[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 196 (Wednesday, October 9, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62926-62945]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-25372]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AI21


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed 
Designation of Critical Habitat for Astragalus pycnostachyus var. 
lanosissimus, a Plant From the Coast of Southern and Central California

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 
designate critical habitat pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 
1973, as amended (Act), for Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus 
(Ventura marsh milk-vetch). Approximately 170 hectares (ha) (420 acres 
(ac)) of land fall within the boundaries of the proposed critical 
habitat designation. Proposed critical habitat is located in Santa 
Barbara and Ventura counties, California. Critical habitat receives 
protection from destruction or adverse modification through required 
consultation under section 7 of the Act with regard to actions carried 
out, funded or authorized by Federal agencies.
    We are soliciting data and comments from the public on all aspects 
of this proposal, including data on economic and other impacts of the 
designation. We may revise this proposal to incorporate or address new 
information received during the comment period.

DATES: We will accept comments until December 9, 2002. Public hearing 
requests must be received by November 25, 2002.

ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and 
materials concerning this proposal by any one of several methods:
    (1) You may submit written comments and information to the Field 
Supervisor, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, 2493 Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, CA 93003.
    (2) You may also send comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to 
[email protected]. See the Public Comments Solicited section 
below for file format and other information about electronic filing.
    (3) You may hand-deliver comments to our Ventura Fish and Wildlife 
Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2493 Portola Road, Suite B, 
Ventura, CA 93003.
    Comments and materials received will be available for public 
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above 
address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Farris, Ventura Fish and Wildlife 
Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2493 Portola Road, Suite B, 
Ventura, CA 93003 (telephone 805/644-1766; facsimile 805/644-3958). 
Information regarding this proposal is available in alternate formats 
upon request.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus (Ventura marsh milk-
vetch) is an herbaceous perennial in the pea family (Fabaceae). It has 
a thick taproot and multiple erect, reddish stems, 40 to 90 centimeters 
(cm) (16 to 36 inches (in)) tall, that emerge from the root crown. The 
pinnately compound leaves (divided more than once on the same stem and 
arranged like a feather) are densely covered with silvery white hairs. 
The 27 to 39 leaflets are 5 to 20 millimeters (mm) (0.2 to 0.8 in) 
long. The numerous greenish-white to cream colored flowers are in dense 
clusters and are 7 to 10 mm (0.3 to 0.4 in) long. The calyx (a whorl of 
leaves below the flower) teeth are 1.2 to 1.5 mm (0.04 in) long. The 
fruits are single-celled pods 8 to 11 mm (0.31 to 0.43 in) long 
(Barneby 1964). The blooming time has been recorded as July to October 
(Barneby 1964); however, the one extant population was observed to 
flower from June to September (Wilken and Wardlaw 2001). This variety 
is distinguished from A. pycnostachyus var. pycnostachyus (brine milk-
vetch) by certain flower characteristics (i.e., the

[[Page 62927]]

