[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 202 (Wednesday, October 20, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 56590-56596]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-27187]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AE57
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule to List
Astragalus desereticus (Deseret milk-vetch) as Threatened
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), determine
the plant species, Astragalus desereticus (Deseret milk-vetch), to be a
threatened species under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (Act). Astragalus desereticus, considered extinct
until its rediscovery in 1981, exists in one small population in Utah
County, Utah. Threats to the plant include residential development,
highway widening, livestock grazing and trampling, and other impacts to
its limited habitat. This plant receives no protection under State or
local laws or regulations. This rule implements Federal protection
provided by the Act for this plant.
EFFECTIVE DATE: November 19, 1999.
ADDRESSES: The complete file for this rule is available for public
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the Utah
Ecological Services Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Lincoln Plaza Suite 404, 145 East 1300 South, Salt Lake City, Utah
84115.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John L. England at the above address
(telephone: 801/524-5001).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Marcus E. Jones collected a distinctive Astragalus from ``below
Indianola,'' a town in Sanpete County, Utah, on June 2, 1893. This same
plant was again collected by Ivar Tidestrom from ``near Indianola'' on
June 17, 1909. Specimens from these two collections laid in obscurity
in various herbaria until Rupert Barneby recognized their uniqueness
and described them as Astragalus desereticus (Barneby 1964). Efforts to
relocate the species'
[[Page 56591]]
population were initially fruitless (Barneby 1964, Welsh 1978a, 1978c)
leading to a presumption of extinction (Ripley 1975, Welsh 1975,
1978b). However, on May 27, 1981, Elizabeth Neese discovered a
population of A. desereticus on a sandstone outcrop above the town of
Birdseye, Utah County, Utah, less than 6.2 kilometers (km) (10 miles
(mi)) from Indianola (Welsh and Chatterley 1985). This population
remains the only known occurrence of the species (Franklin 1990, 1991,
Service 1991). It is possible that this population is the one from
which Jones and/or Tidestrom made their collections more than 70 years
earlier (Franklin 1990, 1991, Welsh and Chatterley 1985).
Astragalus desereticus is a perennial, herbaceous, sub-acaulescent
(almost stemless) plant in the bean family (Fabaceae). Individual
plants are approximately 4-15 centimeters (cm) (2-6 inches (in)) in
height, and arise from a caudex (the persistent base of an otherwise
annual herbaceous stem). Stems are about 6 cm (2 in) tall. The
pinnately compound leaves (feather-like arrangement with leaflets
displayed on a central stalk) are 4-11 cm (2-4 in) long with 11-17
leaflets. The leaflets are elliptic to ovate in shape, with a dense
silvery gray pubescence (short hairs) on both sides. The species'
flowers are of the characteristic papilionaceous form common to the
bean family, 1.8-2.2 cm (0.7-0.9 in) long, white in color with a purple
tip on the keel, and borne on a stalk of 5-10 flowers. The seed pods
are 1 to 2 cm (0.4-0.8 in) long, densely covered with lustrous hairs,
and bear 14-16 ovules (a minute rudimentary structure from which a
plant seed develops after fertilization). Detailed descriptions of A.
desereticus can be found in Barneby (1964, Barneby in Cronquist et al.
1989), and in Welsh (1978c, Welsh et al. 1987, 1993).
The only known population of Astragalus desereticus occurs
primarily on steep south- and west-facing slopes. The plant grows on
soils derived from a specific and unusual portion of the geologic
Moroni Formation. This geologic feature is characterized by coarse,
crudely bedded conglomerate (Franklin 1990). The plant community in
which A. desereticus occurs is dominated by pinon pine (Pinus edulis)
and Utah juniper (Juniperus osteosperma). Other associated plant
species include: sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata), scrub oak (Quercus
gambelii), wild buckwheat (Eriogonum brevicaule), Indian ricegrass
(Stipa hymenoides), needle and thread grass (Stipa comata), bitter
brush (Purshia tridentata), and plateau beardtongue (Penstemon
scariosus) (Franklin 1990).
