Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Endangered Status for Ambrosia pumila (San Diego Ambrosia) from Southern California

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AF86

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed

Endangered Status for Ambrosia pumila (San Diego Ambrosia) from

Southern California

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, propose to list

Ambrosia pumila (San Diego ambrosia) as endangered under the Endangered

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). This plant is restricted to San

Diego and Riverside Counties, California and Baja California, Mexico,

from Colonet to Lake Chapala. Ambrosia pumila is primarily restricted

to flat or sloping grasslands, often along valley bottoms or areas

adjacent to vernal pools. This species is threatened by the following;

destruction, fragmentation, and degradation of habitat by recreational

and commercial development; highway construction and maintenance;

construction and maintenance activities associated with a utility

easement; competition from non-native plants; trampling by horses and

humans; off-road vehicle (ORV) use; and inadequate regulatory

mechanisms. This proposed rule, if made final, would extend protection

under the Act to Ambrosia pumila.

DATES: Comments from all interested parties must be received by

February 28, 2000. Requests for public hearings must be received by

February 14, 2000.

ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and

[[Page 72994]]

materials concerning this proposal by any one of several methods.

You may submit written comments to the Deputy Field Supervisor,

Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2730

Loker Avenue West, Carlsbad, California 92008.

You may send comments by e-mail to [email protected]. Please

submit these comments as an ASCII file and avoid the use of special

characters and any form of encryption. Please also include ``Attn: [RIN

number]'' and your name and return address in your e-mail message. If

you do not receive a confirmation from the system that we have received

your e-mail message, contact us directly by calling our Carlsbad Fish

and Wildlife Office at phone number 760-431-9440.

You may hand-deliver comments to our Carlsbad office at 2730 Loker

Avenue West, Carlsbad, California.

Comments and materials received, as well as supporting

documentation used in the preparation of this proposed rule, will be

available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business

hours at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary D. Wallace, Botanist, at the

above address (telephone 760/431-9440; facsimile 760/918-0638).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Ambrosia is a genus of 35 to 50 wind-pollinated species of annuals

and perennials in the Asteraceae (sunflower) family. The perennial taxa

range from woody shrubs to herbaceous rhizomatous (possessing

underground stems) taxa. Payne (1976) notes that self-pollination and

self-fertility contribute strong inbreeding, as does seed longevity.

Members of the genus occur predominantly in the Western Hemisphere,

especially North America. Species are generally found in arid or

semiarid areas.

Ambrosia pumila (San Diego ambrosia), was originally described as

Franseria pumila by Thomas Nuttall (Nuttall 1840) based on a specimen

he collected near San Diego in 1836. Delpino (1871) transferred the

species to another genus he erected based on a character of the fruit

and published the combination Hemiambrosia pumila (Nutt.) Delpino. Asa

Gray (1882), after seeing specimens of the plant with fruits, decided

it was closely related to members of the genus Ambrosia and published

the currently accepted combination, Ambrosia pumila (Nutt.) A. Gray.

This has been recognized by current systematic and floristic treatments

(Payne 1963; Munz 1935, 1974; Munz and Keck 1959; Ferris 1960;

Beauchamp 1986; Payne 1993).

Ambrosia pumila is an herbaceous perennial arising from a branched

system of rhizome-like roots. This rhizomatous perennial habit results

in groupings of aerial stems, often termed clones, that are, or at

least were at one time, all attached to one another. References to

clones derive from the presence of currently separated specimens whose

interconnections have degenerated leaving genetically identical but

organically separate individuals. The aerial stems sprout in early

spring after the winter rains and deteriorate in late summer.

Therefore, the plant may not be evident from late summer to early

spring. The aerial stems are 0.5 to 3 decimeter (dm) (2 to 12 inches

(in)) rarely to 5 dm (20 in) tall and densely covered with short hairs.

The leaves are 3 to 4 times pinnately divided into many small segments

and are covered with short soft, gray-white, appressed hairs. This

species is monoecious, with separate male and female flowers on the

same plant, and is wind-pollinated. The male flower clusters (heads)

are borne on terminal racemes, and the female flower clusters (heads)

are in the axils of the leaves below the male inflorescences. The

fruiting heads are enclosed by cup-like structures that have no spines,

although some reports note a few vestigial spines. Ambrosia pumila may

be distinguished from other species of Ambrosia in the area by its

leaves which are twice divided, involucres (cup-like structures)

lacking hooked spines, and lack of longer stiff hairs on the stems and

leaves. This species flowers from May through October.

Several factors make it difficult to determine the extent of an

individual plant. The species is rhizomatous, plants produce a few to

many aerial stems each year, the rhizomatous connections among the

aerial stems may deteriorate over time resulting in physically separate

but genetically identical individuals, and plants may have

intermingling rhizomes resulting in intermixed aerial stems that appear

identical. Because this species is a clonal plant, the numbers of

genetically different individuals in an occurrence, especially small

occurrences, could be very low. It is possible that an occurrence that

supports even 1,000 aerial stems may consist of very few plants. This

suggests that the low genetic diversity within the smaller occurrences

may relegate these occurrences to extinction (Barrett & Kohn 1991).

Seven of the 13 extant occurrences fall into this category of

reportedly supporting 1,000 or fewer aerial stems. It is also possible

that even the largest reported number of aerial stems (10,000) may

represent fewer than 100 plants. Some surveys have reported numbers of

plants, when in fact, only numbers of aerial stems have been counted,

and the actual number of separate plants is not determinable (CNDDB

1999).

