99-30378. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Endangered Status for the Plant Lesquerella thamnophila (Zapata Bladderpod)  

  • [Federal Register Volume 64, Number 224 (Monday, November 22, 1999)]
    [Rules and Regulations]
    [Pages 63745-63752]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 99-30378]
    
    
    =======================================================================
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
    
    Fish and Wildlife Service
    
    50 CFR Part 17
    
    RIN 1018-AE54
    
    
    Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of 
    Endangered Status for the Plant Lesquerella thamnophila (Zapata 
    Bladderpod)
    
    AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
    
    ACTION: Final rule.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), determine 
    the plant Lesquerella thamnophila (Zapata bladderpod) to be an 
    endangered species under the authority of the Endangered Species Act 
    (Act) of 1973, as amended. Lesquerella thamnophila is currently known 
    from four locations in Starr and Zapata Counties, Texas. Increased 
    urban development, roadway construction, invasion of exotic species, 
    increased oil and gas activities, alteration and conversion of native 
    plant communities to improved pastures, overgrazing, and vulnerability 
    from low population numbers threaten this species.
    
    EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective December 22, 1999.
    
    ADDRESSES: The complete file for this rule is available for inspection, 
    by appointment, during normal business hours (8:00 am to 4:30 pm, 
    Monday through Friday), at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
    Ecological Services Field Office, c/o Texas A&M University-Corpus 
    Christi, Campus Box 338, 6300 Ocean Drive, Corpus Christi, Texas 78412.
    
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Field Supervisor of the Corpus Christi 
    Ecological Services Field Office at the
    
    [[Page 63746]]
    
    above address (Telephone 316-994-9005; Facsimile 361-994-8262).
    