length of calyx tube, calyx teeth, and peduncles (a stalk bearing a 
flower or flower cluster)). It is distinguished from other local 
Astragalus species by its overall size, perennial growth form, size and 
shape of fruit, and flowering time.
    Little is known of the habitat requirements of Astragalus 
pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus. All but two of the known collections 
of this taxon were made prior to 1930, and specimen labels from these 
collections and original published descriptions contain virtually no 
habitat information. The related variety, A. pycnostachyus var. 
pycnostachyus, is found in or at the high edge of coastal saltmarshes 
and seeps. The only known population of A. pycnostachyus var. 
lanosissimus occurs in a sparsely vegetated low area, at an elevation 
of about 10 meters (m) (30 feet (ft)), on a site previously used for 
disposal of petroleum waste products (Impact Sciences, Inc. 1997). 
Dominant shrub species at the site are Baccharis pilularis (coyote 
brush), Baccharis salicifolia (mulefat), Salix lasiolepis (arroyo 
willow), and the non-native Myoporum laetum (myoporum) (Impact 
Sciences, Inc. 1997). The population occurs with sparse vegetative 
cover provided primarily by Baccharis pilularis, Baccharis salicifolia, 
a non-native Carpobrotus sp. (seafig) and a non-native annual grass, 
Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens (red brome). Soils are reported to be 
loam-silt loams (Impact Sciences, Inc. 1997). Soils may have been 
transported from other locations as a cap for the disposal site once it 
was closed. The origin of the soil used to cap the waste disposal site 
is unknown; however, because of the costs of transport, the soil source 
is likely local.
    Despite the lack of information available from historical 
collections, the best description we have of the habitat of Astragalus 
pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus is from Wilken and Wardlaw (2001) who 
concluded that the species occurs in low-elevation coastal dune-swale 
areas, where freshwater levels (in the form of saturated soils or 
groundwater) are high enough to reach the roots of the plants. 
Sometimes, high groundwater is shown by the presence of water in 
sloughs or coastal creeks, but more typically evidence for freshwater 
availability is seen in the presence of native, freshwater-dependent 
plants, such as Salix spp. (willows), Typha spp. (cattails), Baccharis 
salicifolia, and others. The soils associated with A. pycnostachyus 
var. lanosissimus are well-drained, yet contain a mix of sand and clay. 
Because of the freshwater influence, the soils do not exhibit a white 
crust which would indicate saline or alkaline conditions.
    Like the habitat requirements, little is known about the 
reproductive biology of Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus. 
According to Wilken and Wardlaw (2001), the species appears to be self-
compatible and partly self-pollinating; however, the flower structure 
of this species and other Astragalus suggests that pollination requires 
manipulation of flower parts by insects. Few insects have been observed 
visiting A. pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus flowers. Wilken and Wardlaw 
(2001) observed a bumblebee (Bombus sp.) and two skippers (Family: 
Hesperidae) visiting the plants, and other researchers have observed 
large insects visiting other Astragalus species (e.g., Karron 1987). 
Therefore, it seems likely that insects are the natural pollinators of 
this plant. The life cycle of A. pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus thus 
requires that a pollinator community is present (Geer et al. 1995, 
Karron 1987). The pollinator community is supported by surrounding 
native vegetation. Non-native plants are likely to be detrimental as 
they compete with native plants, including A. pycnostachyus var. 
lanosissimus, for nutrients, water, and sunlight. Therefore, the 
percentage cover of exotic plants must be relatively low in areas 
designated as critical habitat for A. pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus. 
Recent research has shown that predation by non-native snails is a 
factor in the survival of seedlings in the extant population (Wilken 
and Wardlaw 2001).
    Wilken and Wardlaw (2001) concluded that seed production in 
Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus was limited by pollination 
and/or fertilization and seed predation by weevils (Family: Bruchidae). 
The reason for the low pollination rate is unknown, but could be 
attributed to factors that affect the local pollinator community, such 
as habitat loss, pesticides, and competition for nectar and aggression 
from non-native insects such as Argentine ant (Linepithema humile).
    Low survivorship of seedlings and young plants observed in 
Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus may be due in part to 
herbivory by snails (the non-native Otala lactea or Helix aspersa) and 
brush rabbits (Sylvilagus bachmani) (Wilken and Wardlaw 2001). Due to 
the combination of poor seedling and young plant survivorship and low 
seed production, the population of A. pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus 
declined from its rediscovery in 1997 until the 2001 season (Impacts 
Sciences 1997 and 1998; Wilken and Wardlaw 2001; Wilken, pers. comm., 
2002). The population appears to be surviving due to having established 
a seedbank (not all seeds produced in one year will germinate the 
following year). The hard seed coat may require scarification (scraping 
or small cuts) that cannot happen within one season, so the seed may 
survive for one year or more in the soil until the coat can break down 
or is broken by some mechanical means (Wall, pers. comm., 2000). Also, 
Wilken and Wardlaw (2001) found that the plants may not become 
reproductive until more than 18 to 30 months following germination. The 
implication for A. pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus is that low seed 
production and thus a seed bank deficit, combined with low seedling 
survival and the mortality of some adult plants, may contribute to the 
population's decline unless the factors causing these problems (e.g., 
snail herbivory, low pollination rate) can be addressed.
    Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus was first described by 
Per Axel Rydberg (1929) as Phaca lanosissima from an 1882 collection by 
S.B. and W.F. Parish made in what is now Orange County, California. The 
combination A. pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus was assigned to this 
taxon by Philip Munz and Jean McBurney in 1932 (Munz 1932).
    The exact location of the type locality of Astragalus pycnostachyus 
var. lanosissimus is unclear. The specimen label from the plant 
collected in 1882 by S.B. and W.F. Parish identifies the site as ``La 
Bolsa.'' Based on the labeling of other specimens collected by the 
Parishes in 1881 and 1882, Barneby (1964) suggested that this 
collection may have come from the Ballona marshes in Los Angeles 
County. However, Critchfield (1978) believed that ``La Bolsa'' could 
have referred to Bolsa Chica, a coastal marsh system located to the 
south in Orange County. The California Natural Diversity Data Base 
(CNDDB) (CDFG 2002) concludes that ``La Bolsa'' is the Bolsa Bay area 
between Sunset Beach and Huntington Beach in Orange County. Collections 
of other plants from the ``La Bolsa'' area have been mapped as the 
Bolsa Chica salt marsh, although exact locations of the collections are 
not known.
    In the five decades following its discovery, Astragalus 
pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus was collected from only a few locations 
in Los Angeles and Ventura counties. In a second 1882 collection, the 
plant was collected from near Santa Monica in Los Angeles County. It 
was also collected from the Ballona marshes just to the south in