Ambrosia pumila is found on upper terraces of rivers and drainages

as well as in open grasslands, openings in coastal sage scrub habitat,

and dry lake beds. The species may also be found in disturbed sites

such as fuel breaks and roadways. Associated native plant taxa include

Distichlis spicata (saltgrass), Orcuttia californica (California Orcutt

grass), Baccharis salicifolia (Mule-fat), and Eremocarpus setigerus

(Turkey-mullein). Populations of Ambrosia pumila occur on Federal,

State, local government, and private lands in western San Diego County,

western Riverside County, and in the northern state of Baja California,

Estado de Baja California, Mexico.

This species has been reported from 49 occurrences in the United

States (CNDDB 1999). Four were combined with other occurrences, six

were based on misidentified specimens, and two that were based on old

collections have not been documented since 1936 (CNDDB 1999). Three

occurrences consist of transplanted plants from other occurrences that

were subsequently partially or totally eliminated (CNDDB 1999). There

are, therefore, 34 verifiable native reported occurrences of this

species. Twenty of these have been extirpated since the 1930's, nearly

all by commercial development and activities associated with highway

construction. One occurrence, with a single stem in 1996, is considered

non-viable due to the small size of the occurrence and the high level

of disturbance of the site (CNDDB 1999). Subtracting this non-viable

occurrence, there are currently 13 extant native occurrences of this

species. Two recent occurrences (CNDDB 1999; T. Stewart, CDFG in

litt.1999) are incorporated here into previously known occurrences.

Eleven occurrences are in San Diego County, and two are in western

Riverside County.

San Diego County

In San Diego County, two occurrences are protected on the

Sweetwater River watershed in the recently established San Diego

National Wildlife Refuge (SDNWR). One of these was reported to be 0.6

hectares (ha) (0.25 acres(ac)) in size in 1996, and 0.15 ha (0.06 ac)

in 1998 (Julie Vanderwier, USFWS in litt.1998). Numbers of aerial stems

have

[[Page 72995]]

not been reported in the various surveys of this site. The 1998 survey

indicated an unknown number of stems at this site and additionally a

few plants nearby to the northeast. These few plants are included here

in the earlier known occurrence. The second occurrence on the San Diego

National Wildlife Refuge was reported to support 50 plants in 1996. It

must be pointed out that throughout this discussion reports that

include numbers of ``plants'' are, in fact, indicating only the numbers

of aerial stems. It is not possible to determine the extent of a single

genetically distinct plant from the numbers of aerial stems because a

plant may consist of numerous aerial stems produced by interconnected

underground rhizomes. These rhizomes may deteriorate over time,

resulting in physically separate but genetically identical plants. A

survey in 1998 (Vanderwier in litt.1998) reported that this site

covered 0.07 ha (0.03 ac). This same survey discovered a large number

of individuals just to the northeast in a 0.7-ha (1.75-ac) site,

considered here as an extension of the second occurrence. Another

occurrence on the Sweetwater River watershed is in El Cajon on a 0.02-

ha (0.06-ac) vacant lot owned by California Department of

Transportation (Caltrans) which supported 10,000 stems in 1997

(Vanderwier in litt.1997). In 1998 an additional occurrence was found

in El Cajon on a group of vacant lots of 1.9 ha (4.8 ac) supporting

6,500 plants (aerial stems) (CNDDB 1999).

Three occurrences occur on the San Diego River watershed. The

largest one is in Mission Trails Regional Park (MTRP) managed by the

City of San Diego, and on adjacent private land. That portion of the

occurrence on MTRP land managed by the City of San Diego occupies 13.6

ha (34 ac) and supported 1,500 stems in 1994. The adjacent private

lands portion of this occurrence is afforded protections under the City

of San Diego's Subarea Plan of the Multiple Species Conservation

Program (MSCP) (City of San Diego 1997). The second occurrence on the

San Diego River watershed and also in MTRP supports an unknown number

of individuals (CNDDB 1999). Both occurrences in MTRP are afforded

protected under provisions of City of San Diego's Subarea Plan (City of

San Diego 1997). The third occurrence on the San Diego River watershed

occurs at Gillespie Field, where there are small remnants of native

populations scattered near the south side of the airfield. The current

status of these remnants is unknown.

The four remaining occurrences in San Diego County may eventually

be protected under provisions of the Multiple Habitats Conservation

Program (MHCP) or the City of San Diego's north segment MSCP Subarea

Plan. Three are small occurrences on the San Luis Rey River watershed

near Bonsall--1) Some plants are presumed extant in a fenced area on

Caltrans lands, and some are on private land. However, the current

number of aerial stems or the area of this occurrence is not known; (2)

Another occurrence in the area is 2.6 ha (6.6 ac) in size and supported

about 700 plants (aerial stems) in 1996; and (3) the third occurrence

on the San Luis Rey River watershed is on jointly private and Caltrans-

owned lands near Bonsall and reportedly supported 2,000 to 3,000 plants

(aerial stems) in 1997 (CNDDB 1999). The remaining extant occurrence in

San Diego County is on the San Dieguito River watershed. The privately

owned site is 31.7 ha (79.2 ac) in size and reportedly supported 2,000

stems in 1997 (CNDDB 1999). Recent site visits found fewer than 100

stems in an area less than 0.4 ha (1 ac) (Wallace in litt. 1999). The

area is degraded and immediately adjacent to a bulldozed area of a

development (Wallace in litt. 1999).

Riverside County

Two occurrences are known from Riverside County on privately owned

lands. One occurrence along Nichols Road, Lake Elsinore supported an

estimated 3,400 stems in 1997, and another occurrence at a fenced

mitigation bank area at Skunk Hollow supported about 100-300 stems in

1998 (Brenda McMillan USFWS in litt.1999).

Baja California, Mexico

The current documented range of Ambrosia pumila in Baja California,

Mexico extends from Colonet south to Lake Chapala. Two of the three

documented sites were confirmed by Hogan and Burrascano (1996).

Although additional occurrences may exist in Baja California, the

species is not considered to be widespread because of lack of

appropriate habitat and impacts from agriculture and urban development,

especially near the coast.