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    
    Background
    
        Lesquerella thamnophila, a member of the Brassicaceae (mustard) 
    family, was first collected in Zapata County, Texas, by R. C. Rollins 
    in 1959. The species was named Lesquerella thamnophila in 1973 by R.C. 
    Rollins and E.A. Shaw in their work on the genus Lesquerella (Rollins 
    and Shaw 1973). The few collected specimens of Lesquerella thamnophila 
    have all come from Starr and Zapata Counties in southern Texas.
        Lesquerella thamnophila is a pubescent (hairy), somewhat silvery-
    green herbaceous (herblike) perennial plant, with sprawling stems 43-85 
    centimeters (cm) (17-34 inches (in)) long. The plant exhibits a taproot 
    system indicating a perennial life habit. It possesses narrow basal 
    leaves 4-12 cm (1.5-4.8 in) long, and 7-15 millimeters (mm) (0.3-0.6 
    in) wide, with entire to wavy or slightly toothed margins. Stem leaves 
    are 3-4 cm (1-1.5 in) long and 2-8 mm (0.1-0.3 in) wide, with margins 
    similar to basal leaves. The inflorescences (arrangement of flowers on 
    a single stalk) are loose racemes of bright yellow-petaled flowers (the 
    flowers are arranged along an axis with the lower flowers maturing 
    first), which appear at different times of the year depending upon 
    timing of rainfall. Fruits are round and 4.5-6.5 mm (0.2-0.8 in) in 
    diameter on short, downward curving pedicels (slender stalks) (Poole 
    1989).
        Physical and climatic characteristics of Starr and Zapata Counties 
    include level to rolling topography and an average of 45-51 cm (18-20 
    in) of precipitation, with major peaks of rainfall in September and 
    May. Infrequent but heavy downpours associated with hurricanes and 
    tropical storms contribute to wide fluctuations in rainfall from year 
    to year, and skew the historical mean well above the yearly median. 
    Drought, a recurring event in south Texas, has a profound effect on 
    native vegetation. The range of Lesquerella thamnophila has been under 
    an extreme drought situation for a number of years, making it likely 
    that the plant would take advantage of any measure of rainfall to 
    flower and reproduce. The numbers of plants present in known 
    populations appear to fluctuate dramatically in response to 
    precipitation (Poole 1989).
        Lesquerella thamnophila can occur on graveled to sandy-loam upland 
    terraces above the Rio Grande floodplain. The known populations are 
    associated with three Eocene-age geologic formations--Jackson, Laredo, 
    and Yegua, which have yielded fossiliferous (containing fossils) and 
    highly calcareous (containing calcium carbonate) sandstones and clays.
        Known Starr County populations occur within the Jimenez-Quemado 
    soil association and on Catarina series soils. Jimenez-Quemado soils 
    are well-drained, shallow, and gravelly to sandy loam underlain by 
    caliche (a hard soil layer cemented by calcium carbonate). This soil 
    association is broad, dissected, and irregularly shaped, and occurs on 
    huge terraces 6-15 meters (20-50 feet) above the floodplains of the Rio 
    Grande. In most areas, the Jimenez soils occupy the slope breaks 
    extending from the tops of ridges to the bottoms of the slopes, and 
    narrow valleys between. Quemado soils occur as narrow areas on 
    ridgetops, where the slope range is 3-20 percent. Steep escarpments can 
    be present with rocky outcrops adjacent to the river floodplain. 
    Catarina series soils consist of clayey, saline upland soils developed 
    from calcareous, gypsiferous (containing gypsum), and or saline clays 
    that usually contain many drainages and erosional features. The 
    underlying material of the soils contain calcareous concretions (a 
    rounded mass of mineral matter), gypsum crystals, and marine shell 
    fragments (Thompson et al. 1972).
        Bladderpod populations in Zapata County occur within the Zapata-
    Maverick soil association. Zapata soils are shallow, loamy or mixed, 
    hyperthermic (high temperature), well-drained, and nearly level with 
    undulating slopes ranging from 0 to18 percent, primarily on uplands 
    occurring over caliche. The upper portion of the soil horizon ranges 5-
    25 cm (2-10 in), with course fragments consisting of few to 25 percent 
    of angular caliche 2.5-20 cm (1-8 in) long, and combined with chert 
    gravel. Maverick soils consist of upland clayey soils occurring over 
    caliche with underlying calcareous material containing shale and gypsum 
    crystals (Thompson, et al. 1972). The upper zone consists of a 
    moderately deep soft shale bedrock, sloping 1-10 percent, well-drained, 
    and forming clayey sediments. Ancient deposition of rock material from 
    the Rio Grande can be found in these portions of the soil, and rock and 
    Indian artifact collection has become a pastime for residents and 
    visitors in the area.
        Lesquerella thamnophila occurs as an herbaceous component of an 
    open Leucophyllum frutescens (cenizo) shrub community that grades into 
    an Acacia rigidula (blackbrush) shrub community. Both plant communities 
    dominate upland habitats on shallow soils near the Rio Grande (Diamond 
    1990). Other related plant species in the cenizo and blackbrush 
    communities include Acacia berlandieri (guajillo), Prosopis sp. 
    (mesquite), Celtis pallida (granjeno), Yucca treculeana (Spanish 
    dagger), Zizyphus obtusifolia (lotebush), and Guaiacum angustifolium 
    (guayacan). The coverage of an aggressively invasive, nonnative grass, 
    Cenchrus ciliaria (buffelgrass), is extensive at three of the four 
    extant sites and present at the fourth. Dichanthium annulatum 
    (Kleberg's bluestem), which is used for erosion control on roadways, 
    has also begun to invade natural areas and is present at all four 
    Lesquerella sites, although not as extensively as buffelgrass. These 
    shrublands are sparsely vegetated due to the shallow, fast-draining, 
    highly erosional soils and semi-arid climate (Poole 1989).
        Livestock production is one of the major land uses for the area, 
    although wildlife rangeland production for hunting and recreational use 
    is becoming increasingly important. Major game species include white-
    tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), quail (Colinus virginianus and 
    Callipepla squamata), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), turkey 
    (Meleagris gallopavo), javelina (Pecari tajacu), and feral pig (Sus 
    scrofa). Oil and natural gas production has become one of the most 
    significant forms of income in the area due to a drought-induced 
    decrease in cattle production.
        Overgrazing by livestock, root-plowing of shrubs, and subsequent 
    planting of buffelgrass for rangeland improvement has eliminated much 
    of the natural habitat. Buffelgrass, the forage plant used by most 
    ranchers in the area, has invaded natural areas and out-competed native 
    plants. Results from various invasive grass studies indicate that there 
    may be shade and root competition as well as possible allelopathic 
    effects (suppression of growth of one plant species by another due to 
    release of toxic substances) on native forbs and grasses (Nurdin and 
    Fulbright 1990).
        Lesquerella thamnophila occurred historically in Starr and Zapata 
    Counties in the United States. We do not have information on Mexican 
    populations, although we have contacted biologists and botanists in 
    Mexico regarding its possible occurrence there and use as a medicinal 
    plant. One response indicated that the plant was historically found in 
    northern Mexico and was used as a poultice for open sores, wounds, and 
    skin eruptions (Garcia in Litt. 1999).
        Since the first collection of Lesquerella thamnophila in 1959, and 
    nine additional populations of the plant
    
    [[Page 63747]]
    
    have been located since then. Of the ten total known populations, four 
    are believed to have been extirpated, two populations have not been 
    surveyed since 1996 due to restricted access to private lands, and four 
    sites are known to support extant populations.
    
    Sites Believed To Be Extirpated
    
        R. C. Rollins originally discovered Lesquerella thamnophila in 1959 
    in Zapata County, in a subdivision near Falcon Lake. This type locality 
    was relocated in 1985, when approximately 1,000 plants were seen within 
    a 5-hectare (ha) (15-acre (ac)) area. In 1986, the site was under a 
    drought condition, and no plants were found. Plants were located again 
    in 1988, but the numbers of plants were not recorded. Biologists from 
    the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) relocated the site in 
    1996, but saw no plants. Our personnel also found no plants in 
    September 1998 or April 1999. The habitat at this site has become 
    severely degraded. Soil has eroded into roadside ditches, buffelgrass 
    has invaded the sloping hillside, and housing construction has 
    eliminated much of the natural habitat of the area. The population has 
    likely been extirpated from this site.
        In 1994, a site along an electric transmission line in southwestern 
    Starr County was reported, however, no specimen was collected, and no 
    plants have been seen at this site since then. In 1996, we discovered 
    another site consisting of about 50 plants, less than 1.6 kilometers (1 
    mile) northeast of the above-mentioned site along a roadside cut of 
    Highway 83. Surveys for this population were performed in 1997-1999. In 
    1998, one plant was observed, and in 1999, we found no plants at this 
    site. In 1995, we discovered a small site in the Highway 83 right-of-
    way south of the city of Zapata. The TPWD and Service biologists found 
    one plant in 1998, but none were found in our April 1999 survey.
    