The sole population of Astragalus desereticus consists of between
5,000 and 10,000 individuals that grow on an area of less than 120
hectares (ha) (300 acres (ac)) (Franklin 1990, Stone 1992). The
species' total range is approximately 2.6 km (1.6 (mi)) long, and 0.5
(km) (0.3 mi) across. Extensive searches of similar habitat in Utah and
Sanpete Counties, Utah, have failed to identify any other populations
(Franklin 1991, Larry England, Service, pers. comm. 1997). The land
upon which A. desereticus grows is owned by the State of Utah and three
private land owners (Franklin 1990, 1991; Chris Montague, The Nature
Conservancy, 1992, 1997 pers. comm.). Astragalus desereticus is
threatened by grazing and trampling by ungulates, alteration of its
habitat due to residential development and road widening, and natural
events, such as fire, due to its limited distribution.
Previous Federal Action
Section 12 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) directed the
Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution to prepare a report on those
plants considered to be endangered, threatened, or extinct. The
Secretary presented this report, designated as House Document No. 94-
51, to Congress on January 9, 1975. On July 1, 1975, we published a
notice in the Federal Register (40 FR 27823) accepting the report as a
petition to list those taxa named therein under section 4(c)(2) of the
Act (petition acceptance is now governed by section 4(b)(3) of the
Act), and its intention to review the status of those plants.
Astragalus desereticus was included in the July 1, 1975, notice on list
``C,'' indicating that the species was probably extinct.
On June 16, 1976, we published a proposed rule in the Federal
Register (41 FR 24523) to designate approximately 1,700 vascular plant
species, including Astragalus desereticus, as endangered pursuant to
section 4 of the Act. The Smithsonian Institution and the Service
assembled this list of 1,700 plant species on the basis of comments and
data received in response to House Document No. 94-51 and the July 1,
1975, Federal Register publication. In the proposed rule, we also
designated A. desereticus as a species about which we were particularly
interested in obtaining any new information on living specimens and
extant populations. General comments received in relation to the 1976
proposal are summarized in an April 26, 1978, Federal Register
publication (43 FR 17909). The 1978 amendments to the Act required that
all proposals over 2 years old be withdrawn, although proposals
published before the 1978 amendments' enactment could not be withdrawn
before the end of a 1-year grace period beginning on the enactment
date. On December 10, 1979, we published a notice of withdrawal (44 FR
70796) of that portion of the June 16, 1976, proposal that had not been
made final, which included A. desereticus.
On December 15, 1980, we published a revised notice of review for
native plants in the Federal Register (45 FR 82480) designating
Astragalus desereticus a category 1 species. At that time, we defined
category 1 candidates as those taxa for which we had on file sufficient
information on biological vulnerability and threats to support
preparation of listing proposals. In addition, A. desereticus was
identified as a species that may have recently become extinct. In 1981,
a population of A. desereticus was discovered. On November 28, 1983, we
published a revised notice of review in the Federal Register (48 FR
53640) in which A. desereticus was included as a category 2 candidate
species. Category 2 candidates were formally defined as taxa for which
data on biological vulnerability and threats indicated that listing was
possibly appropriate, but for which data were not sufficient to support
issuance of listing proposals. In preparing the 1983 notice, we deemed
it appropriate to acquire additional information on the distribution
and abundance of A. desereticus before proposing the species for
listing. We maintained A. desereticus as a category 2 species in
updated notices of review published in the Federal Register on
September 27, 1985 (50 FR 39526), and February 21, 1990 (55 FR 6184).
As a result of additional information obtained in 1990 and 1991 status
surveys (Franklin 1990 and Service 1991), we reclassified A.
desereticus as a category 1 candidate in the September 30, 1993, notice
of review (58 FR 51144). Upon publication of the February 28, 1996,
Notice of Review, (61 FR 7596), we ceased using category designations
and included A. desereticus as a candidate species. Candidate species
are those for which the Service has on file sufficient information on
biological vulnerability and threats to support proposals to list the
species as threatened or endangered. We maintained Astragalus
desereticus as a candidate in the September 19, 1997, Notice of Review
(62 FR 49398).
Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act's 1982 amendments required the
Secretary of the Interior to make findings on certain petitions within
1 year of their receipt.
[[Page 56592]]
Section 2(b)(1) of the Act's 1982 amendments further required that all
petitions pending as of October 13, 1982, be treated as having been
newly submitted on that date. Because we accepted the 1975 Smithsonian
report and the Service's notices as petitions, we treated all the taxa
contained in those notices, including Astragalus desereticus, as having
been newly petitioned on October 13, 1982. The deadline for a finding
on such petitions, including that for A. desereticus, was October 13,
1983. Since that date, we made successive 1-year findings that listing
A. desereticus was warranted, but precluded by other listing actions of
higher priority. Our proposal to list A. desereticus as threatened on
January 28, 1998 (63 FR 4207), constituted the warranted 12-month
finding for this species.
