Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Threatened Status for the Plant ``Helianthus paradoxus'' (Pecos Sunflower)

d Wildlife Service, 2105 Osuna Road, NE,

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87113. Comments and materials received will be

available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business

hours at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charlie McDonald, Botanist, at the

above address, or telephone 505/761-4525 ext. 112; facsimile 505/761-

4542.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Pecos sunflower was first collected on August 26, 1851, by Dr. S.W.

Woodhouse on the Sitgreaves expedition to explore the Zuni and Lower

Colorado Rivers. The location was given as ``Nay Camp, Rio Laguna''

(Sitgreaves 1853). The Rio Laguna is now called the Rio San Jose and

the collection site would have been somewhere between Laguna Pueblo and

Bluewater in Cibola County, New Mexico. This specimen was identified as

Helianthus petiolaris (prairie sunflower) by Dr. John Torrey, a

botanical expert at the New York Botanical Garden (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 (1965) did hybridization studies to help resolve doubts

about the validity of Pecos sunflower as a true species. There was

speculation that the plant Heiser named as a new species was in fact

only a hybrid between Helianthus annuus (common sunflower) and prairie

sunflower. Heiser's studies showed that Pecos sunflower is a fertile

plant that breeds true with itself. He 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. Rieseberg et

al. (1990) published results of molecular tests of the hypothesized

hybrid origin of Pecos sunflower

cos sunflower is a fertile

plant that breeds true with itself. He 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. Rieseberg et

al. (1990) published results of molecular tests of the hypothesized

hybrid origin of Pecos sunflower. They used electrophoresis to test

enzymes and restriction-fragment analysis to test ribosomal and

chloroplast DNA. Their work showed Pecos sunflower is 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, 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

later flowering.

Pecos sunflowers grow in soils that are permanently saturated.

Areas that maintain these conditions are most commonly desert wetlands

(cienegas) associated with springs, but they may also include stream

margins and the margins of impoundments. When plants are associated

with impoundments, the impoundments typically have replaced natural

cienega habitats

er flower heads, and

later flowering.

Pecos sunflowers grow in soils that are permanently saturated.

Areas that maintain these conditions are most commonly desert wetlands

(cienegas) associated with springs, but they may also include stream

margins and the margins of impoundments. When plants are associated

with impoundments, the impoundments typically have replaced 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. Studies by Van Auken and Bush (1995) indicate 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 only from 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

result in the discovery of any new Texas sites or in the rediscovery of

any sites believed to have been extirpated (Poole 1992). Searches in

New Mexico from 1991 through 1994, however, led to discovery of a

significant number of new sites in that State (Sivinski 1995). Pecos

sunflower is presently known from 24 sites that occur in 5 general

areas

ertson counties, Texas, during 1991 failed to

result in the discovery of any new Texas sites or in the rediscovery of

any sites believed to have been extirpated (Poole 1992). Searches in

New Mexico from 1991 through 1994, however, led to discovery of a

significant number of new sites in that State (Sivinski 1995). Pecos

sunflower is presently known from 24 sites that occur in 5 general

areas. These areas are Pecos County, Texas, in the vicinity of Fort

Stockton; 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 2

sites in the Fort Stockton 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 at a site varies from less than 100 to

several hundred thousand for the 2 extensive sites. Because Pecos

sunflower is an annual, the number of plants at a site can fluctuate

drastically from year to year with changes in water conditions. Pecos

sunflower is totally dependent on the persistence of its wetland

habitat. Even large populations will disappear if the wetland dries.

The sites where Pecos sunflower occurs are owned and managed by a

variety of Federal, State, Tribal, municipal, and private interests.

Federal agencies that manage sites are the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (Service), Bureau of Land Management, and National Park

Service. There are plants in one State park. The cities of Roswell and

Santa Rosa both have sites on municipal property. One site is owned and

managed by the Laguna Indian Tribe

and managed by a

variety of Federal, State, Tribal, municipal, and private interests.