Previous Federal Action

Federal Government action on this species began as a result of

section 12 of the Act, which directed the Secretary of the Smithsonian

Institution to prepare a report on those plants considered to be

threatened, endangered, or extinct in the United States. This report,

designated House Document No. 94-51 was presented to Congress on

January 9, 1975. (Ambrosia pumila was not included in this document). A

revision of the Smithsonian report (Ayensu and DeFilipps 1978) provided

new lists based on additional data on taxonomy, geographic range, and

endangered status of taxa, as well as suggestions of taxa to be

included or deleted from the earlier listing. Ambrosia pumila, not

included in the first Smithsonian report, was recommended for

threatened status in the Ayensu and DeFilipps (1978) report. We

published an updated Notice of Review of plants on December 15, 1980

(45 FR 82479). This notice included Ambrosia pumila as a category 1

candidate. Category 1 candidates were taxa for which we had sufficient

information on biological vulnerability and threats to support

preparation of listing proposals.

Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act requires the Secretary to make

findings on petitions within 12 months of their receipt. Section

2(b)(1) of the 1982 amendments further requires that all petitions

pending on October 13, 1982, be treated as having been newly submitted

on that date. This was the case for Ambrosia pumila because the 1978

Smithsonian report (Ayensu and DeFilipps 1978) had been accepted as a

petition. On October 13, 1983, we found that the petitioned listing of

this species was warranted but precluded by other pending listing

actions, in accordance with section 4(b)(3)(B)(iii) of the Act.

Notification of this finding was published in the Federal Register on

January 20, 1984 (49 FR 2485). Such a finding requires the petition to

be recycled annually, pursuant to section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act. On

November 28, 1983, we published a supplement (48 FR 53639) to the

December 15, 1980, Notice of Review of plant taxa for listing. The

status of Ambrosia pumila was changed to category 2. Category 2

candidates were taxa for which information then in our possession

indicated that proposing to list the taxa as endangered or threatened

was possibly appropriate, but for which substantial data on biological

vulnerability and threats were not currently known or on file to

support proposed rules. The status of Ambrosia pumila remained

unchanged through, and including, the Notice of Review we published in

the Federal Register on September 30, 1993 (58 FR 51143). On February

28, 1996, we published in the Federal Register (61 FR 7595) a Notice of

Review of plant and animal taxa that are candidates for listing as

endangered or threatened. In that notice we announced changes to the

way that we identify species that are candidates for listing under the

Act, and we

[[Page 72996]]

discontinued maintenance of a list of species that were previously

identified as ``category 2 candidates.'' Thus, as a category 2

candidate, Ambrosia pumila was not included in the February 28, 1996,

Notice of Review.

On January 9, 1997, we received a petition dated November 12, 1996,

from Mr. David Hogan of the Southwest Center for Biodiversity and Ms.

Cindy Burrascano of the California Native Plant Society, San Diego

Chapter, requesting that Ambrosia pumila (San Diego ambrosia) be listed

as endangered pursuant to section 4 of the Act. Additionally, the

petition appealed for emergency listing pursuant to section 4(b)(7) of

the Act. The petitioners further requested that critical habitat be

designated for Ambrosia pumila concurrent with the listing pursuant to

50 CFR 424.12 and the Administrative Procedures Act 50 U.S.C. 5.53. On

January 23, 1997, we notified the petitioners that we received their

petition and that their petition would be processed based on the

listing priority guidance then in effect.

Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires that we make a finding on

whether a petition presents substantial information indicating that the

action may be warranted. To the maximum extent practicable, this

finding should be made within 90 days of the receipt of the petition

and it should be published promptly in the Federal Register. If we

determine that listing the species may be warranted, section 4(b)(3)(B)

of the Act requires us to make a finding within 12 months of the date

of the receipt of the petition on whether the petitioned action is (a)

not warranted, (b) warranted, or (c) warranted but precluded from

immediate proposal by other pending proposals of higher priority.

However, because of budgetary restraints, we processed petitions in

accordance with the 1997 listing priority guidance published in the

Federal Register on December 5, 1996 (61 FR 64475). This guidance

identified four tiers of listing activities to be conducted by us with

appropriate funds. Tier 1, the highest priority, covered emergency

listings of species facing an imminent risk of extinction as defined

under the emergency listing provisions of section (4)(b)(7) of the Act.

Tier 2, the second priority, included processing of final

determinations for species currently proposed for listing. Tier 3, the

third priority, addressed efforts under the Act to resolve the

conservation status of candidate species and process administrative

findings on petitions to add species to the lists or reclassify

threatened species to endangered status. Tier 4, the lowest priority,

covered the processing of critical habitat determinations, delisting

actions, and reclassification of endangered species to threatened

status. Under the priority system and because of the backlog of species

proposed for listing and awaiting final listing determinations at that

time, we deferred action on listing petitions except where an emergency

existed and where the immediacy of the threat was so great to a

significant portion of the population that the routine listing process

would not be sufficient to prevent large losses that might result in

extinction.

We reviewed the petition and supporting documentation to determine

whether Ambrosia pumila faced a significant risk to its well-being

under the emergency listing provisions of section 4(b)(7) of the Act

(61 FR 64479). On July 15, 1997, we concluded that emergency listing

and the designation of critical habitat were not warranted, and that

the petition should be processed as a Tier 3 priority task pursuant to

the listing priority guidance for fiscal year 1997. A notice published

in the Federal Register (62 FR 55268) on October 23, 1997, announced

the extension of the fiscal year 1997 listing priority guidance until

such time as the fiscal year 1998 appropriation bill for the Department

of the Interior became law and new final guidance was published in the

Federal Register. In this notice there were no changes made in the tier

system.

