Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Endangered Status for Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus (Ventura Marsh Milk-vetch)

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AF61

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed

Endangered Status for Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus

(Ventura Marsh Milk-vetch)

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose

endangered species status pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of

1973, as amended (Act), for Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus

(Ventura marsh milk-vetch). Historically known from a three-county

region in coastal southern California, Astragalus pycnostachyus var.

lanosissimus was believed extinct until its rediscovery in 1997. The

newly discovered and only known extant population of this taxon occurs

in Ventura County, California. This population occupies less than one

acre and is located in degraded dune habitat previously used for

disposal of petroleum wastes. The most significant current threats to

Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus are direct destruction of

this population and alteration of its habitat from proposed soil

remediation, residential development, and associated activities.

Because of the small area occupied by this taxon, it is also threatened

by catastrophic natural and human-caused events. Competition from

nonnative invasive plant species and predation by nonnative snails are

additional threats. This proposal, if made final, would extend the

Act's protection to this plant. We seek additional data and invite

comments from the public on this proposed rule.

DATES: Comments from all interested parties must be received by July

26, 1999. Public hearing requests must be received by July 9, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Send comments and materials concerning this proposal and

public hearing requests to the Field Supervisor, Ventura Fish and

Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2493 Portola Road,

Suite B, Ventura, California, 93003. Comments and materials received,

as well as the supporting documentation used in preparing this rule,

will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal

business hours at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Diane Steeck, Botanist, at the address

above (telephone 805/644-1766; facsimile 805/644-3958).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus (Ventura marsh milk-

vetch) was first described by Per Axel Rydberg (1929) as Phaca

lanosissima from an 1882 collection by S.B. and W.F. Parish made from

``La Bolsa,'' probably in what is now Orange County, California. The

combination Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus was assigned to

this taxon by Philip Munz and Jean McBurney in 1932 (Munz 1932).

Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus is an herbaceous

perennial in the pea family (Fabaceae). It has a thick taproot and

multiple erect, reddish stems, 40 to 90 centimeters (cm) (16 to 36

inches (in)) tall, that emerge from the root crown. The pinnately

compound leaves are densely covered with silvery-white hairs. The 27-39

leaflets are 5 to 20 millimeters (mm) (0.2 to 0.8 in) long. The

numerous yellowish-white to cream colored flowers are in dense clusters

and are 7 to 10 mm (0.3 to 0.4 in) long. The calyx teeth are 1.2 to 1.5

mm (0.04 in) long. The nearly sessile, single-celled pod is 8 to 11 mm

(0.31 to 0.43 in) long (Barneby 1964). The blooming time has been

recorded as July to October (Barneby 1964); however, the one extant

population was observed in flower in June 1997. This variety is

distinguished from Astragalus pycnostachyus var. pycnostachyus by the

length of calyx tube, calyx teeth and peduncles.

The type locality is ``La Bolsa,'' where the plant was collected in

1882 by S.B. and W.F. Parish (Barneby 1964). Based on the labeling of

other specimens collected by the Parishes in 1881 and 1882, Barneby

(1964) suggested that this collection may have come from the

[[Page 28137]]

Ballona marshes in Los Angeles County. However, Critchfield (1978)

believed that ``La Bolsa'' could easily have referred to Bolsa Chica, a

coastal marsh system located to the south in what is now Orange County.

He noted that Orange County was not made a separate County from Los

Angeles until 1889, seven years after the Parish's collection was made.

In the five decades following its discovery, Astragalus pycnostachyus

var. lanosissimus was collected only a few times, always from locations

in coastal Los Angeles and Ventura counties. In Los Angeles County it

was collected from near Santa Monica in 1882, the Ballona marshes just

to the south in 1902, and ``Cienega'' in 1904, also likely near the

Ballona wetlands. In Ventura County it was collected in 1901 and 1925

from Oxnard and in 1911 from ``Ventura, California,'' a city adjacent

to Oxnard. By 1964, Barneby (1964) believed that it had certainly been

extirpated from Santa Monica southward, noting that there was still the

possibility it survived in Ventura County (although he knew of no

locations at that time). The species was rediscovered in 1967 through

the chance collection by R. Chase of a single specimen growing by a

roadside between the cities of Ventura and Oxnard. Searches uncovered

no other living plants at that location, although some mowed remains

that were discovered on McGrath State Beach lands across the road from

the collection site were believed to belong to this taxon (information

on herbarium label from specimen collected by R.M. Chase, 1967).