The processing of this final rule conforms to our Listing Priority
Guidance for Fiscal Years 1998 and 1999 published in the Federal
Register on May 8, 1998 (63 FR 25502). The guidance clarifies the order
in which we will process rulemakings. Highest priority is processing
emergency listing rules for any species determined to be facing a
significant and imminent risk to its well being (Tier 1). Second
priority (Tier 2) is processing final determinations on proposed
additions species to the lists of endangered and threatened wildlife
and plants; the processing of new proposals to add species to the
lists; the processing of administrative petition findings to add
species to the lists, delist species, or reclassify listed species
(petitions filed under section 4 of the Act); and a limited number of
proposed or final rules to delist or reclassify species. Third priority
(Tier 3) is processing proposed or final rules designating critical
habitat. The processing of this final rule is a Tier 2 action. We have
updated this rule to reflect any changes in information concerning
distribution, status, and threats since the publication of the proposed
rule.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
In the January 28, 1998, proposed rule and associated
notifications, we requested all interested parties to submit factual
reports or information that might contribute to the development of a
final rule. We contacted and requested comments from all appropriate
Federal and State agencies, County governments, scientific
organizations, and other interested parties. We published newspaper
notices requesting public comment on the proposed rule in The Salt Lake
Tribune and the Deseret News on February 10, 1998, and the Daily Herald
on February 11, 1998.
In accordance with our policy published in the Federal Register on
July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we solicited the expert opinion of three
appropriate and independent specialists regarding pertinent scientific
or commercial data and assumptions relating to the supportive
biological and ecological information for Astragalus desereticus. The
purpose of this review is to ensure that listing decisions are based on
scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses, including input
of appropriate experts and specialists. One specialist responded in
writing agreeing with our analysis and supporting the proposed action,
while two others responded verbally agreeing with our analysis.
During the comment period we reviewed a total of three written
comments. We did not receive any comments on the issues raised in our
discussion of the biology or threats to the species. Two commenters,
including the respondent peer reviewer, concurred with our proposal to
list Astragalus desereticus as threatened. The third commenter stated
that the Service should not list A. desereticus because it has no
authority under the Act to list or regulate species that are not
involved in interstate commerce.
We believe that the application of the Act to Astragalus
desereticus does not exceed Congress's Commerce Clause authority under
the U.S. Constitution for the reasons given in Judge Wald's opinion and
Judge Henderson's concurring opinion in National Association of Home
Builders v. Babbitt, 130 F.3d 1041 (D.C. Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 1185
S. Ct. 2340 (1998). That case involved a challenge to application of
the Act's prohibitions to protect the listed Delhi Sands flower-loving
fly. As with A. desereticus, the Delhi Sands flower-loving fly is
endemic to only one state. Judge Wald held that application of the
Act's prohibitions against taking of endangered species to this fly was
a proper exercise of Commerce Clause power to regulate: (1) Use of
channels of interstate commerce; and (2) activities substantially
affecting interstate commerce because it prevented loss of biodiversity
and destructive interstate competition. Judge Henderson upheld
protection of the fly because doing so prevents harm to the development
that is part of interstate commerce. See Gibbs v. Babbitt, 31 F.Supp.2d
531 (E.D.N.C. 1998).
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
After a thorough review and consideration of all information
available, we have determined that Astragalus desereticus should be
classified as a threatened species. In making this determination we
have followed the procedures set forth in section 4(a)(1) of the Act
and regulations implementing the listing provisions of the Act (50 CFR
part 424). 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 desereticus
Barneby (Deseret milk-vetch) are as follows:
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of its Habitat or Range
Astragalus desereticus is known from one small population of about
5,000 reproducing individuals and several thousand immature plants on
less than 120 ha (300 ac) (Franklin 1990, Stone 1992). This species is
endemic to one unusual narrow geologic strata characterized by coarse,
poorly sorted conglomerate. Any conversion or destruction of A.