On October 1, 1997, Southwest Center for Biodiversity and the

California Native Plant Society filed a lawsuit in the United States

District Court for the Southern District of California challenging our

failure to produce timely administrative 90-day and 12-month findings

for Ambrosia pumila.

On May 8, 1998, new listing priority guidance for Fiscal Years 1998

and 1999 was published in the Federal Register (63 FR 10931). This new

guidance changed the four tier priority system to a three tier priority

system. Highest priority, Tier 1, was processing emergency listing

rules for any species determined to face a significant and imminent

risk to its well being. Second priority, Tier 2, was processing final

determinations on pending proposed listings; the processing of new

proposals to add species to the lists; the processing of administrative

petition findings to add species to the lists, and petitions to delist

species, or reclassify listed species (petitions filed under section 4

of the Act); and a limited number of delisting and reclassifying

actions. Lowest priority, Tier 3, was the processing of proposed or

final critical habitat designations. Under that guidance, the

administrative review process for this petition fell under Tier 2. We

published a 90-day finding on the petition to list Ambrosia pumila as

endangered in the Federal Register (64 FR 19108) on April 19, 1999. We

found that substantial information existed indicating listing may be

warranted and solicited comments and information regarding the finding.

However, we did not receive any comments by May 19, 1999, the close of

the comment period. On October 28, 1999, the District Court ordered us

to complete a 12-month finding for Ambrosia pumila on or before

December 10, 1999. This proposed rule constitutes the 12-month finding

on the petition.

The processing of this final rule conforms with our current 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.

Peer Review

In accordance with interagency policy published on July 1, 1994 (59

FR 34270), upon publication of this proposed rule in the Federal

Register we will solicit expert reviews by at least three specialists

regarding pertinent scientific or commercial data and assumptions

relating to the taxonomic, biological, and ecological information for

Ambrosia pumila. The purpose of such a review is to ensure that listing

decisions are based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and

analyses, including the input of appropriate experts.

[[Page 72997]]

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

Section 4 of the Act and regulations (50 CFR Part 424) issued to

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

for adding species to the Federal list. We may determine that a species

is endangered or threatened due to one or more of the five factors

described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. These factors and their

application to Ambrosia pumila (Nutt.) A. Gray are as follows.

A. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or

curtailment of its habitat or range. Twenty of the 34 reported native

occurrences of this species have been eliminated by urbanization,

recreational development and highway construction and alteration (CNDDB

1999). Of the remaining 14, one occurrence in a sidewalk crack in

National City, is considered non-viable (CNDDB 1999). Six of the 13

other extant occurrences, including three of the larger (reportedly

supporting more that 1,000 aerial stems) occurrences, are threatened

with habitat destruction associated with highway expansion or

maintenance activities or by maintenance of utility rights of way,

including mowing (CNDDB 1999). One of these is west of the Bonsall

Bridge and reportedly supported 2,000 to 3,000 stems in 1997 (CNDDB).

The two other smaller occurrences near Bonsall are also threatened by

Caltrans highway maintenance and expansion (CNDDB 1999). These are the

only three extant occurrences known within the San Luis Rey watershed.

Two occurrences near El Cajon within the San Diego River watershed,

both reportedly supporting more that 1,000 stems, are likewise

threatened by highway maintenance and highway widening (CNDDB 1999).

The last occurrence threatened by highway expansion or maintenance

activities or utility rights of way maintenance activities is a large

(500 to 1,000 stems reported in 1998) occurrence along Nicols Road in

Riverside County (CNDDB 1999). Two occurrences, both reportedly

supporting more that 1,000 aerial stems have been affected by

recreational development (CNDDB 1999). One of these is within a golf

course under construction near Del Dios. During a recent visit, this

site appeared to be significantly degraded by grading in the immediate

vicinity and less than 100 aerial stems were found on the site which

was less than 0.4 ha (1 ac) in size (Wallace in litt. 1999). The second

occurrence is located within and adjacent to Mission Trails Regional

Park, managed by the City of San Diego, which is required by the

Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) to conserve and manage 90

percent of the large population on their lands. A 10 percent loss (0.2

ha or 0.05 ac) of this major population of Ambrosia pumila occurred in

1997 for development of a campground facility (CNDDB 1999) and was

allowed under the provisions of the City of San Diego's Subarea Plan

(City of San Diego 1997). If more than a 10 percent loss occurs, the

species will no longer be covered under the provisions of the MSCP

(City of San Diego 1997). It will be possible to verify future losses

and assess indirect effects of these losses when the biological

monitoring and management aspect of the MSCP Subarea Plans are in full

effect. An additional habitat loss for this species was an occurrence

on the San Luis Rey watershed that supported over 1,600 ``plants''

(aerial stems). This loss occurred in spite of an existing agreement

prohibiting impacts to this species (see discussion below regarding San

Diego Gas and Electric under factor D). The site was graded and the

plants extirpated in late 1996. Two other occurrences are threatened by

residential or commercial development. The larger of the two reportedly

supported 6,500 stems in 1998 (CNDDB 1999). This occurrence is on

vacant lots and back yards in a residential area of El Cajon (CNDDB

1999). In Riverside County, one occurrence, near Lake Elsinore, is

threatened by highway expansion activities, the other occurrence at

Skunk Hollow is threatened by indirect impacts associated with

urbanization surrounding the occurrence (CNDDB 1999).

B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or

educational purposes. Overutilization is not known to be a factor

affecting Ambrosia pumila at this time. However, rare taxa are favored

by some professional and amateur botanists for their collections or for

trade with other individuals. The potential threat to this species from

overcollection may increase upon publication of this proposed rule.

C. Disease or predation. Disease and predation are not known to be

factors affecting this plant species.