[[Page 62928]]

1902, and ``Cienega'' in 1904, also likely near the Ballona wetlands. 
In Ventura County it was collected in 1901 and 1925 from Oxnard and in 
1911 from an unspecified location in ``Ventura, California,'' a city 
adjacent to Oxnard.
    Barneby (1964) believed that Astragalus pycnostachyus var. 
lanosissimus had been extirpated from Santa Monica southward, noting 
that there was still the possibility it survived in Ventura County 
(although he knew of no locations at that time). The species was 
briefly rediscovered in 1967 through the chance collection by R. Chase 
of a single specimen growing by a roadside between the cities of 
Ventura and Oxnard. Searches uncovered no other living plants at that 
location, although some mowed remains discovered on McGrath State Beach 
lands across the road from Chase's collection site were believed to 
belong to this taxon (information on herbarium label from specimen 
collected by R.M. Chase 1967). Floristic surveys and focused searches 
conducted in the 1970s and 1980s at historical collection locations did 
not locate any populations of A. pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus and 
the plant was presumed extinct (Isley 1986, Burgess 1987, Spellenberg 
1993, Skinner and Pavlik 1994). On June 12, 1997, a population of the 
plant was rediscovered by a Service biologist in a degraded coastal 
dune system near Oxnard, California (Kate Symonds, pers. obs., 1997).
    Based upon searches for Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus 
between the last collection in 1967 and its rediscovery in 1997, the 
species is believed to have been extirpated from all of the general 
areas from which it had been collected except the single remaining 
extant population in Oxnard, Ventura County. Locations of collections 
from the late 1800s to early 1900s in Los Angeles County are now 
urbanized within the expansive Los Angeles metropolitan area. 
Approximately 90 percent of the Ballona wetlands, once encompassing 
almost 810 ha (2,000 ac), have been drained, dredged, and developed 
into the urban areas of Marina del Rey and Venice (Critchfield 1978, 
Friends of Ballona Wetlands 1998). Ballona Creek, the primary 
freshwater source for the wetland, had been straightened, dredged and 
channelized by 1940 (Friesen et al. 1981). Despite periodic surveys of 
what remains at the Ballona wetlands, A. pycnostachyus var. 
lanosissimus has not been collected there since the early 1900s 
(Gustafson 1981; herbarium labels from collections by H. P. Chandler 
and by E. Braunton, 1902, housed at UC Berkeley Herbaria).
    In 1987, botanists searched specifically for Astragalus 
pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus without success at previous collection 
locations throughout its range in coastal habitats, including Bolsa 
Chica in Orange County and on public lands around Oxnard in Ventura 
County (F. Roberts, Service, in. litt., 1987; T. Thomas, Service, pers. 
comm., 1997). Point Mugu Naval Air Weapons Station, in southern Ventura 
County, may have suitable habitat (Wilken and Wardlaw 2001); however, 
focused surveys have not been conducted there. A. pycnostachyus var. 
lanosissimus was not found during cursory surveys of the base, nor has 
this taxon ever been collected there despite habitat evaluations and 
vegetation sampling by the Navy for the past 15 years (Navy Base 
Ventura County 2002).
    The single known population of Astragalus pycnostachyus var. 
lanosissimus near the city of Oxnard is in a degraded backdune 
community. From 1955 to 1981 the land on which it occurs was used as a 
disposal site for oil field wastes (Impact Sciences, Inc. 1998). In 
1998, the City of Oxnard published a Final Environmental Impact Report 
(FEIR) for development of this site (Impact Sciences, Inc. 1998). In a 