Floristic (plant) surveys and focused searches conducted in the 1970s

and 1980s at historic collection locations did not locate any

populations of Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus and the plant

was presumed extinct (Isley 1986, Spellenberg 1993, Skinner and Pavlik

1994). On June 12, 1997, a population of the plant was rediscovered by

Service biologist Kate Symonds, in a degraded coastal dune system near

Oxnard, California. This population is located about one mile from the

site of Chase's 1967 discovery at McGrath State Beach.

Almost nothing is known of the habitat requirements of Astragalus

pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus. Specimen labels from collections and

original published descriptions contain virtually no habitat

information. It is possible that some insight into its habitat may be

inferred from the habitat of the related variety, A. pycnostachyus var.

pycnostachyus, which is found in or at the high edge of coastal

saltmarshes and seeps. However, any strict concordance in habitat

requirements of these related taxa is conjectural. The newly discovered

population of Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus occurs in a

sparsely vegetated low area, at an elevation of about 10 meters (30

feet), in a site previously used for disposal of petroleum waste

products (Impact Sciences, Inc. 1997). Dominant shrub species at the

site are Baccharis pilularis (coyote brush), Baccharis salicifolia

(mule fat), Salix lasiolepis (arroyo willow), and the nonnative

Myoporum laetum (myoporum) (Impact Sciences, Inc. 1997). The population

itself occurs with patchy vegetative cover provided primarily by

Baccharis pilularis, Baccharis salicifolia, a nonnative Carpobrotus sp.

(seafig), a nonnative beardgrass, Polypogon monspeliensis (annual beard

grass), and a nonnative annual grass, Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens

(red brome). Soils are reported to be loam-silt loams (Impact Sciences,

Inc. 1997). Soils may have been brought in from other locations as a

cap for the disposal site once it was closed. We do not know the

specific origin of the soil used to cap the waste disposal site,

however because of the costs of transport, the soil source is likely

from the immediate site or from a local source.

The population of Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus

consisted of about 374 plants total in 1997, of which 260 were small

plants, thought to have germinated in the last year. Fewer than 65

plants in the population produced fruit in 1997 (Impact Sciences, Inc.

1997). In 1998, fewer than 200 plants were found on the site, although

a greater number were reproducing than in the previous year (Impact

Sciences, Inc. 1998). The plants are growing in an area of less than

one acre, with one outlying plant located about 50 meters from the main

group (Impact Sciences, Inc. 1998).

The land on which the only known population of Astragalus

pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus grows is privately owned. A project to

decontaminate the soils and construct a housing development on the site

is proposed (Impact Sciences, Inc. 1998). The most significant current

threats to Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus are direct

destruction of this population and alteration of habitat from proposed

soil remediation (clean-up) and residential development activities. Due

to its small population size and the very restricted area it occupies,

this taxon is also threatened by catastrophic natural and human-caused

disturbances. Competition from nonnative, invasive, plant species and

predation from nonnative snail species are additional threats.

Previous Federal Action

Federal government actions involving Astragalus pycnostachyus var.

lanosissimus began as a result of section 12, which directed the

Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution to prepare a report on those

plants considered to be endangered, threatened, or extinct in the

United States. The Smithsonian Institute presented a report (House

Document No. 94-51), to Congress on January 9, 1975, and included

Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus on List C, among those taxa

believed possibly extinct in the wild. We published a notice in the

July 1, 1975, Federal Register (40 FR 27823) of our acceptance of the

report as a petition within the context of section 4(c)(2) (petition

provisions are now found in section 4 (b)(3) of the Act) and expressed

our intent to review the status of the plant taxa named therein.

On June 16, 1976, we published a proposed rule in the Federal

Register (41 FR 24523) to list approximately 1,700 vascular plant

species pursuant to section 4 of the Act. We assembled a list, that

included Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus, from the comments

and data received by the Smithsonian Institution and information

collected in our own files in response to House Document No. 94-51 and

the July 1, 1975, Federal Register publication. We summarized the

general comments received in relation to the 1976 proposal in the April

26, 1978, Federal Register publication (43 FR 17909). In 1978,

amendments to the Act required that all proposals over 2 years old be

withdrawn. A 1-year grace period was given to those proposals already

more than 2 years old. In a December 10, 1979, notice (44 FR 70796) we

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

made final, which included Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus.