    Extant Populations
    
        In April 1994, TPWD personnel discovered a new Starr County 
    population of about 50 plants. We purchased this site as part of the 
    Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge (LRGVNWR) complex and 
    began to monitor population numbers. In 1996, LRGVNWR biologists 
    recorded a total of 131 plants, 84 of which exhibited no seedling 
    productivity. In 1997, after high precipitation, the number of 
    individuals increased to several thousand within an approximately 1-ha 
    (2-3-ac) portion of the tract. In September 1998, we surveyed the site 
    and found few individuals, but one plant had produced two fruits. The 
    majority of plants seen were located under the canopy of associated 
    brush species. Previous to the survey, high amounts of precipitation 
    fell at the site, eroding soils, exposing the calcareous sandstone, and 
    leaving the root structure of some Lesquerella thamnophila plants 
    partially exposed. Where Lesquerella thamnophila individuals were 
    protected by associated plants, topsoil was retained, and the species 
    was less affected by heavy rains.
        In April 1999, after resumption of drought conditions, only a few 
    Lesquerella thamnophila plants were found. However, in June we visited 
    the site after 10-15 cm (4-6 in) of rain had fallen in the area and 
    observed a large number of Lesquerella thamnophila plants flowering and 
    producing fruit. During a survey one week later, few flowers, but many 
    pods at various stages of development, were present. Close inspection 
    of the plants revealed possible predation on seeds within developed 
    pods. Botanists at the LRGVNWR are currently conducting habitat and 
    community structure studies of Lesquerella thamnophila and associated 
    species present at this site. The studies include investigations on 
    habitat composition and productivity in relation to shade effects, 
    relationships with other plant species, and the degree of successful 
    species propagation.
        Another historical site in Zapata County, originally reported by 
    Lundell and Lundell in 1941, was re-verified by TPWD in 1985 (Poole 
    1989). Approximately 5,000 plants were found in this area on the east 
    side of Highway 83 located near the Arroyo Tigre Chiquito bridge. In 
    1986, during drought conditions, only 28 plants were seen. Plants were 
    again located in 1988, but no counts recorded. The TPWD and the Texas 
    Department of Transportation (TDOT) established a management agreement 
    to protect the site, and we and TPWD monitor this population annually. 
    The TPWD recorded 10 reproductive plants in 1991, no plants in 1992, 
    and 7 nonreproductive plants in 1995. No plants were found during 1996-
    1998 surveys, however, TDOT biologists found five plants at the site in 
    1999.
        In 1996, TPWD discovered about 100 plants in a vacant lot near the 
    Siesta Shores Subdivision in Zapata County, and in January 1998, 
    located many rosettes (plants whose leaves are spread flat at ground 
    level). We found one plant in July 1999, but extensive housing 
    construction had begun, which eliminated much of the potential habitat. 
    The population at the site could be extirpated unless conservation 
    measures can be implemented in the very near future.
        In 1986, TPWD found 20 plants on a 2-ha (5-ac) tract of a privately 
    owned ranch in southwestern Starr County (Poole 1989). The TPWD 
    personnel observed the species again in 1994 but did not count 
    individuals. The TPWD biologists observed 20 or fewer individuals in 
    1996. In 1999, the site was confirmed to support plants, but no 
    information is available on the number of plants observed.
    
    Populations for Which Status Is Unknown
    
        Three Starr County populations, including the one above, were known 
    from private ranch sites near the towns of Roma and Los Saenz. Two of 
    the private ranch sites have not been visited by us or TPWD personnel 
    because we do not have permission to access these sites. Therefore, we 
    do not know the status of Lesquerella thamnophila at these sites.
    
    Previous Federal Action
    
        Federal action involving this species began with section 12 of the 
    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. The report, designated as House 
    Document No. 94-51, was presented to Congress on January 9, 1975. On 
    July 1, 1975, we published a notice in the Federal Register (40 FR 
    27823) accepting the Smithsonian report as a petition within the 
    context of section 4(c)(2) of the Act, now section 4(b)(3)(A), and 
    announcing that we would initiate a review of the status of those 
    plants. Lesquerella thamnophila was included as threatened in the 
    Smithsonian report and in our notice.
        On June 16, 1976 (41 FR 24523), we published a proposed rule to 
    determine approximately 1,700 species of vascular plants as endangered. 
    Lesquerella thamnophila was included in this proposal. However, the 
    1978 amendments to the Act required the withdrawal of all proposals 
    over 2 years old (although a 1-year grace period was allowed for those 
    proposals already over 2 years old). On December 10, 1979 (44 FR 
    70796), we published a notice withdrawing that portion of the June 16, 
    1976, proposal that had not been made final.
        On December 15, 1980 (45 FR 82823), we published a list of plants 
    under review for listing as threatened or endangered, which included 
    Lesquerella thamnophila as a category 2 candidate. ``Category 2 
    candidates'' were those
    