final step, the project was approved by the California Coastal 
Commission in April 2002. The proposal for the site includes 
remediation of soils contaminated with hydrocarbons, followed by 
construction of 300 homes and a 2-ha (6-ac) lake on 37 ha (91 ac) of 
land. The proposed soil remediation would involve excavation and 
stockpiling of the soils, followed by soil treatment and redistribution 
of the soils over the site (Impact Sciences, Inc. 1998).
    The proposed measures for conservation on the site would be to 
establish a 2 ha (5 ac) preserve that would be dominated by highly 
disturbed soils. The buffers between the development and preserve areas 
would be 15 meters (m) (50 feet (ft)). According to a comprehensive 
review of rare plant preserve design compiled by the Conservation 
Biology Institute (2000), buffers of that size are insufficient to 
protect a rare plant species because indirect effects (e.g., fuel 
management, loss of pollinators, introduction of competing exotic 
plants) are not absorbed and are likely to extend well into the 
preserved area. Thus, the preserve proposed for Astragalus 
pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus has inadequate consideration of the 
biological needs of the species and unproven management and protection 
of the site. The proposed project, as described in the FEIR, could have 
several adverse effects on the only known population of A. 
pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus, possibly resulting in the extinction 
of this taxon in the wild. We anticipate that the project will 
exacerbate the problems the population already experiences with snail 
predation and exotic plants, and will also introduce pesticides, 
increase human access, interrupt pollination, and alter the freshwater 
inundation regime that the species apparently requires.
    The Service was not involved in the agreements between the 
developer and local and State officials because our regulatory 
authority does not extend to listed plants on private land unless there 
is a Federal nexus, such as a Federal permit or funding. No nexus 
existed on the site and our role was strictly advisory.
    A sooty fungus was found on the leaves of Astragalus pycnostachyus 
var. lanosissimus in late summer, 1997, as leaves began to senesce 
(die) or wither and the plants entered a period of dormancy (Impact 
Sciences, Inc. 1997). The effects of the fungus on the population are 
not known, but it is possible that the fungus attacks senescing leaves 
in great number only at the end of the growing season. The plants 
appeared robust when in flower in June 1997, matured seed by October 
1997, and were regrowing in March 1998, after a period of dormancy, 
without obvious signs of the fungus (Steeck, in. litt, 1998). Wilken 
and Wardlaw (2001) did not detect any signs of pathogens on mature 
plants that appeared to be in poor health; however, two mature plants 
had infestations of aphids (Family: Aphididae) that were being tended 
by non-native Argentine ants. Cucumber mosaic virus, which is 
transmitted by aphids, was found in the A. pycnostachyus var. 
lanosissimus population (Wilken 2002).
    In 1997, the seeds of Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus 
were heavily infested with seed beetles (Bruchidae: Coleoptera). In a 
seed collection done for conservation purposes in 1997, the Service 
found that most fruits partially developed at least 4 seeds; however, 
seed predation reduced the average number of undamaged seeds to only 
1.8 per fruit (Steeck, in. litt., 1998). Wilken and Wardlaw (2001) 
reported similar findings in 2000. Apparently heavy seed predation by 
seed beetles and weevils has been reported among other members of the 
genus Astragalus (Platt et al. 1974, Lesica 1995). Wilken and Wardlaw 
(2001) estimate that seed predation by these insects may reduce