On December 15, 1980, we published an updated candidate notice of

review for plants in the Federal Register (45 FR 82480). This notice

included Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus in a list of

category 1 candidate species that were possibly extinct in the wild.

These category 1 candidates would have been given high priority for

listing were extant populations to be confirmed. Category 1 comprised

taxa for which sufficient information was on file to support proposals

for endangered and threatened status.

We maintained Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus as a

category 1 candidate in subsequent

[[Page 28138]]

notices: November 28, 1983 (48 FR 53640), September 27, 1985 (50 FR

39526), and February 21, 1990 (55 FR 6184). On September 30, 1993, we

published a Federal Register notice (58 FR 51144) informing the public

that we were moving taxa whose existence in the wild was in doubt,

including Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus, to category 2.

Category 2 comprised taxa for which there was available biological

information in our possession indicating that listing was possibly

appropriate, but the information was insufficient to support listing

the species as endangered or threatened. In the February 28, 1996,

notice of review (61 FR 7596), we informed the public that we were

discontinuing the designation of multiple categories of candidates and

that we would consider only taxa meeting the definition of former

category 1 as candidates for listing. Thus Astragalus pycnostachyus

var. lanosissimus was excluded from this and subsequent notices of

review. In 1997, A. pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus was rediscovered

and a review of the taxon's status indicated that a proposed rule was

warranted.

The processing of this proposed rule conforms with our final

listing priority guidance for fiscal years 1998 and 1999, published in

the Federal Register on May 8, 1998 (63 FR 25502). This guidance

establishes a three-tiered approach that assigns relative priorities on

a descending basis, to listing actions to be carried out under section

4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The guidance calls for giving

highest priority to completion of emergency listings for species facing

a significant risk to their well-being (Tier 1). The next highest

priority is for processing final decisions on pending proposed

listings, resolution of the conservation status of species identified

as candidates, processing 90-day or 12-month administrative findings on

petitions, and for a limited number of delisting/reclassification

activities (Tier 2). Third priority is the processing of petitions for

critical habitat designations and the preparation of proposed and final

critical habitat designations (Tier 3). This proposed rule for

Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus falls under Tier 2.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

Section 4 of the Act and regulations (50 CFR part 424) promulgated

to implement the listing provisions of the Act set forth the procedures

for adding species to the Federal lists. We may determine a species 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 Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus (Ventura

marsh milk-vetch) are as follows:

A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment

of Its Habitat or Range

With the exception of the extant Ventura County population,

Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus is believed extirpated from

all other areas from which it has been collected. In Los Angeles

County, this taxon was collected in the late 1800s and early 1900s from

Santa Monica, Ballona marsh, and ``Cienega'' (probably near Ballona

marsh). These coastal areas are now urbanized within the expansive Los

Angeles metropolitan area. About 90 percent of the Ballona wetlands,

once encompassing almost 2000 acres, have been drained, dredged, and

developed into the urban areas of Marina del Rey and Venice

(Critchfield 1978; Friends of Ballona Wetlands 1998). Ballona Creek,

the primary freshwater source for the wetland, had been straightened,

dredged and channelized by 1940 (Friesen, et al. 1981). Despite

periodic surveys of what remains at the Ballona wetlands, Astragalus

pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus has not been collected there since the

early 1900s (Gustafson 1981; herbarium labels from collections by H. P.

Chandler and by E. Braunton, 1902, housed at University of California

at Berkeley Herbaria). Barneby (1964) believed that Astragalus

pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus was extirpated from all areas south of

Santa Monica by the mid-1960s. In 1987, botanists searched specifically

for Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus at previous collection

locations throughout its range, including Bolsa Chica in Orange County

and on public lands around Oxnard in Ventura County, without success

(F. Roberts, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in litt. 1987; R. Burgess,

California Native Plant Society, in litt. 1987; T. Thomas, USFWS, pers.

comm. 1997). Point Muga Naval Air Weapons Station in Southern Ventura

County may have habitat. Detailed surveys have not been conducted

there, however Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus was not found

during cursory surveys of the base, nor has this taxon ever been

collected there in the past.

The single known population of Astragalus pycnostachyus var.

lanosissimus occurs in a degraded backdune community near the city of

Oxnard. From 1955 to 1981 the land on which it occurs was used as a

disposal site for oil field wastes (Impact Sciences, Inc. 1998). In

August 1998, the City of Oxnard released a Draft Environmental Impact

Report (DEIR) for development of this site (Impact Sciences, Inc.