Federal agencies that manage sites are the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (Service), Bureau of Land Management, and National Park

Service. There are plants in one State park. The cities of Roswell and

Santa Rosa both have sites on municipal property. One site is owned and

managed by the Laguna Indian Tribe. There are seven different private

individuals or organizations that own sites or parts of sites. Some

plants grow on State or Federal highway rights-of-way.

Four of the sites are on property managed principally for wildlife

and the conservation of endangered species. Two of these are major

sites on Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge near Roswell, New Mexico.

The refuge has a series of six 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 mimics a

natural water cycle. This regime provides abundant habitat for Pecos

sunflowers that thrive in almost solid stands at the edges of many of

the impoundments. A small site with less than 100 plants occurs on

Dexter National Fish Hatchery near Dexter, New Mexico. Plants first

appeared here several years ago after saltcedar was removed to restore

a wetland. One site near Fort Stockton, Texas, is owned and managed by

The Nature Conservancy of Texas. The principal feature at this preserve

is a large desert spring that harbors two species of endangered fish

and three species of endemic snails, and supports an extensive stand of

Pecos sunflowers that grow for about 1.2 kilometers (km) (0.75 miles

(mi)) along the spring run.

Loss or alteration of wetland habitats is the main threat to Pecos

sunflower

ged by

The Nature Conservancy of Texas. The principal feature at this preserve

is a large desert spring that harbors two species of endangered fish

and three species of endemic snails, and supports an extensive stand of

Pecos sunflowers that grow for about 1.2 kilometers (km) (0.75 miles

(mi)) along the spring run.

Loss or alteration of wetland habitats is the main threat to Pecos

sunflower. The lowering of water tables through aquifer withdrawals

mostly for irrigated agriculture; the diversion of water from wetlands

for irrigation, livestock, or other uses; wetland filling; and the

invasion of wetlands by saltcedar and other non-native species have all

destroyed or degraded desert wetlands in the past. These activities

still continue. Mowing of rights-of-way and some municipal properties

regularly destroys some plants. Livestock will eat Pecos sunflowers,

particularly if other green forage is scarce. There has been some

unregulated commercial sale of this plant in the past and some plant

collection for breeding programs to improve commercial sunflowers.

Pecos sunflower will naturally hybridize with common sunflower. The

extent to which back crosses might be affecting the genetic integrity

of small Pecos sunflower populations is presently unknown, but worthy

of concern.

Previous Federal Action

Federal government actions on Pecos sunflower began as a result of

section 12 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), 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. That report, designated as

House Document No. 94-51, was presented to Congress on January 9, 1975.

On July 1, 1975, the Service 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

prepare a report on plants considered to be endangered,

threatened, or extinct in the United States. That report, designated as

House Document No. 94-51, was presented to Congress on January 9, 1975.

On July 1, 1975, the Service 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. The notice further

indicated the Service's intention to review the status of the plants

named therein. As a result of this review, the Service published a

proposed rule in the Federal Register on June 16, 1976 (41 FR 24523),

to determine approximately 1,700 vascular plants to be endangered

species pursuant to section 4 of the Act. This list, which included

Helianthus paradoxus, was assembled on the basis of comments and data

received by the Smithsonian Institution and the Service in response to

House Document No. 94-51 and the July 1, 1975, Federal Register

publication. In 1978, amendments to the Act required that all proposals

over 2 years old be withdrawn. A 1-year grace period was given to

proposals already over 2 years old. On December 10, 1979, the Service

published a notice in the Federal Register (44 FR 70796) withdrawing

that portion of the June 16, 1976, proposal that had not been made

final, along with four other proposals that had expired.

The Service published an updated notice of review for plants on

December 15, 1980 (45 FR 82480), which included Helianthus paradoxus as

a category 1 candidate species. Category 1 species were those for which

the Service had on file substantial information on biological

vulnerability and threats to support preparation of listing proposals.