[[Page 62929]]

seed viability by 30 percent in a given year.
    Because of its small population size, the only natural population 
is also threatened by competition with non-native plant species. 
Cortaderia selloana (pampas grass), Carpobrotus sp., and Bromus 
madritensis ssp. rubens are invasive non-native plant species that 
occur at the site (Impact Sciences, Inc. 1997). Carpobrotus sp. in 
particular, are competitive, succulent species with the potential to 
cover vast areas in dense clonal mats and may harbor non-native snails. 
Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens grew in high densities around some 
mature individuals of Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus in 
1998 and seedlings were germinating among patches of Carpobrotus spp. 
and Bromus spp. in 1998 (D. Steeck, in. litt., 1998). Seedling survival 
rates in these areas have not yet been determined.
    Efforts to conserve Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus have 
been initiated by the landowner (North Shore at Mandalay LLC) and a 
task force of scientists from the University of California and Santa 
Barbara Botanic Garden, agencies (California Department of Fish and 
Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Parks 
and Recreation), and plant propagation experts from the Rancho Santa 
Ana Botanic Gardens (RSABG). Contractors for the landowner and 
proponent of the development, North Shore at Mandalay LLC, have 
successfully grown plants in a remote greenhouse facility. Several 
plants were excavated from the natural population and potted prior to 
state and Federal listing, and other plants were started from seed 
gathered from the natural population. In addition, A. pycnostachyus 
var. lanosissimus seed from the site was placed in a seed storage 
collection and a seed bulking project at RSABG. RSABG has been 
successful in germinating A. pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus seed and 
growing the plants in containers (Wilken and Wardlaw 2001).
    Research populations have been introduced in two locations within 
the historical range of Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus: 
Mandalay State Beach, across the street from the extant population, and 
one at McGrath State Beach. Two transplantation experiments are 
underway outside of the known range of the species: one at Carpenteria 
Marsh and the other at Coal Oil Point, both in Santa Barbara County. 
Approximately 250 individuals were planted and are being irrigated at 
the Coal Oil Point Reserve. Seed has been introduced at 10 separate 
dune locations at the Reserve (Cristina Sandoval, Reserve Director, 
pers. comm., 2002). The success of any of these efforts in establishing 
self-sustaining populations of A. pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus is 
yet to be determined.
    In 1997, the population of Astragalus pycnostachyus var. 
lanosissimus in Oxnard consisted of about 374 plants, of which 260 were 
small plants thought to have germinated in the last year and 114 were 
``adult'' plants. Of these adult plants, fewer than 65 plants produced 
fruit in 1997 (Impact Sciences, Inc. 1997). In 1998, 192 plants were 
counted during surveys of the population. Service biologists placed 
cages around a sample of plants in 1999 to protect them from severe 
herbivory apparently done by small mammals, most likely brush rabbits. 
Despite this protection, only 30 to 40 plants produced flowers in 1999, 
which was believed to be less than half of those blooming in 1998 
(Steeck, in litt., 1998).
    Wilken and Wardlaw (2001) state that the total number of adult 
plants declined between 1997 and 2000. Although 46 of 80 seedlings that 
germinated in the 2000 growing season were still present in October 
2000, the total number of surviving adult plants in 2000 was estimated 
at 39. Many are believed to have succumbed to herbivory from snails and 
brush rabbits. Other losses are unexplained, sudden mortalities (Wilken 
and Wardlaw 2001). Following efforts to control snails in 2000 (i.e., 
poisoning, hand removal, clearing of iceplant, fencing), and perhaps 
more favorable growing conditions in the winter of 2000-2001, more than 
1,000 seedlings were observed (Wilken, pers. comm., 2002). Of these, 
more than 300 survived until October 2001 when they became dormant. At 
the time of this proposal, more recent survey data is not available.