    [[Page 63748]]
    
    species for which available information indicated listing as threatened 
    or endangered may have been appropriate, but for which substantial data 
    were not available to support preparation of a proposed rule.
        Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act requires that we make findings on 
    petitions within 12 months of their receipt. Section 2(b)(1) of the 
    1982 amendments to the Act required that all petitions pending as of 
    October 13, 1982, be treated as having been submitted on that date. The 
    1975 Smithsonian report was accepted as a petition, and all the plants 
    noted within the report, including Lesquerella thamnophila, were 
    treated as being newly petitioned on October 13, 1982. In each 
    subsequent year from 1983 to 1993, we determined that listing 
    Lesquerella thamnophila was warranted, but precluded by other listing 
    actions of higher priority, and that additional data on vulnerability 
    and threats were still being compiled.
        A status report on Lesquerella thamnophila was completed August 8, 
    1989 (Poole 1989). That report provided sufficient information on 
    biological vulnerability and threats to warrant designating the species 
    as a category 1 candidate and to support preparation of a proposed rule 
    to list Lesquerella thamnophila as endangered. ``'Category 1 
    candidates''' were those species for which we had substantial 
    information indicating that listing under the Act was warranted.
        Notices revising the 1980 list of plants under review for listing 
    as endangered or threatened were published in the Federal Register on 
    September 27, 1985 (50 FR 39626), February 21, 1990 (55 FR 6184), and 
    September 30, 1993 (58 FR 51171). Lesquerella thamnophila was included 
    in the September 30, 1993, notice as a category 1 candidate.
        Upon publication of the February 28, 1996, Notice of Review (61 FR 
    7605), we ceased using category designations and included Lesquerella 
    thamnophila as a candidate species. Candidate species are those for 
    which we have on file sufficient information on biological 
    vulnerability and threats to support proposals to list them as 
    threatened or endangered species. We retained Lesquerella thamnophila 
    as a candidate species in the September 19, 1997, Review of Plant and 
    Animal Taxa (62 FR 49398). On January 22, 1998 (63 FR 3301), we 
    published a proposed rule to list Lesquerella thamnophila as 
    endangered, without critical habitat, in the Federal Register. We 
    invited the public and State and Federal agencies to comment on the 
    proposed listing.
        The processing of this final rule conforms with our Listing 
    Priority Guidance published in the Federal Register on October 22, 1999 
    (64 FR 57114). The guidance clarifies the order in which we will 
    process rulemakings. Highest priority is processing emergency listing 
    rules for any species determined to face a significant and imminent 
    risk to its well-being (Priority 1). Second priority (Priority 2) is 
    processing final determinations on proposed additions to the lists of 
    endangered and threatened wildlife and plants. Third priority is 
    processing new proposals to add species to the lists. The processing of 
    administrative petition findings (petitions filed under section 4 of 
    the Act) is the fourth priority. The processing of critical habitat 
    determinations (prudency and determinability decisions) and proposed or 
    final designations of critical habitat will be funded separately from 
    other section 4 listing actions and will no longer be subject to 
    prioritization under the Listing Priority Guidance. This final rule is 
    a Priority 2 action and is being completed in accordance with the 
    current Listing Priority Guidance. We have updated this rule to reflect 
    any changes in information concerning distribution, status, and threats 
    since the publication of the proposed rule.
    
    Summary of Comments and Recommendations
    
        The January 22, 1998, proposed rule and associated notification 
    requested all interested parties to submit factual reports or 
    information that might contribute to the development of a final rule. 
    We published newspaper notices of the proposed rule in the Brownsville 
    Herald on February 4, 1998; the Monitor (McAllen), the Valley Morning 
    Star (Harlingen), the Rio Grande City Herald, and the Zapata News on 
    February 5, 1998; and the February monthly issue of LareDOS (Laredo). 
    The public comment period was open for 60 days, from January 22 to 
    March 23, 1998.
        Five commenters, including the State and four individuals or 
    groups, commented on the proposed rule. Three commenters opposed the 
    listing; one commenter was neutral on listing; and one supported the 
    listing. Issues raised by the commentors are discussed below.
        Issue 1: The listing of the plant poses a threat to landowners who 
    earn their livelihood by cattle ranching or oil and gas production. 
    Listing would also threaten the success of the North American Free 
    Trade Agreement (NAFTA) by postponing construction of various roadways 
    within south Texas.
        Response: The Act prohibits us from considering economic and other 
    nonbiological factors in listing decisions. However, once a species is 
    listed, we strive to minimize adverse economic impacts when considering 
    how best to conserve listed species. The Act provides protection to 
    listed plant species when landowners seek Federal permits, funding, or 
    Federal loans for a land development project or other activities that 
    may affect the species. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal 
    agencies to ensure that activities (such as road building) 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. Early coordination with State and Federal 
    agencies can help minimize economic impacts and avoid unnecessary 
    delays in project implementation.
        Endangered plants are not protected on private lands except when 
    taken in knowing violation of a State law or regulation, including 
    State criminal trespass law. However, we hope that listing the species 
    will alert private landowners to the need to protect it and encourage 
    them to work with us to develop conservation measures that will benefit 
    both the landowner and the species.
        Issue 2: Additional surveys should be performed after rain events, 
    and biological information should be gathered prior to listing, 
    possibly to preclude listing.
        Response: Extirpations at historical sites and the apparent decline 
    of extant Lesquerella thamnophila populations necessitates protecting 
    the few known surviving plants under the Act. Should additional surveys 
    and biological data indicate that the populations are more viable than 
    most recently demonstrated, we would consider that information in 
    formulating a recovery strategy for the species. Although the decrease 
    in population number and size appears correlated with drought 
    conditions, it is not known whether the remaining populations would 
    rebound sufficiently following future rain events to justify not 
    listing the species. Furthermore, delaying the listing process would 
    increase the risk that more bladderpod populations would disappear. 
    Because there are only four known populations scattered over a large 
    geographical area, each loss decreases genetic variability and reduces 
    the chances of the species' survival even after normal rainfall 
    returns. The best scientific and commercial information available 
    indicates that the species' existence is too precarious to delay the 
    protections afforded by the Act.
    