Revised lists of plants under review for listing were published in the

Federal Register on September 27, 1985 (50 FR 39526), February 21, 1990

(55 FR 6184), and September 30, 1993 (58 FR 51144). These notices

retained Helianthus paradoxus as a category 1 candidate

e Service had on file substantial information on biological

vulnerability and threats to support preparation of listing proposals.

Revised lists of plants under review for listing were published in the

Federal Register on September 27, 1985 (50 FR 39526), February 21, 1990

(55 FR 6184), and September 30, 1993 (58 FR 51144). These notices

retained Helianthus paradoxus as a category 1 candidate. In the Federal

Register notices of review on February 28, 1996, and September 19, 1997

(61 FR 7596, 62 FR 49398), the Service ceased using multiple category

designations and included Helianthus paradoxus as a candidate species.

Candidate species are those for which the Service has on file

sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to

support proposals to list the species as threatened or endangered.

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 having been 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, the Service found that the petitioned listing of

this species 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). Such a

finding requires the petition to be recycled pursuant to section

4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act. The finding was reviewed annually from 1984

through 1997. Publication of this proposal constitutes the final 1-year

finding for the petitioned action.

The processing of this proposed rule conforms with the Service's

final listing priority guidance issued on December 6, 1996 (61 FR

64475), and extended on October 23, 1997 (62 FR 55268). The guidance

clarifies the order in which the Service will process rulemakings

ed annually from 1984

through 1997. Publication of this proposal constitutes the final 1-year

finding for the petitioned action.

The processing of this proposed rule conforms with the Service's

final listing priority guidance issued on December 6, 1996 (61 FR

64475), and extended on October 23, 1997 (62 FR 55268). The guidance

clarifies the order in which the Service will process rulemakings. The

guidance calls for giving highest priority (Tier 1) to handling

emergency situations, second highest priority (Tier 2) to resolving the

listing status of outstanding proposed listings, and third priority

(Tier 3) to new proposals to add species to the list of threatened and

endangered plants and animals. This proposed rule constitutes a Tier 3

action. Additionally, the Service stated in the guidance that,

``Effective April 1, 1997, the Service will concurrently undertake all

of the activities presently included in Tiers 1, 2, and 3'' (61 FR

64480). The Service has begun implementing a more balanced listing

program, including processing Tier 3 actions. The processing of this

Tier 3 action follows those guidelines.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

Section 4 of the Endangered Species 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. A species may be determined to be an endangered or

threatened species 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

rth the procedures for adding species to

the Federal lists. A species may be determined to be an endangered or

threatened species 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 about

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 figures 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).

The lowering of water tables due to groundwater withdrawals for

irrigated agriculture 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 went dry. Groundwater pumping has

lessened in recent decades due to the higher cost of pumping water from

greater depths, but rising water tables or resumption of spring flows

are not expected (Brune 1981). 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

decades due to the higher cost of pumping water from

greater depths, but rising water tables or resumption of spring flows

are not expected (Brune 1981). 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.

Habitats for Pecos sunflower in Chaves County, New Mexico, have

been affected by groundwater pumping in the past, 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

ornament, windbreaks, and stream bank stabilization in the 1800s. They

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 their main area

of North American distribution in Arizona, New Mexico, and western

Texas (Christensen 1962, Horton 1977). Saltcedar will out-compete and

displace native wetland vegetation, including Pecos sunflower. At

Dexter National Fish Hatchery, Pecos sunflower was recorded for the

first time in the summer of 1996 after salt cedar was removed to

rehabilitate a wetland (Radke 1997).

A total of 24,124 ha (59,586 ac) of saltcedar infest 35 of the

national wildlife refuges in 12 western states. In southern California,

Nevada, Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico, 27 of the 41 refuges (66

percent) are infested

At

Dexter National Fish Hatchery, Pecos sunflower was recorded for the

first time in the summer of 1996 after salt cedar was removed to

rehabilitate a wetland (Radke 1997).