D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. Existing

regulatory mechanisms that could provide some protection for this

species include--(1) Federal laws and regulations including the

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Endangered Species Act in

those cases where this species occurs in habitat occupied by other

listed species, and section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act; (2)

State laws, including the Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA), the

California Endangered Species Act (CESA), the California Environmental

Quality Act (CEQA), and section 1603 of the California Fish and Game

Code; (3) regional planning efforts pursuant to the California Natural

Community Conservation Planning Program (NCCP); (4) land acquisition

and management by Federal, State, or local agencies, or by private

groups and organizations; (5) local land use processes and ordinances;

and (6) enforcement of Mexican laws.

Federal Laws and Regulations

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 to

4347) requires disclosure of the environmental effects of projects

within Federal jurisdiction. NEPA requires that each of the project

alternatives recommend ways to protect, restore and enhance the

environment and avoid and minimize any possible adverse effects when

implementation poses significant adverse impacts. NEPA does not,

however, require that the lead agency select an alternative with the

least significant impact to the environment, nor does it prohibit

implementing a proposed action in an environmentally sensitive area (40

CFR 1500 et seq.). Only two of the extant occurrences of Ambrosia

pumila are on Federal lands.

The Federal Endangered Species Act (Act), as amended, may afford

protection to sensitive species if they coexist with species already

listed as threatened or endangered under the Act. A number of federally

listed species occur within the range of Ambrosia pumila and are known

or likely to co-occur with the species. Protection afforded by these

species, however, is minimal due to the lack of significantly

overlapping habitat requirements. These species include Riverside fairy

shrimp (Streptocephalus woottonii), Orcuttia californica (California

Orcutt grass), and Least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), listed

as endangered, and the coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila

californica californica), and Navarretia fossalis (spreading

navarretia), listed as threatened. These species are not known to

consistently co-occur in the same vegetation communities although they

may occur in nearby associated communities.

Conservation provisions under the Clean Water Act could afford some

protection to Ambrosia pumila. Ambrosia pumila could potentially be

affected by projects requiring a permit from the Army Corps of

Engineers (Corps) under section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Under

section 404, the Corps regulates the discharge of fill material into

waters of the United States, which

[[Page 72998]]

includes navigable and isolated waters, headwaters, and adjacent

wetlands. Section 404 regulations require that applicants obtain an

individual permit for projects to place fill material affecting greater

than 1.2 ha (3 ac) of waters of the United States. Nationwide Permit 26

(33 CFR part 330, revised on December 20, 1996 (61 FR 65916) was

established by the Department of the Army to facilitate authorization

of discharges of fill into isolated waters (including wetlands and

vernal pools) that cause the loss of less than 1.2 ha (3 ac) of waters

of the United States, and that cause minimal individual and cumulative

environmental impacts. Projects affecting less than 0.1 ha (0.33 ac) of

isolated waters require no prior approval by the Corps. In addition,

other nationwide permits authorize activities that may affect Ambrosia

pumila without prior notification to the corps. Because the

distribution of this species occurs in non-wetland habitat and in

habitats associated with drainages and dry lakebeds, the instances and

extent of protection for this species under section 404 is unclear.

However, there are no specific provisions that adequately conserve rare

or candidate plant species.

Minimal impacts to the occurrences of Ambrosia pumila were incurred

on the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge as a consequence of efforts

to relocate burrowing owls onto the refuge. Throughout the relocation

process, the Ambrosia pumila were considered, and minimal impacts were

limited to an area of approximately eight square meters (9.6 square

yards). Similar relocation efforts will be coordinated to avoid direct

or indirect impacts to Ambrosia pumila. The San Diego National Wildlife

Refuge currently has no specific protections in place to prevent

trampling of the plant by horses and people who traverse one of the

occurrences, nor is there a weed abatement plan for the Ambrosia pumila

sites. However, future management includes abandonment of some trails

and installation of trail signs to direct horses and people away from

the Ambrosia pumila sites (Tom Roster, San Diego National Wildlife

Refuge pers. comm 1999.).

State Laws and Regulation

Although State laws, including CEQA, CESA, and NPPA at times may

provide a measure of protection to the species, these laws are not

adequate to protect the species in all cases. For example, under CEQA

where overriding social and economic considerations can be

demonstrated, a project may go forward even if adverse impacts to a

species are significant.

Ambrosia pumila is included on List 1B of the California Native

Plant Society Inventory (Skinner and Pavlik 1994), which, in accordance

with section 1901, chapter 10 of the California Department of Fish and

Game Code, makes it eligible for State listing. This species is not, as

yet, listed under the California Endangered Species Act.

The California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code,

section 21000 et seq.) pertains to projects on non-Federal lands and

requires that a project proponent publicly disclose the potential

environmental impacts of proposed projects. The public agency with

primary authority or jurisdiction over the project is designated as the

lead agency. The lead agency is responsible for conducting a review of

the project and consulting with 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'' including those that are eligible for listing under the

NPPA or CESA. However, as noted above, under CEQA where overriding

social and economic considerations can be demonstrated, a project may

go forward even where adverse impacts to a species are significant.

Regional Planning Efforts

In 1991, the State of California established the NCCP program to

address conservation needs of natural ecosystems throughout the State.

The focus of the current planning program is the coastal sage scrub

community in Southern California, although other vegetative communities

are being addressed in an ecosystem approach. Ambrosia pumila is a

covered species under the Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP)

in southwestern San Diego County. Based on the MSCP, we issued a

Federal incidental take permit to the City of Poway in July 1996, City

of San Diego in July 1997, and to the County of San Diego in March

1998. The MSCP establishes a 68,800-ha (172,000-ac) preserve and

provides for monitoring and management for the 85 covered species

addressed in the permit, including Ambrosia pumila. Additionally,

Ambrosia pumila is defined by the MSCP as a narrow endemic. This

requires that unavoidable impacts associated with reasonable use or

essential public facilities must be minimized and mitigated within the

MSCP planning area both inside and outside the Multiple Habitat Plan

Area (MHPA).

