction of non-native species, particularly saltcedar, is 
a major factor in the loss and degradation of Southwestern wetlands. 
Several species of saltcedar were introduced into the United States for 
ornamental purposes as windbreaks, and as stream bank stabilization in 
the 1800s. Saltcedar and other non-native vegetation invaded many 
western riverine systems from the 1890s to the 1930s and increased 
rapidly from the 1930s to the 1950s, by which time they occupied most 
of the available and suitable habitat in New Mexico and western Texas 
(Horton 1977).
    Saltcedar will out-compete and displace native wetland vegetation, 
including Pecos sunflower. At Dexter National Fish Hatchery, Pecos 
sunflower appeared for the first time in the summer of 1996 after 
saltcedar was removed to rehabilitate a wetland (Radke 1997). Saltcedar 
affects 2,000 ha (5,000 ac) at Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge 
where the most extensive Pecos sunflower population occurs (Service 
1996). Although there have been many projects on refuges to remove 
saltcedar, these projects are labor intensive and reinvasion of 
saltcedar is a continuing problem.
    We know that some wetlands where Pecos sunflower occurs have either 
been filled or impounded. Part of a wetland near Grants, New Mexico, 
was filled for real estate development along a major highway. The 
development predated knowledge that Pecos sunflower grows in the area, 
so it is unknown if any plants were actually destroyed. Present 
development in this area that could affect Pecos sunflower includes 
construction of a discount department store and other smaller shops, 
and reconstruction of a highway overpass.
    Wetlands in Santa Rosa were lost many years ago to impoundment 
created for a fish hatchery that has since been abandoned. Pecos 
sunflowers grow in wet soils on some impoundment dams. Because the 
extent of this former wetland habitat is unknown, it is uncertain 
whether these impoundments have actually increased or decreased 
sunflower habitat.
    Alteration of habitat is occurring by mowing on some highway 
rights-of-way and some municipal properties where Pecos sunflower 
occurs. In Santa Rosa, the weeds and some Pecos sunflowers are often 
mowed around some of the old fish hatchery ponds now used for 
recreational fishing. In another part of town an open boggy area is 
mowed when dry enough. In years when it is

[[Page 56587]]

too wet to mow, a stand of Pecos sunflowers develops. Mowing of highway 
rights-of-way in Santa Rosa and near Grants may be destroying some 
plants. In Texas, the only population in a highway right-of-way was 
fenced several years ago to protect it from mowing and other 
activities.

B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

    Some commercial trade in Pecos sunflower has occurred in the past 
(Poole, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin, in litt. 1991). 
This trade was undertaken by an organization interested in preserving 
rare species of indigenous crop plants through their distribution and 
cultivation. There was also some collecting for crop breeding research 
(Seiler et al. 1981). With its tolerance for high salinity, Pecos 
sunflower is considered a good candidate for the introduction of salt 
tolerance into cultivated sunflowers. Some Pecos sunflower sites are 
both small and easily accessible. Repeated uncontrolled collecting may 
harm these sites.

C. Disease or Predation

    Livestock eat Pecos sunflowers, particularly when other green 
forage is scarce. Livestock tend to pull off the flower heads. If an 
area is heavily grazed for several years in succession when plants are 
flowering, the soil seed bank may diminish and the population will 
eventually decline. There are several examples of Pecos sunflowers 
being absent from habitat that is heavily grazed, but growing in 
similar nearby habitat that is protected from grazing. In these 
instances, grazing is the most likely cause of the plant's absence from 
otherwise suitable habitat. There are also examples of Pecos sunflower 
populations persisting in areas grazed for many years. Apparently the 
type and intensity of grazing has much to do with the persistence of 
Pecos sunflower in these areas. There have been no observations of 
wildlife grazing or insect damage on Pecos sunflower.