A total of 24,124 ha (59,586 ac) of saltcedar infest 35 of the

national wildlife refuges in 12 western states. In southern California,

Nevada, Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico, 27 of the 41 refuges (66

percent) are infested. Saltcedar affects 2,000 ha (5,000 ac) at Bitter

Lake National Wildlife Refuge where the most extensive Pecos sunflower

population occurs (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1996). There have

been many projects on refuges to remove saltcedar. These projects are

labor intensive and reinvasion of saltcedar is a continuing problem.

Some wetlands where Pecos sunflower occurs have been either 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 there, so it is unknown if any

plants were actually destroyed. Wetlands in Santa Rosa were impounded

many years ago for a fish hatchery that is now abandoned. Pecos

sunflowers grow on the dams of some of the impoundments. The extent of

the former wetland is unknown, so it is uncertain whether the

impoundments have increased or decreased sunflower habitat.

Habitat is being altered through mowing on some highway rights-of-

way and some municipal properties where Pecos sunflower occurs. In

Santa Rosa, vegetation including some Pecos sunflowers is often mowed

around some of the old fish hatchery ponds that are now used for

recreational fishing. In another part of town an open boggy area is

mowed when dry enough. In years when it is 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.

for

recreational fishing. In another part of town an open boggy area is

mowed when dry enough. In years when it is 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

There has been some commercial trade in Pecos sunflower (Poole,

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin, in litt. 1991). The trade

was undertaken by an organization interested in preserving rare species

of indigenous crop plants through their dissemination and cultivation.

There has also been some collecting for crop breeding research (Seiler

et al. 1981). With its tolerance for high salinity, Pecos sunflower was

considered a good candidate for the introduction of salt tolerance into

cultivated sunflowers. Some Pecos sunflower sites are both small and

easily accessible. These sites could be harmed by repeated uncontrolled

collecting.

C. Disease or Predation

Livestock will eat Pecos sunflowers, particularly when other green

forage is scarce. Livestock tend to pull off the flower heads. If an

area is grazed for several years in succession when the plants are

flowering, the soil seed bank will be diminished 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.

D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms

ank will be diminished 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.

D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms

Pecos sunflower is a New Mexico State endangered plant species

listed in NMNRD Rule 85-3 of the State Endangered Plant Species Act (9-

10-10 NMSA). This act primarily regulates scientific collecting,

commercial transport, and sale of Pecos sunflower. It does not protect

plants on private lands or require collecting permits for Federal

employees working on lands within their jurisdictions (Sivinski and

Lightfoot 1995). The State act lacks the interagency coordination and

conservation requirements found in section 7 of the Federal Endangered

Species Act. Further, State listing fails

to generate the level of recognition or promote the opportunities for

conservation that result through Federal listing. Pecos sunflower is

not listed as an endangered, threatened, or 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 have

been seen at Pecos sunflower sites in both Texas and New Mexico. Human

activities have substantially increased the habitat for common

sunflower and it may now have more contact with Pecos sunflower than in

the past. The hybrid plants have low fertility, but they are not

completely sterile (Heiser 1965).

Backcrosses of these hybrids to Pecos sunflower could detrimentally

affect the genetic integrity of Pecos sunflower populations. Study is

needed to determine if such backcrosses could occur to the degree that

common sunflower might genetically swamp small Pecos sunflower

populations

er than in

the past. The hybrid plants have low fertility, but they are not

completely sterile (Heiser 1965).

Backcrosses of these hybrids to Pecos sunflower could detrimentally

affect the genetic integrity of Pecos sunflower populations. Study is

needed to determine if such backcrosses could occur to the degree that

common sunflower might genetically swamp small Pecos sunflower

populations.

