[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