Previous Federal Action

    Federal actions for this taxon began pursuant to section 12 of the 
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) 
(Act), which directed the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution to 
prepare a report on those plants considered to be endangered, 
threatened, or extinct in the United States. This report (House 
Document No. 94-51) was presented to Congress on January 9, 1975, and 
Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus was included on List C, 
among those taxa believed possibly extinct in the wild. The Service 
published a notice in the July 1, 1975, Federal Register (40 FR 27823) 
of its acceptance of the report as a petition within the context of 
section 4(c)(2) (petition provisions are now found in section 4(b)(3)) 
of the Act and its intention to review the status of the plant taxa 
named therein.
    On June 16, 1976, the Service published a proposed rule in the 
Federal Register (41 FR 24523) to determine approximately 1,700 
vascular plant species to be endangered species pursuant to section 4 
of the Act. This list, which included Astragalus pycnostachyus var. 
lanosissimus, was assembled on the basis of comments and data received 
by the Smithsonian Institution and the Service in response to House 
Document No. 94-51 and the July 1, 1975, Federal Register publication. 
General comments received in relation to the 1976 proposal were 
summarized in an April 26, 1978, Federal Register publication (43 FR 
17909). In 1978, amendments to the Act required that all proposals over 
2 years old be withdrawn. A 1-year grace period was given to those 
proposals already more than 2 years old. In a December 10, 1979, notice 
(44 FR 70796) the Service withdrew the portion of the June 16, 1976, 
proposal that had not been made final, along with four other proposals 
that had expired. A. pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus was included in 
that withdrawal notice.
    We published an updated Notice of Review (NOR), Review of Plant 
Taxa for Listing as Endangered and Threatened Species on December 15, 
1980 (45 FR 82480). This notice included Astragalus pycnostachyus var. 
lanosissimus in a list of category 1 candidate species that were 
possibly extinct in the wild. Category 1 candidate species were taxa 
for which we had sufficient information on biological vulnerability and 
threats to support the preparation of listing proposals. These category 
1 candidates were given high priority for listing were extant 
populations to be confirmed.
    The Service maintained Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus 
as a category 1 candidate in subsequent NORs: November 28, 1983 (48 FR 
53640); September 27, 1985 (50 FR 39526); and February 21, 1990 (55 FR 
6184). The Service published a NOR (58 FR 51144) on September 30, 1993, 
in which taxa whose existence in the wild was in doubt, including A. 
pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus, were moved to Category 2. Category 2 
candidate species were taxa for which information then in our 
possession indicated that proposing to list the taxon 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. On February 28, 1996

[[Page 62930]]

we published a NOR in the Federal Register (61 FR 7596) that 
discontinued the designation of category 2 species as candidates, 
including those taxa thought to be extinct. Thus, A. pycnostachyus var. 
lanosissimus was excluded from this and subsequent NORs. In 1997, A. 
pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus was rediscovered and a review of the 
taxon's status indicated that a proposed rule was warranted.
    A proposed rule to list Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus 
as endangered was published in the Federal Register on May 25, 1999 (64 
FR 28136). On January 26, 2001, the Center for Biological Diversity 
(CBD) filed a Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief against 
the Service asking the court to enjoin the Service to render a final 
listing determination for A. pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus. The final 
rule listing the plant as endangered was published on May 21, 2001 (66 
FR 27901).
    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing 
regulations (50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the maximum extent prudent 
and determinable, the Secretary designate critical habitat at the time 
the species is determined to be endangered or threatened. Our 
regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that designation of critical 
habitat is not prudent when one or both of the following situations 
exists: (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. At the time 
Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus was listed, we found that 
designation of critical habitat was prudent but not determinable, and 
that we would designate critical habitat once we had gathered the 
necessary data.
    Despite this finding regarding critical habitat at the time of 
listing, the CBD lawsuit also sought to cause the Service to prepare a 
final rule designating critical habitat for Astragalus pycnostachyus 
var. lanosissimus. A stipulated settlement agreement and Order was 
filed with the court on August 2, 2001, which provides that the Service 
will submit for publication in the Federal Register a proposed critical 
habitat designation for A. pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus on or before 
October 1, 2002, and that the final designation will be submitted for 
publication on or before October 1, 2003.