desereticus habitat has the potential to jeopardize the species'
limited population. Urban development of the Wasatch Front metropolitan
area is rapidly spreading into the surrounding agricultural lands,
especially small communities in the drainages of the Provo, Spanish
Fork, and Weber Rivers (Quality Growth Efficiency Tools Technical
Committee 1997 (QETTC)). The population growth of this metropolitan
area is expected to double by the year 2020. In addition, conversion of
agricultural land to urban use is expected to double in the same time
period (QGETTC 1997). Highly accessible rural areas, such as Birdseye,
may grow in population at an even more rapid rate. Since the species'
rediscovery, one landowner has built a private residence within the
species' occupied habitat. Prior to 1998, the town of Birdseye
contained about 20 homes. Since the publication of the proposed rule, a
70-unit residential subdivision began construction adjacent to the
south side of the species' population. The entire A. desereticus
population is within 300 meters (m) (1,000 feet (ft)) of U.S. Highway
89. The nearest plants are within a few meters of the road. U.S.
Highway 89 is currently a two-lane rural highway. With increasing human
population in the general area of southern Utah County and northern
Sanpete County, it
[[Page 56593]]
is likely that this road will be expanded to four lanes. Such a highway
widening could destroy a significant portion of the species population
(QGETTC 1997).
Astragalus desereticus is located on highly accessible public and
private land that is currently used for cattle grazing and wildlife
management (Franklin 1991, Stone 1992). The land managed by the Utah
Division of Wildlife Resources is a wildlife management area that also
is used for cattle grazing (Franklin 1991). Cattle are used by the Utah
Division of Wildlife Resources (DWR) in spring to encourage plant
growth for big game forage in the winter. This grazing occurs within
the habitat of A. desereticus (Stone 1992). The cattle tend to
concentrate primarily on the upslope areas where forage production is
greater (Stone 1992). Erosion in these areas is exacerbated by cattle
grazing and game trails. In addition to the effects of erosion,
trampling threatens A. desereticus particularly at the southern end of
the population (Franklin 1991). As cattle and wildlife graze the
habitat of A. desereticus, the animals are likely to trample plants.
Although mule deer numbers have stabilized in recent years, Rocky
Mountain elk populations are increasing. Although currently DWR has no
specific plans for the conservation of A. desereticus, they are
interested in developing guidelines for the conservation of Deseret
milkvetch to work in concert with their primary goal of enhancing big
game winter range. The DWR is interested in acquiring property
interests in additional winter range lands also occupied by A.
desereticus.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Overutilization is not known to be a threat to Astragalus
desereticus.
C. Disease or Predation
In contrast to many species of Astragalus, A. desereticus appears
to be palatable to cattle. The genus Astragalus has the largest number
of species in the Intermountain west, many of which are poisonous to
grazing animals. Three types of poisonous compounds are found within
the genus. Some species within the genus concentrate the toxic element
selenium in their tissues; these species are called selenophytes (Stone
1992). The fact that A. desereticus does not produce a ``snake-like''
odor typical of other ``snakeweeds,'' as selenophytes are sometimes
called, and the fact that no other selenophytes occur in the area,
indicate that A. desereticus is not a selenophyte (Stone 1992). Other
Astragalus species produce poisonous alkaloids as metabolic byproducts.
The known alkaloid producers as well as the selenium accumulators are
not closely related to A. desereticus. The third type of poison found
within Astragalus are various nitrotoxins. Ruminants in particular are
highly susceptible to nitrotoxin poisoning. Some species closely
related to A. desereticus contain nitrotoxins (Barneby 1989). While A.
desereticus may not be preferred forage for cattle or native ungulates,
it is palatable and may be inadvertently taken along with preferred
forage in the area.
In surveys of habitat similar to that occupied by Astragalus
desereticus in Utah County, our personnel observed that overgrazing by
domestic ungulates has almost completely denuded the landscape (Service
1991). Similar grazing pressure is known from the current habitat of A.
desereticus; therefore, the effects of grazing, particularly
overgrazing, constitute a likely threat. This species is much less
abundant in the more heavily grazed southern portion of its habitat
(Franklin 1990, 1991), indicating that grazing may be a significant
threat. Cattle grazing may be particularly harmful because it occurs
during a critical period for A. desereticus reproduction (i.e.,
flowering) (Stone 1992).
