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

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