Eight of the 11 extant occurrences in San Diego County are in the

MSCP planning area. Five of the eight known occurrences in the MSCP

planning area are currently afforded some level of protection within

approved permitted Subarea Plans. Two of the occurrences, both at

Mission Trails Regional Park (MTRP), are addressed under the approved

City of San Diego's Subarea Plan (City of San Diego 1997). Under this

plan, coverage for this species is dependent upon conservation of 90

percent of the only large population in the MSCP, located in and

adjacent to MTRP (CNDDB 1999). Provisions of the City of San Diego's

Subarea Plan require conservation of 100 percent of the portion of the

occurrence on private lands adjacent to MTRP near a radio tower. The

other occurrence at MTRP is also protected under provisions of the

approved City of San Diego's Subarea Plan (City of San Diego 1997). The

occurrence near Del Dios in the San Dieguito River watershed, is within

the approved County of San Diego's Subarea Plan (County of San Diego

1997). An additional three occurrences are located within the City of

El Cajon, which is in the process of preparing a subarea plan

consistent with the MSCP.

Within approved Subarea Plans, four of the six occurrences are

impacted due to trampling, (CNDDB 1999), and competition from non-

native species affects all the occurrences. There are likely other

indirect impacts from altered fire and hydrological regimes. The threat

from trampling, increased competition from non-native plants and

altered fire and hydrological regimes will likely be significantly

reduced or eliminated when the monitoring and management program

required by the MSCP and Subarea Plans is in place.

The San Diego Association of Governments Multiple Habitat

Conservation Plan (MHCP) in northwestern San Diego County is still in

the planning phase. It has been proposed that the only known occurrence

of this species within the planning area be conserved and that the

species be treated as a narrow endemic requiring surveys of suitable

habitat and in situ conservation of 80-100 percent of each occurrence

discovered in the area. One of the two occurrences in Riverside County

is at Skunk Hollow in a fenced mitigation bank. However, this site

suffered from sheep intrusion and grazing in March 1999 (Christine

Moen, USFWS in litt.1999).

San Diego Gas and Electric owns powerline easements for some of the

land at one of the occurrences on the

[[Page 72999]]

San Diego National Wildlife Refuge and for all of an occurrence in

Oceanside. The Service, CDFG, and San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E)

signed an implementation agreement and memorandum of understanding in

December 1995 under the Natural Community Conservation Program called

the San Diego Gas and Electric Subregion Plan (SDG&E Plan). Under the

provisions of this plan, Ambrosia pumila is a covered species and a

narrow endemic. The plan prohibits impacts to occupied habitat except

in emergency situations. Contrary to the SDG&E Plan, a 1996 SDG&E

project resulted in the extirpation of a relatively large occurrence at

Oceanside that reportedly supported 1,600 plants (aerial stems).

The County of Riverside is preparing the Western Riverside Multiple

Species Habitat Conservation Plan. Ambrosia pumila has been proposed

for coverage under this plan but analysis of the data have not yet been

completed.

Mexican Laws

We are not aware of any existing regulatory mechanisms in Mexico

that would protect Ambrosia pumila or its habitat. Although Mexico has

laws that could provide protection for rare plants, there are no

specific protections for this species or vernal pools with which it is

often associated. If specific protections were available and

enforceable in Mexico, the portion of the range in Mexico alone, in

isolation, would not be adequate to ensure long-term conservation of

this species.

E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting their continued

existence. Non-native plants threaten virtually all of the extant

occurrences of Ambrosia pumila (CNDDB 1999, Vanderwier in litt. 1998).

Non-native species of grasses and forbs have invaded many of Southern

California's plant communities. Their presence and abundance are often

an indirect result of persistent and repeated habitat disturbance from

development, discing, mowing, alteration of local hydrology and the

presence and maintenance of highways and trails. This species is

subject to displacement by non-native species, which also likely affect

the reproductive potential of this low growing wind-pollinated species

(CNDDB 1999). Non-native species found with Ambrosia pumila include

Brassica spp. (mustard), Vulpia spp. (annual fescue), Erodium spp.

(Crane's-bill), Bromus spp. (brome grass), and Foeniculum vulgare

(sweet fennel). The presence of these and other non-native plants is

likely to affect (1) pollen and fruit dispersal by increasing the

aerial density of plant material, (2) fire patterns by increasing the

fuel volume due to the influx of larger plants, and (3) hydrological

conditions by decreasing the amount of water available for Ambrosia

pumila. The cumulative and collective effects of non-native plants pose

a threat to this species which apparently has a low output of seeds.

Few preserved museum specimens have fertile fruits and field

collections have not provided evidence of production of significant

numbers of viable seeds. This species is also threatened by altered

hydrological regimes at several occurrences associated with roads,

rights of way, or locations mowed for fire breaks (CNDDB 1999). A 1998

survey (Vanderwier in litt. 1998) reported that non-native species are

common on the two occurrences in the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge

and a portion of one of these occurrences is in a fuel modification

zone where the plants are mowed. Several occurrences are threatened by

periodic mowing which, if done in late summer or early fall, is likely

to remove the flowering portions of the aerial stems and greatly reduce

or eliminate the reproductive output for the year. The effects on the

rhizomes by soil compaction from vehicle traffic is undocumented.

In at least one documented instance in 1999, an occurrence of

Ambrosia pumila at Skunk Hollow, Riverside County, was grazed by sheep

(Christine Moen, USFWS in litt. 1999). Grazing would likely eliminate

or severely reduce the annual reproductive output of Ambrosia pumila

and could also reduce the vegetative portions of the plants to a degree

that would threaten their capacity to persist.