1998). The project proposed for the site includes remediation of soils

contaminated with hydrocarbons, followed by construction of 364 homes

and a 6-acre lake on 91 acres of land, including that on which

Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus grows. The proposed soil

remediation would involve excavation and stockpiling of the soils,

followed by soil treatment and redistribution of the soils over the

site (Impact Sciences, Inc. 1998). The proposed project, as described

in the DEIR, would entirely eliminate the only known population of

Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus from this site, resulting in

the extinction of this taxon in the wild. In March 1999, a Final

Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) was released by the City of Oxnard.

This FEIR includes an alternative to the proposed project in which the

population of Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus would not be

directly eliminated, but excavation for soil remediation would occur to

within 50 feet of the population. A 5-acre area would be left

undeveloped around the population, to serve as a buffer from the

residential development that would surround it.

B. Overuse for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational

Purposes

Overutilization is not known to be a problem for Astragalus

pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus at present. Soon after this taxon was

discovered, the project proponent installed a fence around the

population, which appears to have been effective in minimizing

unauthorized visitation. However, some plants have been transplanted to

an off-site greenhouse. Because of the population's small size, the

removal of even modest numbers of plants from the population could

increase the risk of extinction.

C. Disease or Predation.

A sooty fungus was found on the leaves of Astragalus pycnostachyus

var. lanosissimus in late summer 1997, as leaves began to senesce (age)

and the plants entered a period of dormancy (Impact Sciences, Inc.

1998; T. Yamashita, Sunburst Plant Disease Clinic, pers. comm. 1998).

The effects of the fungus on the population are not known, but it is

possible that the fungus attacks senescing leaves in great number only

at the end of the growing season. The plants appeared robust when in

flower in June 1997, matured seed by October 1997, and were regrowing

in

[[Page 28139]]

spring 1998, after a period of dormancy, without obvious signs of the

fungus (D. Steeck, USFWS, pers. obs. 1997, 1998).

In spring 1998, during abundant seasonal rains, a nonnative snail

from the Mediterranean, Otala lactea (milk snail), was present in great

numbers in the population, feeding on adult and seedling plants of

Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus. Manual removal of snails,

the use of snail baits, and the eventual cessation of rains reduced

snail numbers. However, in years of high rainfall they may again affect

the population.

The seeds of Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus in 1997

were heavily infested with seed beetles (Bruchidae: Coleoptera). Seed

predation by seed beetles and weevils has been reported among other

members of the genus Astragalus (Platt et al. 1974; Lesica 1995). In a

seed collection made for conservation purposes, we found that most

fruits in 1997 partially developed at least four seeds. However seed

predation reduced the average number of undamaged seeds to only 1.8 per

fruit (D. Steeck, USFWS, and M. Meyer, California Department of Fish

and Game, unpublished data). The level of year to year variation in

seed predation and its consequences for the population of Astragalus

pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus are not known at this time.

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus currently receives no

protection under Federal law, and it is not currently listed by the

State of California. However, on February 4, 1999, the California Fish

and Game Commission accepted a petition to list the species under the

California Endangered Species Act, making it a candidate for State

listing. California Senate Bill 879, passed in 1997 and effective

January 1, 1998, requires individuals to obtain a section 2081(b)

permit from the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) to take a

candidate species incidental to otherwise lawful activities, and

requires that all impacts be fully mitigated and all measures be

capable of successful implementation. However, these requirements have

not been tested and it will be several years before their effectiveness

can be evaluated.

Remediation of the soils on the site and any proposed development

must comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and

the California Coastal Act. The CEQA requires a full public disclosure

of the potential environmental impacts of proposed projects. The public

agency with primary authority or jurisdiction over the project is

designated as the lead agency, and is responsible for conducting a

review of the project and consulting with the other agencies concerned

with the resources affected by the project. Section 15065 of the CEQA

Guidelines requires a finding of significance if a project has the

potential to ``reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or

endangered plant or animal.'' Species that can be shown to meet the

criteria for State listing, such as Astragalus pycnostachyus var.

lanosissimus are considered under CEQA (CEQA Section 15380). Once

significant effects are identified, the lead agency has the option to

require mitigation for effects through changes in the project or to

decide that overriding social or economic considerations make

mitigation infeasible. In the latter case, projects may be approved

that cause significant environmental damage, such as destruction of

endangered species. Protection of listed species through CEQA is,

therefore, dependent upon the discretion of the lead agencies.