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    Pecos sunflower is listed as a New Mexico State endangered plant 
species in NMNRD Rule 85-3 of the State Endangered Plant Species Act 
(9-10-10 NMSA). The scientific collection, commercial transport, and 
sale of Pecos sunflower is already regulated by NMSA. However, NMSA 
does not protect habitat on private land or require collecting permits 
for Federal employees working on lands within their jurisdictions 
(Sivinski and Lightfoot 1995). The penalty for violating NMSA is a 
misdemeanor carrying a fine of not more than $1,000 and/or 
incarceration for not more than 120 days; by comparison, the criminal 
penalty for violation of the Federal Act carries a fine of not more 
than $50,000 and/or imprisonment for not more than 1 year, a much 
greater deterrent than that available under State law. In general, 
State listing fails to generate the level of recognition or promote the 
opportunities for conservation that result through Federal listing. 
Most importantly, NMSA lacks the interagency coordination and 
conservation requirements found in section 7 of the Federal Act. Pecos 
sunflower is not listed as an endangered, threatened, or as a protected 
plant under the Texas Endangered Plant Species Act.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

    Natural hybrids between Pecos sunflower and common sunflower can 
occur and are known from sites in both Texas and New Mexico. Habitat 
for common sunflower is increased by human activities and the two 
sunflowers may be in greater contact than in the past. Natural hybrids 
have low fertility, but are not completely sterile (Heiser 1965). A 
measure of isolation between the two species is provided by the 
different flowering times for Pecos sunflower and common sunflower. 
Hybrids are likely to be intermediate between the two species in 
flowering time and may serve as a bridge for gene flow between the 
species. Once a bridge is established, the genetic swamping of small 
Pecos sunflower populations could occur rapidly.
    Natural droughts are common in the desert regions where Pecos 
sunflower occurs. These droughts combined with the effects of wetland 
alterations and losses could extirpate some small populations. The 
present distribution of Pecos sunflower coincides with areas having 
large reliable springs and this may in part be a response to the 
effects of natural droughts.
    We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial 
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats 
faced by this species in determining to issue this final rule. Based on 
this evaluation, our preferred action is to list Pecos sunflower as a 
threatened species. The drying of springs due to ground water pumping, 
the diversion of water for agriculture and other uses, the filling of 
wetlands, the degradation of wetlands from intensive livestock grazing, 
and the invasion of saltcedar and other non-native plants into many 
wetlands has significantly reduced the habitat of this species. Most 
remaining populations are vulnerable because these and other activities 
continue to destroy habitat or keep it in a degraded condition. While 
not in immediate danger of extinction, the Pecos sunflower is likely to 
become an endangered species in the foreseeable future if present 
trends continue.

Critical Habitat

    Section 3 of the Act defines critical habitat as--(i) The specific 
areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at the time 
it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those 
physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of 
the species and (II) that may require special management consideration 
or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the geographical area 
occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination 
that such areas are essential for conservation of the species. 
``Conservation'' means the use of all methods and procedures needed to 
bring the species to the point at which listing under the Act is no 
longer necessary.
    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing 
regulations (50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the maximum extent prudent 
and determinable, we designate critical habitat at the time the species 
is determined to be endangered or threatened. We find that designation 
of critical habitat is not prudent for Pecos sunflower. Our regulations 
(50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that designation of critical habitat is not 
prudent when one or both of the following situations exist--(1) The 
species is threatened by taking or other human activity, and 
identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the 
degree of threat to the species, or (2) such designation of critical 
habitat would not be beneficial to the species.
    Critical habitat designation for Pecos sunflower is not prudent for 
both of the above reasons. There has been some commercial trade in 
Pecos sunflower, which was due largely to its rarity (See Factor B of 
the ``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species'' section). There are 
several documented instances of other species of commercially valuable 
rare plants being collected when their localities became known. In 
1995, at least 48 plants of the endangered Pediocactus knowltonii 
(Knowlton cactus) were taken from a monitoring plot at the species' 
only known locality (Sivinski, New Mexico Forestry

[[Page 56588]]