Six of the 13 extant occurrences of Ambrosia pumila, including four

of the larger occurrences, are threatened due to the impacts of

trampling by horses and people as well as ORV traffic. Two of these

occurrences are on the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge (Vanderwier

in litt. 1998, Tom Roster SDNWR pers. comm.1999). Trampling likely is a

threat to any of the other accessible occurrences such as those with

utility easements for maintenance purposes or access roads. The two

occurrences near trails in Mission Trails Regional Park are threatened

by trampling by people (City of San Diego 1999). Additional discussion

of trampling may be found under Regional Planning Efforts, under factor

D of this rule. The two occurrences in El Cajon are threatened by

trampling by people and vehicles (CNDDB 1999).

Because Ambrosia pumila is a rhizomatous clonal species, a single

plant may be represented by many aerial stems. An occurrence,

especially some of the smaller ones, could be composed of one or only a

few plants. For example, an occurrence where 500 stems had been counted

could represent only 50 plants. This would likely reflect low genetic

variability, which is detrimental to the long-term persistence of the

species (Barrett and Kohn 1991). This condition exacerbates the other

threats to all other occurrences of this species.

Transplantation of Ambrosia pumila, previously employed in an

effort to salvage plants from native occurrences identified for

extirpation, has proven to be of limited success. Transplantation

protocols were generally lacking and likely did not include--meaningful

guidelines for site selection, sampling methods to ensure that as many

individual plants as possible are represented in the transplantation,

measures of success for survival and recruitment of new seedling

generations, and recourse for failure or limited success of any of

these aspects of transplantation. There does not appear to be a well

documented transplantation that meet the above measures. Maintenance of

a few of the aerial stems for a period of time does not demonstrate

that transplantation of this rhizomatous clonal perennial is an

effective means for perpetuating the genetic lineages that constitute

one or more of the occurrences of this species.

We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial

information available regarding the past, present, and future threats

faced by this taxon in determining to propose this rule. Based on this

evaluation, the preferred action is to list Ambrosia pumila (San Diego

ambrosia) as endangered. The species is threatened with extinction due

to habitat alteration and destruction resulting primarily from highway

and right-of-way widening and maintenance, urban development,

trampling, competition from non-native plants, and vulnerability to

naturally occurring events due to low numbers of individuals. Any of

the threats noted above is compounded by the fact that this species is

a rhizomatous, clonal, perennial that has wind-pollinated flowers and

apparently rarely sets seed. The number of genetically different plants

at a given site is unknown, but there may be more than 100 aerial stems

per plant. This means that some of the smaller occurrences could

represent a single plant. Seven of the 13 occurrences are on private

lands, some of these with rights-of-way access. Although conservation

measures are in place for 5 of the 13 occurrences, full protection

afforded by a monitoring and

[[Page 73000]]

management program is not yet in place. Even with full protection, this

would be less than half of the known occurrences and will likely not

protect sufficient numbers of genetically different plants. Also, as

yet there are no known examples of transplanted or reintroduced

occurrences of this species in which sexual reproduction has occurred

to sustain either a viable population or exhibit the genetic diversity

found in a naturally occurring population.

Critical Habitat

Critical habitat is defined in section 3, paragraph (5)(A) of the

Act as 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 essential to the

conservation of the species and which may require special management

considerations or protection; and specific areas outside the

geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed in

accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the Act, upon a

determination by the Secretary 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.

Critical habitat designation, by definition, directly affects only

Federal agency actions through consultation under section 7(a)(2) of

the Act. 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.

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing

regulations (50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the maximum extent prudent

and determinable, we designate critical habitat at the time the species

is determined to be endangered or threatened. Our regulations (50 CFR

424.12(a)(1)) state that the 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.

The Final Listing Priority Guidance for FY 1999/2000 (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 1999 and 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.

We propose that critical habitat is prudent for Ambrosia pumila. 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 believe that designation of critical habitat for would be

prudent for Ambrosia pumila.

Due to the small number of populations, Ambrosia pumila is

vulnerable to unrestricted collection, vandalism, or other disturbance.

We are concerned that these threats might be exacerbated by the

publication of critical habitat maps and further dissemination of

locational information. However, at this time we do not have specific

evidence for Ambrosia pumila 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 propose that

critical habitat is prudent for Ambrosia pumila. However, the deferral

of the critical habitat designation for Ambrosia pumila 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 Ambrosia pumila without

further delay. We anticipate in FY 2000 and beyond giving higher

priority to critical habitat designation, including designations

deferred pursuant to the Listing Priority Guidance, such as the

designation for this species, than we have in recent fiscal years.

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 make the

final critical habitat determination with the final listing

determination for Ambrosia pumila. If this final critical habitat

determination is that critical habitat is prudent, we will develop a

proposal to designate critical habitat for Ambrosia pumila as soon as

feasible, considering our workload priorities. Unfortunately, for the

immediate future, most of Region 1's listing budget must be directed to

complying with numerous court orders and settlement agreements, as well

as due and overdue final listing determinations.

Available Conservation Measures

Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or

threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions,

requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain

activities. Recognition through listing encourages and results in

conservation actions by

[[Page 73001]]

Federal, State, and private agencies, groups and individuals. The Act

provides for possible land acquisition and cooperation with the States

and requires that recovery actions be carried out for all listed

species. We discuss the protection required of Federal agencies and the

prohibitions against taking and harm, 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 informally with us on any action that is likely to jeopardize

the continued existence of a proposed species or result in destruction

or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a species is

subsequently listed, section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to

ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not

likely to jeopardize the continued existence of such a species or to

destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal agency

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

responsible Federal agency must enter into consultation with us. The

association of Ambrosia pumila with dry waterways and lakebeds may

result in the Corps becoming involved through its permitting authority

under section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and the issuance of permits

necessary to build flood control structures associated with highway

projects.