    Peer Review
    
        Our July 1, 1994, Peer Review Policy (59 FR 34270) requires that we 
    solicit
    
    [[Page 63749]]
    
    the opinions of at least three independent specialists regarding 
    pertinent scientific or commercial data on proposed species listings. 
    We provided the proposed rule to 29 botanists and biologists outside 
    the Service and asked for their review of the proposed action. We 
    received responses from three biologists. Two supported listing the 
    species and provided corrections to the proposed rule and other 
    information. One respondent opposed listing on the grounds that further 
    surveys would likely reveal additional populations, however, this 
    scientist agreed that current information supports listing the species.
    
    Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
    
        After a thorough review and consideration of all information 
    available, we determined that Lesquerella thamnophila should be 
    classified as an endangered species. We followed procedures found at 
    section 4(a)(1) of the Act and the regulations implementing the listing 
    provisions of the Act (50 CFR part 424). We may 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 
    Lesquerella thamnophila (Zapata bladderpod) (Rollins and Shaw), are as 
    follows:
        A. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
    curtailment of its habitat or range. Habitat destruction and 
    modification are the primary threats to Lesquerella thamnophila. These 
    threats include the introduction of nonnative pasture grasses, such as 
    buffelgrass, and conversion of native rangeland to improved pasture, 
    overgrazing, urban development, construction or improvement of highways 
    and utility transmission systems necessary to support urban 
    infrastructures, and oil and gas exploration and production. These 
    types of activities have destroyed or altered more than 95 percent of 
    the native habitat in south Texas (Jahrsdoerfer and Leslie 1988).
        A common practice in south Texas to improve rangeland for livestock 
    production is to remove native shrubs through root-plowing or aerial 
    herbicide application and then re-seeding the area with nonnative 
    grasses. This practice potentially destroys Lesquerella thamnophila and 
    its habitat. Buffelgrass has spread beyond improved pastureland and is 
    now present throughout a large portion of south Texas. This invasive 
    nonnative grass outcompetes and displaces native grasses, herbs, and 
    small shrubs. Possible mechanisms for displacement of native species by 
    invasive nonnatives could be loss of sites for native plant seedling 
    establishment, light and moisture competition, and possibly 
    allelopathic effects (Nurdin and Fulbright 1990).
        Much of south Texas has been affected by long-term grazing, and 
    grazing continues to be an established practice on private lands. 
    Vegetation of the semi-arid south Texas climate is less resilient to 
    the impacts of long-term grazing than is the vegetation of wetter 
    climates. This situation has led to severe depletion of the often 
    highly erodible south Texas soils (Schlesinger, et al. 1990). It is 
    impossible to calculate how much habitat occupied by Zapata bladderpod 
    may have been lost due to the effects of long-term grazing and 
    conversion of native rangeland to improved pasture.
        Lesquerella thamnophila is also threatened by potential urban 
    development. Habitat at the type locality for this species has been 
    reduced to a small vacant lot in a resort subdivision near Falcon 
    Reservoir in the City of Zapata, Texas. This area is undergoing rapid 
    development. Another Lesquerella thamnophila population, which had 
    occurred in an abandoned trailer park, has disappeared. The current 
    trend toward urbanization, including increased construction of 
    convenience stores in the area, could extirpate remaining populations.
        South Texas is experiencing a rapid increase in highway 
    improvements and construction to handle increased traffic stimulated by 
    NAFTA. Existing roads that may be proposed for widening and/or paving 
    lie adjacent to Lesquerella thamnophila populations. In addition, 
    nonnative Kleberg's bluestem (Dichanthium annulatum) is used for 
    errosion control, and that species is present at the known Lesquerella 
    sites.
        South Texas is presently undergoing a significant increase in oil 
    and gas exploration and production, especially in Zapata and Starr 
    Counties. All phases of exploration and production have the potential 
    to impact Lesquerella thamnophila populations and habitat. Seismic 
    exploration requires clearing of extensive, temporary rights-of-way to 
    facilitate equipment traffic. The construction of well pads, access and 
    egress roads, electrical lines, and petroleum gathering lines from 
    wells, if not planned properly, may destroy native habitat. The re-
    seeding of nonnative grasses in pipeline rights-of-way not only hampers 
    re-colonization by native species but further spreads invasive species 
    that will displace native vegetation.
        B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
    educational purposes. Although reported to have medicinal values, the 
    species is not known to be a product in commercial trade.
        C. Disease or predation. The populations of Lesquerella thamnophila 
    have shown no evidence of disease. However, Poole (1989) reports that 
    cattle graze Lesquerella to the extent that numbers of plants in 
    populations subjected to grazing are severely reduced compared to those 
    in adjacent, ungrazed lands. In addition, our biologists surveying for 
    the plant at a site owned and protected by the LRGVNWR found evidence 
    of browsing by native animal species on the plants. While consumption 
    by herbivores is a natural event, browsing can be a greater threat 
    during drought conditions when range quality is reduced and other 
    forage species have been reduced or removed. The small number of extant 
    sites and the low number of plants can result in greater susceptibility 
    to browsing than likely was present when populations were at historical 
    levels. The plants in this portion of south Texas are sensitive to 
    browsing during drought conditions due to the semi-arid environment and 
    the sparseness of vegetation, even under ideal range conditions. 
    Additionally, biologists have discovered evidence of predation on seed 
    material of Zapata bladderpod during status surveys.
        D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. The species is 
    not currently protected by any Federal or State laws or regulations.
        E. Other natural or man-made factors affecting its continued 
    existence. Lesquerella thamnophila populations adjacent to maintained 
    highway rights-of-way are exposed to herbicides used to control 
    vegetation around bridges, guardrails, signs, and reflector posts. 
    Maintenance crews may also use herbicides to kill woody species 
    encroaching into the rights-of-way and along fence lines. Any plants 
    within these areas are also threatened by maintenance practices such as 
    blading, disking, and re-seeding with erosion control seed mixtures 
    that contain primarily non-native invasive grasses.
        Only four known Lesquerella thamnophila populations are known to 
    exist, and these have widely fluctuating numbers of plants from year to 
    year. The low plant numbers usually seen in these populations during 
    drought years can result in genetic drift which can restrict genetic 
    variability reducing the species' ability to overcome environmental 
    stresses. The reduced number of plants during drought years, with 
    populations
    