Division, Santa Fe, in litt. 1996). In the early 1990s, the rediscovery 
of Salvia penstemonoides (big red sage) in Texas led to the collection 
of thousands of seeds at the single rediscovery site (Poole, in litt. 
1991).
    Listing contributes to the risk of over collecting because the 
rarity of a plant is made known to far more people than were aware of 
it previously. Designating critical habitat, including the required 
disclosure of precise maps and descriptions of critical habitat, would 
further advertise the rarity of Pecos sunflower and provide a road map 
to occupied sites causing even greater threat to this plant from 
vandalism or unauthorized collection. Many of the Pecos sunflower sites 
are small, have few individuals, and are easily accessible. These sites 
would be particularly susceptible to indiscriminate collection if 
publication of critical habitat maps made their exact locations known.
    Critical habitat designation, by definition, directly affects only 
Federal agency actions. Private interests own 13 of the 25 Pecos 
sunflower sites. For the most part, activities constituting threats to 
the species on these lands, including alterations of wetland hydrology, 
competition from non-native vegetation, grazing, and agricultural and 
urban development, are not subject to the Federal review process under 
section 7. Designation of critical habitat on private lands provides no 
benefit to the species when only non-Federal actions are involved.
    Activities on Federal lands and some activities on private lands 
require Federal agencies to consult with us under section 7. There are 
few known sites for Pecos sunflower and habitat for the species is 
limited. Given these circumstances, any activity that would adversely 
modify designated critical habitat would likely also jeopardize the 
species' continued existence. Thus, in this case, the Federal agency 
prohibition against adverse modification of critical habitat would 
provide no additional benefit beyond the prohibition against 
jeopardizing the species.
    Occupied habitat for Pecos sunflower occurs on a National Wildlife 
Refuge and a National Fish Hatchery, which we administer; a National 
Monument the National Park Service administers, and public lands the 
Bureau of Land Management administers. Because these occupied habitats 
are well known to these Federal land managers, no adverse modification 
of this habitat is likely to occur without consultation under section 7 
of the Act. Because of the small size of the species' habitat, any 
adverse modification of the species' critical habitat would also likely 
jeopardize the species' continued existence. Designation of critical 
habitat for Pecos sunflower on Federal lands, therefore, is not prudent 
because it would provide no additional benefit to the species beyond 
that conferred by listing.

Available Conservation Measures

    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions, 
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain 
activities. Recognition through listing encourages and results in 
conservation actions by Federal, State, and private agencies, groups, 
and individuals. The elevated profile Federal listing affords enhances 
the likelihood that conservation activities will be undertaken. The Act 
provides for possible land acquisition and cooperation with the States 
and requires that recovery actions be carried out for all listed 
species. The protection required of Federal agencies and the 
prohibitions against certain activities involving listed plants are 
discussed, in part, below.
    Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their 
actions with respect to species that are listed or proposed for listing 
as endangered or threatened and with respect to those species' 
designated or proposed critical habitat, if any. Regulations 
implementing this interagency cooperation provision of the Act are 
codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires 
Federal agencies to confer with us on any action that is likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of a proposed species or result in 
destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a 
species is listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) requires Federal 
agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out 
are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of such a species 
or to destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat.
    If a Federal action may adversely affect a listed species or its 
critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency must enter into formal 
consultation with us. Federal agencies that manage occupied Pecos 
sunflower habitat are the ones most likely to have activities that 
involve section 7 consultation. These agencies are the Bureau of Land 
Management, National Park Service, and Fish and Wildlife Service. Other 
agencies with potential section 7 involvement include the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers through its permit authority under section 404 of 
the Clean Water Act, the Natural Resources Conservation Service that 
provides private landowner planning and assistance for various soil and 
water conservation projects, the Federal Highway Administration for 
highway construction and maintenance projects that receive funding from 
the Department of Transportation, the Bureau of Indian Affairs that has 
trust responsibilities for certain activities on Indian lands, and 
various agencies of the Department of Housing and Urban Development 
that undertake homeowner mortgage insurance and community development 
programs.
    We considered the potential impacts of designating Pecos sunflower 
as a threatened plant species in relation to the compliance of this 
action with Secretarial Order 3206. That order was issued to clarify 
the responsibilities of the component agencies, bureaus, and offices of 
the Department of the Interior and the Department of Commerce, when 
actions taken under authority of the Act and associated implementing 
regulations affect, or may affect, Indian lands, Tribal trust 
resources, or the exercise of American Indian Tribal rights. In keeping 
with the trust responsibility and government-to-government 
relationships, we recognize our responsibility to consult with affected 
Tribes and provide written notice to them as far in advance as 
practicable of conservation restrictions that we consider necessary to 
protect listed species.
    Secretarial Order 3206 states that, ``If a proposed conservation 
restriction is directed at a Tribal activity that could raise the 
potential issue of direct (directed) take under the Act, then 
meaningful government-to-government consultation shall occur, in order 
to strive to harmonize the Federal trust responsibility to Tribes, 
Tribal sovereignty and the statutory missions of the Department of 
Interior and Commerce.'' The term ``take'' as defined in the Act means 
to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or 
collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. The Act has no 
prohibitions against take for listed plants; instead, regulations for 
threatened plants found at 50 CFR 17.71 prohibit their removal or 
reduction to possession from areas under Federal jurisdiction. For 
threatened plants, there are no prohibitions against their removal and 
reduction to possession from areas outside Federal jurisdiction or 
against their damage or destruction in any area when no removal and 
reduction to possession are involved. We know of no instance where 
Indian Tribal members collect (i.e. remove and