The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 is a Federal statute that

allowed for the establishment of the California Coastal Act (CCA) of

1976. The CCA established a coastal zone. In Ventura County, the site

of the only known extant population of Astragalus pycnostachyus var.

lanosissimus occurs in the California Coastal Zone (Impact Sciences,

Inc. 1998). As required by the CCA, Ventura County has developed a

Coastal Land Use Plan. It currently designates the area occupied by

Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus as Open Space, thus

amendments of the Coastal Land Use Plan will be required for approval

of a residential development on this property. Land use decisions made

by local agencies in the Coastal Zone are appealable to the California

Coastal Commission. Although the Coastal Zone designation and CEQA

require that unique biological resources, such as Astragalus

pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus, are considered in the planning

process, any protection offered by these regulatory mechanisms is

ultimately at the discretion of the local and State agencies involved

and is therefore inadequate to preclude the need to list this taxon.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus is, by virtue of its

small population size and the small area occupied, susceptible to

extinction from natural and human-caused catastrophic events. An

example of an uncertain but potentially catastrophic environmental

effect is wildfire during the summer prior to seed maturation. There is

also some potential for random events such as a plane crash (the taxon

is under the extended center flight line of the Oxnard airport, and a

crash occurred on the site in 1995 (Murphy in litt. 1997)) to cause

extinction.

Small population size also increases the susceptibility of this

taxon to extinction from competition with nonnative plant species.

Cortaderia selloana (pampas grass), Carpobrotus sp., Polypogon

monspeliensis, and Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens are invasive

nonnative plant species that occur at the site of the single extant

population (Impact Sciences, Inc. 1997). Carpobrotus sp. in particular,

are competitive, succulent species with the potential to cover vast

areas in dense clonal mats. Polypogon monspeliensis grew in high

densities around some mature individuals of Astragalus pycnostachyus

var. lanosissimus in 1998 and seedlings were germinating among patches

of Carpobrotus and Bromus in 1998 (D. Steeck, pers. obs. 1998).

Seedling survival rates in these areas have not yet been determined.

These invasive, nonnative species are associated with wholesale

conversion of native plant communities, leading to declines and local

extirpation of native species. While population trend information is

not available, the presence of these nonnative species on the site is

cause for concern that this plant community is vulnerable to conversion

and the Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus population is at

risk.

The small population risks described above in this section are

increased by activities in the occupied habitat associated with

planning for land use at the site. For example, at least two

excavations were conducted in the population to examine the soils in

which the plants occur (D. Steeck, pers. obs. 1997) and to examine the

root structure of an adult plant (R. Smith, Impact Sciences 1998). In

April 1998, four plants from the population were removed and

transported to a greenhouse in a preliminary attempt at

transplantation. In addition to the direct removal of reproducing

individuals from the population, exploratory excavations within the

population can potentially alter the hydrology of the micro-site where

the plants are found, reduce seedling establishment by burying or

removing seeds and seedlings from the soil, and injure plant roots.

[[Page 28140]]

We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial

information available regarding the past, present, and future threats

faced by Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus in determining to

propose this rule. Residential and commercial development have resulted

in the loss and alteration of this taxon's coastal habitat and are the

most likely cause of population extirpation historically. Loss and

alteration of habitat from soil remediation activities and proposed

residential development threaten the only known extant population.

Other threats include competition from nonnative plant species and

catastrophic natural and human-caused events which could diminish or

destroy the very small extant population. Existing regulatory

mechanisms are inadequate to protect this taxon. Based on our

evaluation, the preferred action is to list Astragalus pycnostachyus

var. lanosissimus as endangered.

Critical Habitat

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

specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the 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) which may require special management

considerations 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 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.

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. Critical

habitat is not determinable when one or both of the following

situations exist--(1) Information sufficient to perform required

analyses of the impacts of the designation is lacking, or (2) the

biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well known to

permit identification of an area as critical habitat (50 CFR

424.12(a)(2)). Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that

designation of critical habitat is not prudent when one or both of the

following situations exist--(1) The species is threatened by taking or

other human activity, and identification of critical habitat can be

expected to increase the degree of threat to the species, or (2) such

designation of critical habitat would not be beneficial to the species.

For the reasons discussed below we find that designation of critical

habitat for Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus is not prudent.