    [[Page 63750]]
    
    in some areas falling to zero above-ground vegetative individuals, also 
    makes the species vulnerable to extinction from prolonged drought 
    situations. The extreme rarity of this species makes populations 
    vulnerable to extirpation and extinction from the variety of random 
    environmental events mentioned, as well as human exploitation of its 
    habitat.
        In finalizing this rule, we carefully assessed the best scientific 
    and commercial information available regarding the past, present, and 
    future threats faced by the species. Based on this evaluation, the 
    preferred action is to list Lesquerella thamnophila as endangered. The 
    Act defines an endangered species as one that is in danger of 
    extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A 
    threatened species is defined as one that is likely to become an 
    endangered species in the foreseeable future throughout all or a 
    significant portion of its range. Endangered status is appropriate 
    because of the species' limited distribution, low population numbers, 
    and imminent threats of habitat destruction. Threatened status would 
    not accurately reflect the current status of this species.
    
    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 
    considerations or protection and; (ii) specific areas outside the 
    geographic area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a 
    determination that such areas are essential for the 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.
        In the proposed rule, we indicated that designation of critical 
    habitat was not prudent for Lesquerella thamnophila because of a 
    concern that publication of precise maps and descriptions of critical 
    habitat in the Federal Register could increase the vulnerability of 
    this species to incidents of collection and vandalism. We also 
    indicated that designation of critical habitat was not prudent because 
    we believed it would not provide any additional benefit beyond that 
    provided through listing as endangered.
        In the last few years, a series of court decisions have overturned 
    Service determinations regarding a variety of species that designation 
    of critical habitat would not be prudent (e.g., Natural Resources 
    Defense Council v. U.S. Department of the Interior 113 F. 3d 1121 (9th 
    Cir. 1997); Conservation Council for Hawaii v. Babbitt, 2 F. Supp. 2d 
    1280 (D. Hawaii 1998)). Based on the standards applied in those 
    judicial opinions, we have reexamined the question of whether critical 
    habitat for Lesquerella thamnophila would be prudent.
        Due to the small number of populations, Lesquerella thamnophila is 
    vulnerable to unrestricted collection, vandalism, or other disturbance. 
    We remain concerned that these threats might be exacerbated by the 
    publication of critical habitat maps and further dissemination of 
    locational information. However, we have examined the evidence 
    available for Lesquerella thamnophila and have not found specific 
    evidence of taking, vandalism, collection, or trade of this species or 
    any similarly situated species. Consequently, consistent with 
    applicable regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)(i)) and recent case law, we 
    do not expect that the identification of critical habitat will increase 
    the degree of threat to this species of taking or other human activity.
        In the absence of a finding that critical habitat would increase 
    threats to a species, if there are any benefits to critical habitat 
    designation, then a prudent finding is warranted. In the case of this 
    species, there may be some benefits to designation of critical habitat. 
    The primary regulatory effect of critical habitat is the section 7 
    requirement that Federal agencies refrain from taking any action that 
    destroys or adversely modifies critical habitat. While a critical 
    habitat designation for habitat currently occupied by this species 
    would not be likely to change the section 7 consultation outcome 
    because an action that destroys or adversely modifies such critical 
    habitat would also be likely to result in jeopardy to the species, 
    there may be instances where section 7 consultation would be triggered 
    only if critical habitat is designated. Examples could include 
    unoccupied habitat or occupied habitat that may become unoccupied in 
    the future. There may also be some educational or informational 
    benefits to designating critical habitat. Therefore, we find that 
    critical habitat is prudent for Lesquerella thamnophila.
        The Final Listing Priority Guidance for FY 2000 (64 FR 57114) 
    states, ``The processing of critical habitat determinations (prudency 
    and determinability decisions) and proposed or final designations of 
    critical habitat will be funded separately from other section 4 listing 
    actions and will no longer be subject to prioritization under the 
    Listing Priority Guidance. Critical habitat determinations, which were 
    previously included in final listing rules published in the Federal 
    Register, may now be processed separately, in which case stand-alone 
    critical habitat determinations will be published as notices in the 
    Federal Register. We will undertake critical habitat determinations and 
    designations during FY 2000 as allowed by our funding allocation for 
    that year.'' As explained in detail in the Listing Priority Guidance, 
    our listing budget is currently insufficient to allow us to immediately 
    complete all of the listing actions required by the Act. Deferral of 
    the critical habitat designation for Lesquerella thamnophila will allow 
    us to concentrate our limited resources on higher priority critical 
    habitat and other listing actions, while allowing us to put in place 
    protections needed for the conservation of Lesquerella thamnophila 
    without further delay.
        We plan to employ a priority system for deciding which outstanding 
    critical habitat designations should be addressed first. We will focus 
    our efforts on those designations that will provide the most 
    conservation benefit, taking into consideration the efficacy of 
    critical habitat designation in addressing the threats to the species, 
    and the magnitude and immediacy of those threats. We will develop a 
    proposal to designate critical habitat for the Lesquerella thamnophila 
    as soon as feasible, considering our workload priorities.
    