[[Page 56589]]

reduce to possession) Pecos sunflowers for cultural, spiritual, 
religious, or economic reasons. Therefore, we do not believe the 
prohibition against removal or reduction to possession from areas under 
Federal jurisdiction will affect Indian lands, Tribal trust resources, 
or the exercise of American Indian Tribal rights.
    We met with representatives of the Laguna Tribe on March 12, 1998, 
prior to publication of the listing proposal to discuss our intention 
to propose Pecos sunflower for protection under the Act. We discussed 
with them range-wide threats to the species, conservation measures 
listing would initiate, prohibitions that would result from listing, 
Tribal activities that occur in the area where the sunflower grows on 
Tribal lands, and the role of Federal agencies (especially the BIA) in 
insuring that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out do not 
jeopardize the continued existence of listed species. We discussed the 
value of monitoring to assess conservation needs and indicated we would 
provide whatever assistance we could for monitoring and a conservation 
program on Tribal lands. Subsequently, we were contacted by a Tribal 
representative to provide whatever information we had concerning Pecos 
sunflower. We went through our files with the representative and 
supplied those documents thought useful to the Tribe. We kept the Tribe 
informed during the listing proposal process with notifications about 
proposal comment requests and public hearings.
    A question was raised concerning the potential effect listing this 
plant might have on future Indian water rights claims. The Pecos 
sunflower on Tribal lands occurs at springs adjacent to the Rio San 
Jose. These springs, although near the river, are not dependent on it 
for their flows. If upstream water rights claims reduced flows in the 
Rio San Jose, the sunflower would likely be unaffected. The area where 
the springs occur is presently used for grazing. The Tribe indicates no 
planned land use changes that would create new demands on water from 
the springs. Finally, if any water use changes led to loss of the 
sunflower on Tribal lands it would not violate any of the limited 
prohibitions applicable to threatened plants given in section 9 of the 
Act or in 50 CFR 17.71. Water use changes occurring on non-Federal 
lands and having no Federal nexus would also not be subject to the 
requirements of section 7 of the Act. Given these conditions, we cannot 
foresee a circumstance where listing Pecos sunflower as a threatened 
plant would affect Indian water rights claims.
    Listing Pecos sunflower will require us to development a recovery 
plan to help coordinate Federal, State, and private efforts to conserve 
this species. The plan will establish a framework for agencies to 
coordinate activities and cooperate in conservation efforts. The plan 
will set recovery priorities, estimate costs of various tasks, and 
describe site-specific management actions necessary to achieve 
conservation and survival of the species. Additionally, under section 6 
of the Act, we will be able to grant funds to the states of New Mexico 
and Texas for management actions promoting the protection and recovery 
of Pecos sunflower.
    Because many of the known Pecos sunflower sites are on private 
land, we will pursue conservation easements and conservation agreements 
with willing private landowners to help maintain and/or enhance habitat 
for the plant. Under a cooperative program between us and the State of 
New Mexico, contacts were made with all private landowners and the 
importance of Pecos sunflower and the consequences for the private 
landowner of having it listed under the Act explained. To date, no 
agreements are established but several landowners indicate a 
willingness to continue with discussions.
    The Act and its implementing regulations found at 50 CFR 17.71 and 
17.72 set forth a series of general prohibitions and exceptions that 
apply to all threatened plants. All trade prohibitions of Section 
9(a)(2) of the Act, implemented by 50 CFR 17.71, apply. These 
prohibitions, in part, make it illegal for any person subject to the 
jurisdiction of the United States to import or export, transport in 
interstate or foreign commerce in the course of a commercial activity, 
sell or offer for sale this species in interstate or foreign commerce, 
or to remove and reduce to possession the species from areas under 
Federal jurisdiction. Seeds from cultivated specimens of threatened 
plants are exempt from these prohibitions provided that their 
containers are marked ``Of Cultivated Origin.'' Certain exceptions to 
the prohibitions apply to agents of the Service and State conservation 
agencies.
    The Act and 50 CFR 17.72 also provide for the issuance of permits 
to carry out otherwise prohibited activities involving threatened plant 
species under certain circumstances. Such permits are available for 
scientific purposes and to enhance the propagation or survival of the 
species. For threatened plants, permits are also available for 
botanical or horticultural exhibition, educational purposes, or special 
purposes consistent with the purposes of the Act.
    Pecos sunflower is uncommon both in cultivation or in the wild, and 
there was only limited commercial trade in the species. Therefore, it 
is anticipated few trade permits will ever be sought or issued. You 
should direct requests for copies of the regulations concerning the 
trade of listed plants and general inquiries regarding prohibitions and 
permits to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see ADDRESSES section). 
Information collections associated with these permits are approved 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and assigned 
Office of Management and Budget clearance number 1018-0094. For 
additional information about these permits and associated requirements, 
see 50 CFR 17.72.
    It is our policy (59 FR 34272; July 1, 1997) to identify to the 
maximum extent practicable at the time we list a species those 
activities that would or would not constitute a violation of the 
section 9 prohibitions of the Act. The intent of this policy is to 
increase public awareness of the effect of this listing on proposed and 
ongoing activities within the species' range. You may take the 
following actions, without violation of section 9, when carried out in 
accordance with existing regulations and permit requirements:
    (1) Activities authorized, funded, or carried out by Federal 
agencies (e.g., wetland modification; the construction or maintenance 
of drainage ditches, construction of impoundments or other livestock 
watering facilities, power line construction, maintenance, and 
improvement; highway construction, maintenance, and improvement; 
mineral exploration and mining,) when such activity is conducted in 
accordance with any reasonable and prudent measures given by us 
according to section 7 of the Act. These activities may require 
Federal, State, and/or local approval under other laws or regulations.
    (2) Normal agricultural practices, including mowing or clearing, 
and light to moderate livestock grazing, and pesticide and herbicide 
use, carried out in accordance with any existing regulations, permit 
and label requirements, and best management practices.
    (3) Clearing a defensible space for fire protection and normal 
landscape activities around one's personal residence.
    We believe that the following might potentially result in a 
violation of section 9; however, possible violations are not limited to 
these actions alone:

[[Page 56590]]

    (1) Removal, cutting, digging up, damaging, or destroying 
threatened plants on non-Federal land if conducted in knowing violation 
of State law or regulation or in violation of State criminal trespass 
law.
    (2) Interstate or foreign commerce and import/export without 
previously obtaining an appropriate permit.
    (3) The unauthorized removal, reducing to possession or collection 
of this species from areas under Federal jurisdiction.
    In appropriate cases, permits could be issued to allow collection 
for scientific or recovery purposes, for horticultural or botanical 
exhibition, for educational purposes, or for special purposes 
consistent with the purposes of the Act. You should direct questions 
regarding whether specific activities may constitute a violation of 
section 9 to the Field Supervisor of the New Mexico Ecological Services 
Field Office (see ADDRESSES section).

National Environmental Policy Act

    We have determined that Environmental Assessments and Environmental 
Impact Statements, as defined under the authority of the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared in connection 
with regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Endangered 
Species Act of 1973, as amended. We published a notice outlining our 
reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 
1983 (48 FR 49244).

Required Determinations

    This rule does not contain collections of information that require 
Office of Management and Budget approval under 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited herein is available on 
request from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New Mexico Ecological 
Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES section).
    Author: The primary author of this final rule is Charlie McDonald, 
New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES section).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Regulation Promulgation

PART 17--[AMENDED]

    Accordingly, the Service amends part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, 
title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
    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.

    2. In Sec. 17.12(h) add the following to the List of Endangered and 
Threatened Plants in alphabetical order under FLOWERING PLANTS:


Sec. 17.12  Endangered and threatened plants.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

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

    Dated: September 14, 1999.
John G. Rogers,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 99-27186 Filed 10-19-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P