The Service has carefully assessed the best scientific and

commercial information available regarding the past, present, and

future threats faced by this species in determining to propose this

rule. Based on this evaluation, the preferred action is to list Pecos

sunflower as threatened. The drying of springs due to ground water

pumping, the diversion of water for agriculture and other uses, 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 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

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as: (i) The

specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at

the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found

those physical or biological features (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

uire 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, the Secretary designate critical habitat at the time

the species is determined to be endangered or threatened. The Service

finds that designation of critical habitat is not prudent for Pecos

sunflower. Service 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

because both of the above situations exist. There has been some

commercial trade in Pecos sunflower, which was due largely to its

rarity. 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 and

Resources Conservation 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)

ngered Pediocactus

knowltonii (Knowlton cactus) were taken from a monitoring plot at the

species' only known locality (Sivinski, New Mexico Forestry and

Resources Conservation 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 locations

of 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. The plants

at 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 12 of the 24 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 the Service under section 7.

There are few known sites for Pecos sunflower and habitat for the

species is limited

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 the Service 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 national fish hatchery administered by the Fish and Wildlife

Service, a national monument administered by the National Park Service,

and Federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management.

Because these occupied habitats are well known to the managers of these

Federal lands, 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

cause 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 that Federal listing affords

enhances the likelihood that conservation activities will be

undertaken. The Act provides for possible land acquisition and

cooperation with the States. 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 any species that is proposed or listed as

endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical habitat, if

any is being designated. 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 the

Service 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

ize 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 the

Service.

The Federal agencies that manage occupied habitat for Pecos

sunflower are the ones most likely to be involved in section 7

activities. These agencies are the Service, Bureau of Land Management,

and National Park 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.

Listing the Pecos sunflower would provide for development of a

recovery plan for the plant. A recovery plan would bring together

private, State, and Federal efforts for conservation of this species.

The plan would establish a framework for agencies to coordinate

activities and cooperate with each other in conservation efforts. The

plan would set recovery priorities and estimate costs of various tasks

necessary to accomplish them

ide for development of a

recovery plan for the plant. A recovery plan would bring together

private, State, and Federal efforts for conservation of this species.

The plan would establish a framework for agencies to coordinate

activities and cooperate with each other in conservation efforts. The

plan would set recovery priorities and estimate costs of various tasks

necessary to accomplish them. The plan would also describe site-

specific management actions necessary to achieve conservation and

survival of the species. Additionally, pursuant to section 6 of the

Act, the Service would 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 sites for Pecos sunflower are on private

land, the Service 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 the

State of New Mexico and the Service, all private landowners have been

contacted. The importance of Pecos sunflower and the consequences for

the private landowner of having it listed under the Act have been

explained. No agreements have been established to date, but several

landowners have indicated a willingness to continue discussing the

subject.

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

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. In addition, for plants listed as endangered, the

Act prohibits the malicious damage or destruction on areas under

Federal jurisdiction and the removal, cutting, digging up, or damaging

or destroying of such plants in knowing violation of any State law or

regulation, including State criminal trespass law. Section 4(d) allows

for the provision of such protection to threatened species through

regulation. This protection may apply to this species in the future if

regulations are promulgated. Seeds from cultivated specimens of

threatened plants are exempt from these prohibitions provided that a

statement of ``cultivated origin'' appears on their containers. 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 also are available for

botanical or horticultural exhibition, educational purposes, or special

purposes consistent with the purposes of the Act. Pecos sunflower is

not common in cultivation or in the wild, and there has been only

limited commercial trade in the species. Therefore, it is anticipated

that few trade permits will ever be sought or issued. Requests for

copies of the regulations on listed plants and inquiries regarding

prohibitions and permits may be addressed to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, P.O

purposes of the Act. Pecos sunflower is

not common in cultivation or in the wild, and there has been only

limited commercial trade in the species. Therefore, it is anticipated

that few trade permits will ever be sought or issued. Requests for

copies of the regulations on listed plants and inquiries regarding

prohibitions and permits may be addressed to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, P.O. Box 1306, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103 (telephone 505/

248-6649, facsimile 505/248-6922). 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 concerning these

permits and associated requirements, see 50 CFR 17.72.