There are no known insect parasites or disease organisms that
significantly affect this species.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Astragalus desereticus receives no protection or consideration
under any Federal, State, or local law or regulation other than that
provided by the Act.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
By virtue of the limited number of individuals and range of the
remaining population of Astragalus desereticus, this species is
threatened with extinction from naturally occurring events. The
probability that a natural event such as fire, drought, or disease will
cause extinction is greater for species having a small population and
highly restricted range (Stone 1992). Rare species in the genus
Astragalus have exhibited low levels of genetic diversity when compared
to other more widespread, closely related species (Stone 1992). Low
genetic variability makes it difficult for a species to respond to
changes in the environment thus making them more vulnerable to
extinction.
The original locality description for Astragalus desereticus at
Indianola is thought to be over-generalized and perhaps this
contributed to the species' presumed extinction (Welsh 1985, Franklin
1990). Indianola, Utah, and the species' current known population near
Birdseye, Utah, are about 4.4 km (7 mi) apart. The specific geological
characteristics of A. desereticus habitat are uncommon within the
Moroni Formation, though the formation is exposed for a much larger
area in southern Utah County and northern Sanpete County, Utah.
Although it is thought that some additional populations of A.
desereticus were present at or near Indianola as reported by Jones in
1893 and Tidestrom in 1909, there are no known populations existing in
that location today. Other unknown factors may affect the current
distribution and vitality of A. desereticus populations.
A potential threat to Astragalus desereticus is related to the
populations of ungulates in the area and their effect on pollinators.
Other species in the genus Astragalus suffer from low numbers of
pollinators due to the indirect effect that ungulates can have on the
pollinator's nest sites (Stone 1992). Bumblebees (Bombus spp.), which
nest in abandoned rodent burrows, are likely the primary pollinators of
A. desereticus. Land use practices that increase grazing pressure may
cause burrows to collapse, destroying bumblebee nests (Stone 1992).
Since bees have a low fecundity (low capability of producing
offspring), their populations may not recover for many years,
particularly if grazing by large ungulates is maintained. An absence of
effective pollinators would probably reduce the fecundity of A.
desereticus.
In preparing this final rule we have carefully reviewed the best
scientific and commercial information available regarding the past,
present, and future threats faced by Astragalus desereticus. Based on
this evaluation, the preferred action is to list A. desereticus as
threatened. Threatened status reflects the vulnerability of this
species to factors that may negatively affect the species and its
extremely limited habitat. While not in immediate danger of extinction,
A. desereticus is likely to become an endangered species in the
foreseeable future if present threats continue or increase. We have
contacted the current land owners and although many are receptive in
the near-term to providing for passive protection, having no immediate
plans for development, in the long-term they continue to have
expectations for the future use and development of their properties.
[[Page 56594]]
Critical Habitat
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act and implementing regulations (50 CFR
424.12) require that, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable,
the Secretary designate critical habitat at the time a species is
determined to be endangered or threatened. Service regulations (50 CFR
424.12(a)(1)) state that designation of critical habitat is not prudent
when one or both of the following situations exist: (1) the species is
threatened by taking or other human activity, and identification of
critical habitat can be expected to increase the degree of threat to
the species, or (2) such designation of critical habitat would not be
beneficial to the species. We have determined that the designation of
critical habitat for A. desereticus is not prudent due to the lack of
benefit to the species.
Critical habitat receives consideration under section 7 of the Act
with regard to actions carried out, authorized, or funded by a Federal
agency (see ``Available Conservation Measures'' section). As such,
designations of critical habitat may affect activities on Federal lands
and may affect activities on non-Federal lands where such a Federal
nexus exists. Under section 7 of the Act, Federal agencies are required
to ensure that their actions do not jeopardize the continued existence
of a listed species or result in destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. However, both jeopardizing the continued existence of
a species and adverse modification of critical habitat have similar
standards and thus similar thresholds for violation of section 7 of the
Act. In fact, biological opinions that conclude that a Federal agency
action is likely to adversely modify critical habitat but not
jeopardize the species for which the critical habitat has been
designated are extremely rare. Also, the designation of critical
habitat for the purpose of informing Federal agencies of the location
of A. desereticus habitat is not necessary because we can inform
Federal agencies through other means. For these reasons, the
designation of critical habitat for A. desereticus would provide no
additional benefit to the species beyond that conferred by listing,
and, therefore, such designation is not prudent.