Critical Habitat

    Section 3 defines critical habitat as--(i) the specific areas 
within the geographic area occupied by a species, at the time it is 
listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or 
biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species 
and (II) that may require special management considerations or 
protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the geographic area 
occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination 
that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. 
``Conservation'' means the use of all methods and procedures that are 
necessary to bring an endangered or a threatened species to the point 
at which listing under the Act is no longer necessary.
    Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act 
through the prohibition against destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat with regard to actions carried out, funded, or 
authorized by a Federal agency. Section 7 also requires conferences on 
Federal actions that are likely to result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of proposed critical habitat.
    Critical habitat also provides non-regulatory benefits to the 
species by informing public and private interest groups of areas that 
are important for species recovery and where conservation actions would 
be most effective. Designation of critical habitat can help focus 
conservation activities for a listed species by identifying areas that 
contain the physical and biological features essential for the 
conservation of that species, and can alert the public as well as land-
managing agencies to the importance of those areas. Critical habitat 
also identifies areas that may require special management 
considerations or protection, and may help provide protection to areas 
where significant threats to the species have been identified, by 
helping people to avoid causing accidental damage to such areas.
    In order to be included in a critical habitat designation, the 
habitat must first be ``essential to the conservation of the species.'' 
Critical habitat designations identify, to the extent known, and using 
the best scientific and commercial data available, habitat areas that 
provide at least one of the physical or biological features essential 
to the conservation of the species (primary constituent elements, as 
defined at 50 CFR 424.12(b)). Section 3(5)(C) of the Act states that 
not all areas that can be occupied by a species should be designated as 
critical habitat unless the Secretary determines that all such areas 
are essential to the conservation of the species. Our regulations (50 
CFR 424.12(e)) also state that, ``The Secretary shall designate as 
critical habitat areas outside the geographic area presently occupied 
by the species only when a designation limited to its present range 
would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species.'' 
Accordingly, we do not designate critical habitat in areas outside the 
geographic area occupied by the species unless the best available 
scientific and commercial data demonstrate that unoccupied areas are 
essential for the conservation needs of the species.
    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we take into consideration 
the economic impact, and any other relevant impact, of specifying any 
particular area as critical habitat. We may exclude areas from critical 
habitat designation when the benefits of exclusion outweigh the 
benefits of including the areas within critical habitat, provided the 
exclusion will not result in extinction of the species.
    Our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered Species 
Act, published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271), 
provides criteria, establishes procedures, and provides guidance to 
ensure that our decisions represent the best scientific and commercial 
data available. It requires our biologists, to the extent consistent 
with the Act and with the use of the best scientific and commercial 
data available, to use primary and original sources of information as 
the basis for recommendations to designate critical habitat. When 
determining which areas are critical habitat, a primary source of 
information should be the listing package for the species. Additional 
information may be obtained from a recovery plan, articles in peer-
reviewed journals, conservation plans developed by States and counties, 
scientific status surveys and studies, biological assessments, 
unpublished materials, or other unpublished materials.
    Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat 
based on what we know at the time of designation. Habitat is often 
dynamic, and species may move from one area to another over time. 
Furthermore, we recognize that designation of critical habitat may not 
include all of the habitat areas that may eventually be determined to 
be necessary for the recovery of the species. For these reasons, 
critical habitat designations do not signal that habitat outside the 
designation is unimportant or may not be required for

[[Page 62931]]

recovery. Areas that support newly discovered populations in the 
future, but are outside the critical habitat designation, will continue 
to be subject to conservation actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) 
of the Act and to the regulatory protections afforded by the section 
7(a)(2) jeopardy standard and the section 9(a)(2) prohibitions, as 
determined on the basis of the best available information at the time 
of the action. Federally funded or assisted projects affecting listed 
species outside their designated critical habitat areas may still 
result in jeopardy findings in some cases. Similarly, critical habitat 
designations made on the basis of the best available information at the 
time of designation will not control the direction and substance of 
future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans, or other species 
conservation planning efforts if new information available to these 
planning efforts calls for a different outcome.