    Available Conservation Measures
    
        Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
    threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions, 
    requirements for Federal protection, preservation programs, and 
    prohibitions against certain practices. Recognition through listing 
    results in public awareness and conservation actions by Federal, State, 
    and local agencies, as well as by private organizations and 
    individuals. The Act provides for possible land acquisition, 
    cooperation with the States, and requires that all Federal agencies use 
    their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of all 
    listed species. The protection required of Federal agencies and the 
    prohibitions against certain activities involving listed plants are 
    discussed, in part, below.
    
    [[Page 63751]]
    
        Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, requires Federal agencies to 
    evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is proposed or 
    listed as threatened or endangered 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)(2) requires Federal agencies to ensure that 
    activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to 
    jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species, or destroy or 
    adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a 
    listed species, the responsible Federal agency must enter into 
    consultation with us.
        Federal agency actions that may require consultation as described 
    in the preceding paragraph include, but are not limited to, brush 
    clearing for flood control in arroyos within the jurisdiction of the 
    International Boundary and Water Commission; technical assistance to 
    landowners by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (formerly Soil 
    Conservation Service) for activities funded by the Consolidated Farm 
    Service Agency (formerly Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation 
    Service); and rangeland herbicide or pesticide registration by the 
    Environmental Protection Agency. The Federal Highway Administration 
    will need to consider the occurrence of the species in activities such 
    as widening existing roadways, or constructing new highways, as well as 
    some maintenance practices. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 
    Development will need to consider this species when it permits or funds 
    water, sewer, and power services for settlements. The Federal Energy 
    Regulatory Commission will need to consider the occurrence of the 
    species when it approves interstate pipelines and electrical 
    transmission lines, especially in previously undisturbed natural areas.
        The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of 
    general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered 
    plants. All prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act, implemented by 
    50 CFR 17.61, 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 in interstate or foreign 
    commerce any such plant species; or to remove and reduce the species to 
    possession from areas under Federal jurisdiction. In addition, the Act 
    prohibits the malicious damage or destruction of such plants on areas 
    under Federal jurisdiction; and the removal, cutting, digging up, or 
    damaging or destroying of such plants in any other area, including non-
    Federal lands, in knowing violation of any State law or regulation, or 
    in the course of any violation of a State criminal trespass law. 
    Certain exceptions to the prohibitions apply to agents of the Fish and 
    Wildlife Service and State conservation agencies.
        The Act and 50 CFR 17.62 and 17.63 also provide for the issuance of 
    permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities involving 
    endangered plants under certain circumstances. Such permits are 
    available for scientific purposes and to enhance the propagation or 
    survival of the species. We anticipate that few trade permits would 
    ever be sought or issued because this species is not in cultivation nor 
    common in the wild.
        Our policy (59 FR 34272) is 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 of the Act. The intent 
    of this policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of the 
    listing on proposed and ongoing activities within a species' range.
        We believe that, based on the best information available at this 
    time, the following actions will not result in a violation of section 
    9, provided these activities are carried out in accordance with 
    existing laws and regulations, including State laws and regulations, 
    and permit requirements:
        (1) Activities authorized, funded, or carried out by Federal 
    agencies (e.g., grazing management, agricultural conversions, flood and 
    erosion control, residential development, recreational trail 
    development, road construction, hazardous material containment and 
    cleanup activities, prescribed burns, pesticide/herbicide application, 
    construction or maintenance of pipelines or utility lines), when 
    conducted in accordance with any reasonable and prudent measures given 
    by us in a consultation under section 7 of the Act;
        (2) Casual, dispersed human activities on foot or horseback (e.g., 
    birding, sightseeing, photography, camping, or hiking);
        (3) Activities on private lands that do not require Federal 
    authorization and do not involve Federal funding, such as grazing 
    management, agricultural conversions, flood and erosion control, 
    residential development, road construction, and pesticide/herbicide 
    application when consistent with label restrictions;
        (4) Residential landscape maintenance, including the clearing of 
    vegetation around one's personal residence as a fire break.
        We believe that the following might result in a violation of 
    section 9; however, possible violations are not limited to these 
    actions alone:
        (1) Collection, damage, or destruction of Lesquerella thamnophila 
    on Federal lands without a Federal permit. Lesquerella thamnophila 
    occurs on Federal lands under our jurisdiction.
        (2) Collection, damage, or destruction of this species on non-
    Federal land if conducted in knowing violation of State law or 
    regulations, or in the course of any violation of a State criminal 
    trespass law.
        (3) Interstate or foreign commerce and import/export without 
    previously obtaining an appropriate permit. Permits are available for 
    purposes of scientific research and enhancement or survival of the 
    species.
        Questions regarding whether specific activities may constitute a 
    violation of section 9 should be directed to the Field Supervisor of 
    our Corpus Christi Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES 
    section). Requests for copies of the regulations regarding listed 
    plants and inquiries about prohibitions and permits may be addressed 
    to--U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Branch of Endangered Species/
    Permits, PO Box 1306, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103 (telephone 505-248-
    6920; facsimile 505-248-6922).
    