It is the policy of the Service, published in the Federal Register

on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify, to the maximum extent

practicable at the time a species is listed, those activities that

would or would not constitute a violation of section 9 (prohibited

acts) of the Act. The intent of this policy is to increase public

awareness of the effects of the listing on proposed and ongoing

activities within the species' range. Collection of this species from

Federal lands would violate section 9, although in appropriate cases

permits could be issued to allow collection for scientific or recovery

purposes.

Generally, activities of landowners on private lands or of others

on lands not under Federal jurisdiction will not violate section 9 of

the Act even if the activities result in destruction of Pecos

sunflowers. These activities might include filling of wetlands,

construction or maintenance of drainage ditches, construction of

impoundments or other livestock watering facilities, mowing or

clearing, and livestock grazing

ndowners on private lands or of others

on lands not under Federal jurisdiction will not violate section 9 of

the Act even if the activities result in destruction of Pecos

sunflowers. These activities might include filling of wetlands,

construction or maintenance of drainage ditches, construction of

impoundments or other livestock watering facilities, mowing or

clearing, and livestock grazing. However, some of these activities may

require Federal, State, and/or local approval under other laws or

regulations; filling of wetlands, for example, may require Army Corps

of Engineers authorization under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

Questions regarding whether specific activities may constitute a

violation of section 9 should be directed to the Field Supervisor of

the New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES

section).

Public Comments Solicited

The Service intends that any final action resulting from this

proposal will be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore,

comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental

agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested

party concerning this proposed rule are hereby solicited. Comments

particularly are sought concerning:

(1) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning

any threat (or lack thereof) to Pecos sunflower;

(2) The location of any additional populations of this species and

the reasons why any habitat should or should not be determined to be

critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Act;

(3) Additional information concerning the range, distribution, and

population size of this species; and,

ommercial trade, or other relevant data concerning

any threat (or lack thereof) to Pecos sunflower;

(2) The location of any additional populations of this species and

the reasons why any habitat should or should not be determined to be

critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Act;

(3) Additional information concerning the range, distribution, and

population size of this species; and,

(4) Current or planned activities in the subject area and their

possible impacts on this species.

Any final decision on the proposed regulation for this species will

take into consideration the comments and any additional information

received by the Service, and such communications may lead to a final

regulation that differs from this proposal.

The Act provides for one or more public hearings on this proposal,

if requested. Requests must be received within 45 days of the date of

publication of the proposal in the Federal Register. Such requests must

be made in writing and addressed to the Field Supervisor, New Mexico

Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES section).

National Environmental Policy Act

The Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that an Environmental

Assessment, 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. A notice outlining the Service's

reasons for this determination was published in the Federal Register on

October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

Required Determinations

This rule does not contain collections of information that require

approval by the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501 et

seq.

References Cited

nt to section 4(a) of the Endangered

Species Act of 1973, as amended. A notice outlining the Service's

reasons for this determination was published in the Federal Register on

October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

Required Determinations

This rule does not contain collections of information that require

approval by the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501 et

seq.

References Cited

A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon

request from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New Mexico Ecological

Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES section).

Author: The primary author of this proposed 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.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

Accordingly, the Service hereby proposes to amend part 17,

subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations,

as set forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

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. Amend Sec. 17.12(h) by adding the following, in alphabetical

order under FLOWERING PLANTS, to the List of Endangered and Threatened

Plants:

Sec. 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants.

* * * * *

he 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. Amend Sec. 17.12(h) by adding the following, in alphabetical

order under FLOWERING PLANTS, to the List of Endangered and Threatened

Plants:

Sec. 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants.

* * * * *

(h) * * *

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

Species

-------------------------------------------------------- Historic range Family Status When listed Critical Special

Scientific name Common name habitat rules

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

Flowering Plants

* * * * * * *

Helianthus paradoxus............. Pecos sunflower U.S.A. (NM, TX).... Asteraceae......... T X NA NA

(=puzzle sunflower,

paradox sunflower).

* * * * * * *

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

Dated: March 20, 1998.

Jamie Rappaport Clark,

Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 98-8518 Filed 3-31-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P