Astragalus desereticus has an extremely narrow distribution in a
sandstone outcrop, totaling about 120 ha (300 ac) in one population. At
the present time, no other site is known to be occupied or suitable for
this plant. The private land owners at Birdseye are aware of the
plant's presence and extremely limited habitat, as are the DWR managers
and others involved in the management of the area. Therefore,
designation of critical habitat would provide no benefit with respect
to notification. In addition, given the species' narrow distribution
and precarious status, virtually any conceivable adverse affect to the
species' habitat would very likely jeopardize its continued existence.
Designation of critical habitat for A. desereticus would, therefore,
provide no benefit to the species apart from the protection afforded by
listing the plant as threatened.
Protection of the habitat of A. desereticus will be addressed
through the section 4 recovery process and the section 7 consultation
process. Although this plant occurs only on private and State land, it
may be affected by projects with Federal connections, including
potential Federal Highway Administration funding of road widening. We
believe that activities involving a Federal action which may affect A.
desereticus can be identified without designation of critical habitat,
by providing Federal agencies with information on the location of
occupied habitat and information on the kinds of activities which could
affect the species. For the reasons discussed above, we find that the
designation of critical habitat for A. desereticus is not prudent.
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
practices. Recognition through listing encourages and results in
conservation actions by Federal, State, and private agencies, groups
and individuals. The Act provides for possible land acquisition and
cooperation with the State, and requires that recovery actions be
carried out for all listed species. Such actions are initiated by the
Service following listing. The protection required of Federal agencies
and the prohibitions against certain activities involving listed plants
are discussed, in part, below.
Section 7(a) of the Act, requires Federal agencies to evaluate
their actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as
endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical habitat, if
any is being designated. Regulations implementing this interagency
cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402.
Section 7(a)(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 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 us.
The single known population of Astragalus desereticus is on State
and privately owned land. However, highway widening, which may
adversely affect A. desereticus, due to the proximity of the plants to
a major highway project, may in part be funded by the Federal Highway
Administration and involve consultation under section 7 of the Act.
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of
general trade prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all threatened
plants. All prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act, implemented by
50 CFR 17.71 for threatened 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 the course of a
commercial activity, sell or offer for sale this species 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,
damaging, or destruction of such plants in knowing violation of any
State law or regulation, or in the course of a violation of State
criminal trespass law. Section 4(d) of the Act allows for the provision
of such protection to threatened species through regulation. This
protection may apply to this species in the future if such regulations
are promulgated. Seeds from cultivated specimens of threatened plants
are exempt from these prohibitions provided that their containers are
marked ``Of Cultivated Origin.'' Certain exceptions to the prohibitions
apply to agents of the Service and State conservation agencies.
The Act and 50 CFR 17.72 also provide for the issuance of permits
to carry out otherwise prohibited activities involving threatened
species under certain circumstances. Such permits are available for
scientific purposes and to enhance the propagation or survival of the
species. For threatened plants, permits are also available for
botanical and horticultural exhibition, educational purposes, or
special reasons consistent with the Act's purposes. With respect to
Astragalus desereticus, it is anticipated that few, if any, trade
permits would be sought or issued since the species is not common in
the wild
[[Page 56595]]
and is unknown in cultivation. Requests for copies of the regulations
regarding listed species and inquiries about prohibitions and permits
may be addressed to: Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
P.O. Box 25486, Denver Federal Center, Denver, Colorado 80225.
It is our policy, published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994
(59 FR 34272), to identify to the maximum extent practicable those
activities that would or would not constitute a violation of section 9
of the Act if the species is listed. The intent of this policy is to
increase public awareness of the effect of the listing on proposed and
ongoing activities within a species' range. This species is not known
to be located on areas under Federal jurisdiction. We believe the
actions listed below would not result in a violation of section 9:
(1) Activities authorized, funded, or carried out by Federal
agencies (e.g., grazing management, agricultural conversions, range
management, rodent control, mineral development, road construction,
human recreation, pesticide application, controlled burns) and
construction/maintenance of projects (e.g., fences, power lines,
pipelines, utility lines) when such activities are conducted according
to all reasonable and prudent measures provided by the Service under
section 7 of the Act;
(2) Casual, dispersed human activities on foot (e.g., bird
watching, sightseeing, photography, and hiking).