Critical habitat designation provides protection for listed species

on Federal lands and on non-Federal lands or private lands where there

is Federal involvement through authorization or funding of, or

participation in, a project or activity (Federal nexus). If such a

Federal nexus is found, then the Act provides protection through

section 7 consultation procedures. Astragalus pycnostachyus var.

lanosissimus occurs exclusively on privately owned land and the

activities constituting threats to its existence (see ``Summary of

Factors Affecting the Species'' section above) do not require Federal

involvement and therefore are not subject to consultation under section

7 of the Act. Our analysis has not identified a Federal nexus which

would trigger section 7 consultation on land where the species occurs.

With no current or future Federal nexus there will be no benefit to the

species as a result of the consultation requirements under section 7 of

the Act.

This species occurs at a single locality, occupying less than an

acre of property in a highly altered and rapidly urbanizing landscape.

Due to its exclusive occurrence on private land, and with no Federal

involvement in projects on those lands, the benefits of listing are

limited, being restricted to the protective prohibitions provided under

section 9 of the Act. As applied to plants, section 9 of the Act

prohibits the importation and exportation of listed plant species into

or from the United States. Further, under section 9 it is unlawful to

remove and reduce to possession, or to maliciously damage or destroy,

any listed plant species from areas under Federal jurisdiction. In

addition, it is unlawful to remove, cut, dig up, or damage or destroy a

listed plant species on any area in knowing violation of any State law

or regulation or in violation of a State criminal trespass law.

Finally, it is unlawful to deliver, receive, carry or transport, or

sell or offer to sell the species in interstate or foreign commerce. As

previously discussed, the residential development and soil remediation

activities threatening this species occur wholly on private land. Any

removal or destruction of this species on private land, if in

compliance with State law, would not violate section 9. Designation of

critical habitat would not make section 9 any more or less applicable

to this plant species. As such, designation of critical habitat would

provide no benefit to the species.

Section 10 allows the Secretary to permit otherwise prohibited

activity. Under certain circumstances, the Secretary may issue permits

to take wildlife and fish (but not plants) in conjunction with

otherwise legal activities (section 10(a)(1)(B)), and for scientific

purposes (section 10(a)(1)(A)). These permits extend authorization to

the applicant to impact the species, as opposed to impacting critical

habitat. Impacts to habitat may be permitted under section 10(a)(1)(B)

when the number of individual animals to be taken can not be

quantified. In the case of this plant species which occurs solely on

private land, neither section 10(a)(1)(A) nor section 10(a)(1)(B) are

applicable. Designation of critical habitat would result in no benefit

to the species under section 10 of the Act.

Because this plant species occurs only on private land with no

Federal nexus, section 7 of the act is not applicable. In addition,

critical habitat designation will not invoke the protection afforded

under section 9, and since, in this case, permitting is not applicable,

there is no section 10 requirement to meet. Neither listing nor

designation of critical habitat will require the private landowner to

undertake active management or modify any of its activities on behalf

of this species. Because all appropriate non-Federal regulating

agencies are aware of this species and its location on private land,

any additional notice to the general public and state and/or local

government due to designation of critical habitat would not increase

the protection afforded this species under the Act. Because the private

landowner and the developer have been notified of the Federal status of

this species, and because the survival and recovery of this species

depends upon their participation and cooperation, we will continue to

work with the property owner to further the conservation of the

species. We conclude therefore that no benefit to the species would be

realized through designation of critical habitat. For all of the above

reasons we find it not prudent to designate critical habitat.

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

[[Page 28141]]

public awareness and results in conservation actions by Federal, State,

and local agencies, private organizations, and individuals. The Act

provides for possible land acquisition from willing sellers and

cooperation with the States and requires that recovery actions be

carried out for all listed species. The protection required of Federal

agencies and the prohibitions against certain activities involving

listed plants are discussed, in part, below.

Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, 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 species proposed for listing or result in

destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a

species is listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires

Federal agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or

carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the

species or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a

Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the

responsible Federal agency must enter into formal consultation with the

Service. The single known extant population of Astragalus pycnostachyus

var. lanosissimus occurs on privately owned land and our analysis has

not identified a Federal nexus that will trigger consultation

requirements under section 7 of the Act.