    National Environmental Policy Act
    
        We determined we do not need to prepare Environmental Assessments 
    and Environmental Impact Statements, as defined under the authority of 
    the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, in connection with 
    regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. 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 any information collection requirements 
    for which Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval is required 
    under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). An 
    information collection related to the rule pertaining to permits for 
    endangered and threatened species has OMB approval and is assigned 
    clearance number 1018-0094. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a 
    person is not required to respond to, a collection of information 
    unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. This rule does 
    not alter that information collection requirement.
    
    [[Page 63752]]
    
    References Cited
    
    Diamond, D. 1990. Plant Communities of Texas (series level). Texas 
    Parks and Wildlife Department. Austin, Texas.
    Jahrsdoerfer, S.E. and D.M. Leslie, Jr. 1988. Tamaulipan Brushland 
    of the Lower Rio Grande Valley of South Texas: Description, Human 
    Impacts, and Management Options. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
    Biological Report. 88(36). 63 pp.
    Nurdin, and T. E. Fulbright. 1990. Germination of Two Legumes in 
    Leachate from Introduced Grasses. Journal of Range Management 43: 5.
    Poole, J. 1989. Status Report on Lesquerella thamnophila. U.S. Fish 
    and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
    Rollins, R.C. and E.A. Shaw. 1973. The Genus Lesquerella. Harvard 
    University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
    Schlesinger, W.H., J.F. Reynolds, G.L. Cunningham, L.F. Huenneke, 
    and W.G. Whitford. 1990. Biological Feedbacks in Global 
    Desertification. Science 247:1043-1047.
    Thompson, C.M., R.R. Sanders, and D. Williams. 1972. Soil Survey of 
    Starr County, Texas. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Soil 
    Conservation Service, Temple, Texas.
    
        Authors:
        The primary authors of this document are Loretta Pressly, Kathy 
    Nemec, and Angie Brooks. Major contributors to this document are Robyn 
    A. Cobb and Ernesto Reyes (see ADDRESSES section).
    
    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
    
        Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
    recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
    
    Final Regulation Promulgation
    
        For the reasons outlined in the preamble, we amend part 17, 
    subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 
    as follows:
    
    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.
    
    * * * * *
        (h) * * *
    
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Species
    --------------------------------------------------------    Historic range           Family            Status      When listed    Critical     Special
             Scientific name                Common name                                                                               habitat       rules
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     
                        *                  *                  *                *                  *                  *                  *
    FLOWERING PLANTS
     
                        *                  *                  *                *                  *                  *                  *
    Lesquerella thamnophila..........  Zapata bladderpod...  U.S.A. (TX)........  Cruciferae.........  E                       671          N/A          N/A
     
                        *                  *                  *                *                  *                  *                  *
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    
        Dated: November 16, 1999.
    Jamie Rappaport Clark,
    Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
    [FR Doc. 99-30378 Filed 11-19-99; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
    
    
    

Document Information

Effective Date:
12/22/1999
Published:
11/22/1999
Department:
Fish and Wildlife Service
Entry Type:
Rule
Action:
Final rule.
Document Number:
99-30378
Dates:
This final rule is effective December 22, 1999.
Pages:
63745-63752 (8 pages)
RINs:
1018-AE54: Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; List Plant Zapata Bladderpod as Endangered
RIN Links:
https://www.federalregister.gov/regulations/1018-AE54/endangered-and-threatened-wildlife-and-plants-list-plant-zapata-bladderpod-as-endangered
PDF File:
99-30378.pdf
CFR: (1)
50 CFR 17.12