The two occurrences of Ambrosia pumila on the San Diego National

Wildlife Refuge receive the general protection afforded biotic

resources on the refuge. However, there is currently no specific

management plan for this plant. The City of San Diego (1999) has

prepared a draft management plan for the occurrences of Ambrosia pumila

in Mission Trail Regional Park. This management plan has not yet been

finalized.

As noted above under factor D of the ``Summary of Factors Affecting

the Species'' section, eight of the occurrences in San Diego County are

in the MSCP planning area, five of which are within approved Subarea

Plans. According to the City of San Diego's Subarea Plan (City of San

Diego 1998), 90 percent of the only major population will be conserved

and 100 percent of the adjacent portion of the occurrence will be

preserved. The monitoring method is to include a site-specific

monitoring plan with management plans and directives to protect against

detrimental edge effects (City of San Diego 1998). This Subarea Plan

also treats this species as a narrow endemic requiring jurisdictions

and other participants to specify measures in their subarea plans to

ensure that impacts to these resources are avoided to the maximum

extent possible. Under the County of San Diego's Subarea Plan, Ambrosia

pumila is a narrow endemic requiring avoidance to the maximum extent

possible. Where avoidance is infeasible, a maximum encroachment may be

authorized of up to 20 percent of the population on site. Where impacts

are allowed, in-kind preservation shall be required at a 1:1 to 3:1

ratio depending upon the sensitivity of the species and population

size, as determined in a biological analysis approved by the Director

of the Fish and Wildlife Service.

Listing Ambrosia pumila provides for the development and

implementation of a recovery plan for the species. This plan will bring

together Federal, State, and regional agency efforts for conservation

of the species. A recovery plan will establish a framework for agencies

to coordinate their recovery efforts. The plan will set recovery

priorities and estimate the costs of the tasks necessary to accomplish

the priorities. It will also describe the site specific management

actions necessary to achieve conservation and survival of the species.

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 for endangered plants, 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, or remove and reduce to possession

from areas under Federal jurisdiction. In addition, for plants listed

as endangered, the Act prohibits malicious damage or destruction on

areas under Federal jurisdiction, and the removal, cutting, digging up,

or damaging or destroying of such plants in knowing violation of any

State law or regulation or in the course of any violation of a State

criminal trespass law. Certain exceptions to the prohibitions apply to

agents of the 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 plant species under certain circumstances. Such permits are

available for scientific purposes and to enhance the propagation or

survival of the species. It is anticipated that few trade permits would

ever be sought or issued because this species is not common in

cultivation or common in the wild. Information collections associated

with these permits are approved under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and assigned Office of Management and Budget

clearance number 1018-0094. For additional information concerning these

permits and associated requirements, see 50 CFR 17.62. Requests for

copies of the regulations concerning listed plants and general

inquiries regarding prohibitions and permits may be addressed to the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Permits, 911 N.E.

11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232-4181 (telephone 503/231-2063;

facsimile 503/231-6243).

It is our policy, published in the Federal Register (59 FR 34272)

on July 1, 1994, to identify to the maximum extent practicable those

activities that would or would not be likely to constitute a violation

of section 9 of the Act if a species is listed. The intent of this

policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of the species'

listing on proposed and ongoing activities within its range. Collection

of listed plants or activities that would damage or destroy listed

plants on Federal lands are prohibited without a Federal endangered

species permit. Such activities on non-Federal lands would constitute a

violation of section 9 of the Act if they were conducted in knowing

violation of California State law or regulation, or in the course of

violation of California State criminal trespass law. Otherwise such

activities would not constitute a violation of the Act on non-Federal

lands.

Questions on whether specific activities would likely constitute a

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

the Carlsbad 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. Our practice is to make comments,

including names and home addresses of respondents, available for

[[Page 73002]]

public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may

request that we withhold their home address from the rulemaking record,

which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There also may be

circumstances in which we would withhold from the rulemaking record a

respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold

your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the

beginning of your comment. However, we will not consider anonymous

comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or

businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as

representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available

for public inspection in their entirety. All comments, including

written and e-mail, must be received in our Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife

Office by February 28, 2000. We particularly seek comments concerning:

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

concerning threat (or lack thereof) to Ambrosia pumila.

(2) The location of any additional populations of Ambrosia pumila

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

be critical habitat for this species pursuant to section 4 of the Act.

(3) Additional information concerning the essential habitat

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

this taxon, and information relating to the distributions of

genetically distinct individuals within the population.

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

possible impacts on this taxon.

Final promulgation of the regulations on Ambrosia pumila will take

into consideration any comments and any additional information we

receive during the comment period, 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 of the

Service's Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).

National Environmental Policy Act

We have determined that Environmental Assessments and Environmental

Impact Statements, as defined under the authority of the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared in connection

with regulations adopted pursuant to Section 4(a) of the Act. A notice

outlining our reasons for this determination was published 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 under the

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., is required. Any

information collection related to the rule pertaining to permits for

endangered and threatened species has OMB approval and is assigned

clearance number 1018-0094. This rule does not alter that information

collection requirement. For additional information concerning permits

and associated requirements for endangered plants, see 50 CFR 17.62 and

17.63.

References Cited

A complete list of all references cited herein is available, upon

request, from the Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office

(see ADDRESSES section).

Author: The primary author of this proposed rule is Gary D.

Wallace, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad 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 for citation of 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:

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

* * * * * * *

Ambrosia pumila.................. San Diego ambrosia.. U.S.A. (CA) Mexico. Asteraceae......... E NA NA

* * * * * * *

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

[[Page 73003]]

Dated: December 9, 1999.

Jamie Rappaport Clark,

Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 99-33781 Filed 12-28-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P