The listing of Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus as

endangered would provide for the development of a recovery plan for

this taxon. Such a plan would bring together Federal, State, and local

efforts for the conservation of this taxon. The plan would establish a

framework for agencies to coordinate activities and to cooperate with

each other in conservation efforts. The plan would set recovery

priorities and describe site-specific management actions necessary to

achieve the conservation of this taxon.

The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of

general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered or

threatened plants. With respect to Astragalus pycnostachyus var.

lanosissimus, all prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act,

implemented by 50 CFR 17.61 for endangered plants, apply (16 U.S.C.

1538(a)(2)). 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, or remove and reduce the species to possession 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 endangered plants in knowing

violation of any State law or regulation, including State criminal

trespass law. Certain exceptions to the prohibitions apply to persons

acting in an agency capacity for the Service and to 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 plant taxa under certain circumstances. Such permits are

available for scientific purposes and to enhance the propagation or

survival of the species. Requests for copies of the regulations on

listed species and inquiries about prohibitions and permits may be

addressed to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species

Permits, 911 NE 11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232-4181 (503/231-2063,

facsimile 503/231-6243).

It is our policy, 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 be

likely to 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 the taxon's range.

Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus is not located on areas

currently under Federal jurisdiction. Collection, damage, or

destruction of this species on Federal lands would be prohibited

(although in appropriate cases a Federal endangered species permit may

be issued to allow collection for scientific or recovery purposes).

Such activities on areas not under Federal jurisdiction would

constitute a violation of section 9 if conducted in knowing violation

of State law or regulations, or in violation of State criminal trespass

law. Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a

violation of section 9, should this species be listed, should be

directed to the Field Supervisor of the Services's Ventura Fish and

Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).

Public Comments Solicited

It is our intent that any final action resulting from this proposal

will be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we solicit

comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental

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

party concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek comments

concerning:

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

concerning any threat (or lack thereof) to Astragalus pycnostachyus

var. lanosissimus;

(2) The location of any additional populations of Astragalus

pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus and the reasons why any habitat should

or should not be determined to be critical habitat pursuant to section

4 of the Act;

(3) Additional information concerning the essential habitat

features (biotic and abiotic), range, distribution, and population size

of this taxon; and

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

possible impacts on this taxon.

Final promulgation of the regulations on Astragalus pycnostachyus

var. lanosissimus will take into consideration the comments and any

additional information we receive, and such communications may lead to

a final regulation that differs from this proposal.

The Act provides for a public hearing 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 be addressed to the Field Supervisor (see

ADDRESSES section).

National Environmental Policy Act

We have determined that Environmental Assessments, as defined under

the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need

not be prepared in connection with regulations adopted pursuant to

section 4(a) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. We

published a notice outlining the basis for this determination in the

Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations/

notices that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to

make this notice easier to understand including answers to questions

such as the following: (1) Are the requirements in the notice clearly

stated? (2) Does the notice contain technical language or jargon that

[[Page 28142]]

interferes with the clarity? (3) Does the format of the notice

(grouping and order of the sections, use of headings, paragraphing,

etc.) Aid or reduce its clarity? (4) Is the description of the notice

in the Supplementary Information section of the preamble helpful in

understanding the notice? What else could we do to make the notice

easier to understand?

Send a copy of any comments that concern how we could make this

notice easier to understand to: Office of Regulatory Affairs,

Department of the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington,

DC 20240. You may e-mail your comments to this address:

E[email protected].

Required Determinations

We have examined this regulation under the Paperwork Reduction Act

of 1995 and found it to contain no information collection requirements.

References Cited

A complete list of all references cited in this proposed rule is

available upon request from the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (see

ADDRESSES section).

Author: The primary author of this notice is Diane Steeck, U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura Fish and Wildlife 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

For the reasons given in the preamble, we propose to amend part 17

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.

4201-4205; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise noted.

2. Section 17.12(h) is amended by adding the following in

alphabetical order under FLOWERING PLANTS, to the List of Endangered

and Threatened Plants to read as follows:

Sec. 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants.

* * * * *

(h) * * *

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

Species

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

Scientific name Common name listed habitat rules

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

Flowering Plants

* * * * * * *

Astragalus pycnostachyus var. Ventura marsh milk- U.S.A. (CA)......... Fabaceae--Pea....... E .......... NA NA

lanosissimus. vetch.

* * * * * * *

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

Dated: April 28, 1999.

Jamie Rappaport Clark,

Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 99-12991 Filed 5-24-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P