The actions listed below may potentially result in a violation of
section 9; however, possible violations are not limited to these
actions alone:
(1) Unauthorized collecting of the species on Federal Lands;
(2) Application of herbicides in violation of label restrictions;
(3) Interstate or foreign commerce and import/export without
previously obtaining an appropriate permit. Permits to conduct
activities are available for scientific purposes, the enhancement of
the propagation or survival, economic hardship, botanical or
horticultural exhibition, educational purposes, or other activities
consistent with the purposes and policy of the Act.
Questions regarding whether specific activities, such as changes in
land use, would constitute a violation of section 9 should be directed
to the Utah Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES section).
National Environmental Policy Act
We have determined that Environmental Assessments and Environmental
Impact Statements, as defined under the authority of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared in connection
with regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. A notice
outlining the basis for this determination was published in the Federal
Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
Required Determinations
This rule does not contain collections of information that require
Office of Management and Budget approval under the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An information collection related to the
rule pertaining to permits for endangered and threatened species has
OMB approval and is assigned clearance number 1018-0094. This rule does
not alter that information collection requirement. For additional
information concerning permits and associated requirements for
threatened plants, see 50 CFR 17.72.
References Cited
Barneby, R.C. 1964. Atlas of North American Astragalus. Mem. of The New
York Botanical Gardens 13(II):597-1188.
Barneby, R.C. in A. Cronquist, A.H. Holmgren, N.H. Holmgren, J.L.
Reveal, and P.K. Holmgren. 1989. Intermountain Flora, Volume 3, Part B.
Fabales. Columbia University Press, New York, New York. 279 pp.
Franklin, M.A. 1990. Report for 1990 Challenge Cost Share Project,
Manti-LaSal National Forest. Target Species: Astragalus desereticus.
Unpublished report prepared by the Utah Natural Heritage Program, Salt
Lake City, Utah. 5 pp + xiv.
Franklin, M.A. 1991. Deseret Milkvetch. Sego Lily, Newsletter of the
Utah Native Plant Society 15(2):6-8.
Quality Growth Efficiency Tools Technical Committee. 1997. Baseline
Scenario. Report on file with the Utah Governors Office of Planning and
Budget. 58 pp.
Ripley, S.D. 1975. Report on Endangered and Threatened Species of the
United States. House Document 94-51. 200 pp. Reprinted in Federal
Register 40(127): 27824-27924.
Stone, R.D. 1992. Element Stewardship Abstract for Astragalus
desereticus. Unpublished report prepared for The Nature Conservancy.
Salt Lake City, Utah. 18 pp.
Welsh, S.L. 1978a. Status Report Astragalus desereticus. Unpublished
report prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Denver,
Colorado. 5 pp.
Welsh, S.L. 1978b. Endangered and Threatened Plants of Utah: A
Reevaluation. Great Basin Naturalist 38(1)1-18.
Welsh, S.L. 1978c. Utah Flora: Fabaceae (Leguminosae). Great Basin
Naturalist 38(3):225-367.
Welsh, S.L., N.D. Atwood, and J.L. Reveal. 1975. Endangered,
Threatened, Extinct, Endemic, and Rare or Restricted Utah Vascular
Plants. Great Basin Naturalist 35(4):327-376.
Welsh, S.L., N.D. Atwood, L.C. Higgins, and S. Goodrich. 1987. A Utah
Flora. Great Basin Naturalist Mem. No. 9, 1-897.
Welsh, S.L., and L.M. Chatterley. 1985. Utah's Rare Plants Revisited.
Great Basin Naturalist 45:173-236.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. Astragalus desereticus:
Supplemental Status Report. Salt Lake City, Utah. 4 pp.
Author: The primary author of this proposed rule is John L. England
(see ADDRESSES section).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of
the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise noted.
2. Amend section 17.12(h) by adding the following, in alphabetical
order under ``FLOWERING PLANTS,'' to the List of Endangered and
Threatened Plants:
Sec. 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
[[Page 56596]]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species
------------------------------------------------------------------ Historic range Status When listed Critical Special
Scientific name Common name habitat rules
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flowering Plants
* * * * * * *
Astragalus desereticus................ Deseret milk-vetch....... U.S.A. (UT).............. T 668 NA NA
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated: September 30, 1999.
Jamie Rappaport Clark,
Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 99-27187 Filed 10-19-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P