Methods

    As required by the Act and regulations (section 4(b)(2) and 50 CFR 
424.12) we used the best scientific information available to determine 
areas that contain the physical and biological features that are 
essential for the conservation of Astragalus pycnostachyus var. 
lanosissimus. This information included data from the final rule 
listing the species as endangered (66 FR 27901), the CNDDB (CDFG 2002), 
recent biological surveys, reports and aerial photos, additional 
information provided by interested parties, and discussions with 
botanical experts. We also conducted site visits at locations managed 
by Federal and State agencies, including the Navy Base Ventura County/
Point Mugu, McGrath State Beach, and Carpinteria Marsh.
    Much of the critical habitat description is derived from Wilken and 
Wardlaw (2001) which represents the most complete information to date 
regarding the biology and habitat of Astragalus pycnostachyus var. 
lanosissimus. Of particular relevance to this critical habitat 
determination, Wilken and Wardlaw (2001) provide descriptions of the 
habitat of A. pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus' closest relative, A. 
pycnostachyus var. pycnostachyus (northern marsh milk-vetch). Wilken 
and Wardlaw (2001) collected data on habitat characteristics at sites 
occupied by A. pycnostachyus var. pycnostachyus and compared these with 
the characteristics at the extant population of A. pycnostachyus var. 
lanosissimus. Once common habitat characteristics had been established, 
Wilken and Wardlaw used these to evaluate areas for their suitability 
for establishing new populations of A. pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus. 
The factors evaluated included: degree of disturbance; vegetative cover 
(percent and type); associated species; proximity to subterranean water 
table; and potential threats. Wilken and Wardlaw (2001) also analyzed 
soil from the site where A. pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus currently 
exists for physical and chemical properties important for general plant 
growth, such as texture, pH, salinity, nutrients, and micronutrients.
    Determining what constitutes habitat for Astragalus pycnostachyus 
var. lanosissimus is difficult due to having only one extant population 
on a site of questionable history (i.e., soil dumping, oil waste) to 
sample. Also, the historical collections did not fully document the 
habitat where the plants were found. Therefore, both Wilken and Wardlaw 
(2001) and the Service's (Steeck, in litt., 1998) data were used to 
characterize the habitat of A. pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus and to 
determine the primary constituent elements. Some differences between 
the two subspecies of A. pycnostachyus are apparent, especially in 
regards to associated plant species and general habitat type. These 
differences may be a function of a small data set for A. pycnostachyus 
var. lanosissimus due to its single population, uncertainty surrounding 
the presence of A. pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus on the extant site 
(i.e., whether it is a natural occurrence or was introduced through 
soil dumping), and differences in the two subspecies in terms of what 
habitat may support them. We have paid particular attention to 
information from Wilken and Wardlaw (2001) because they analyzed 
conditions at the only known site where A. pycnostachyus var. 
lanosissimus currently occurs.

Primary Constituent Elements

    In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at 
50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas to propose as critical 
habitat, we consider those physical and biological features (primary 
constituent elements) that are essential to the conservation of the 
species and that may require special management considerations or 
protection. These include, but are not limited to: space for individual 
and population growth, and for normal behavior; food, water, air, 
light, minerals or other nutritional or physiological requirements; 
cover or shelter; sites for reproduction, germination, or seed 
dispersal; and habitats that are protected from disturbance or are 
representative of the known historical geographical and ecological 
distributions of a species.
    Much of what is known about the specific physical and biological 
requirements of Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus is described 
in the Background section of this proposed rule. The proposed critical 
habitat is designed to provide sufficient habitat to maintain self-
sustaining populations of A. pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus throughout 
its range and to provide those habitat components essential for the 
conservation of the species. These habitat components provide for: (1) 
Individual and population growth, including sites for germination, 
pollination, reproduction, pollen and seed dispersal, and seed 
dormancy; (2) areas that allow gene flow and provide connectivity or 
linkage within larger populations; (3) areas that provide basic 
requirements for growth, such as water, light, and minerals; and (4) 
areas that support populations of pollinators and seed dispersal 
organisms.
    We believe the long-term probability of the conservation of 
Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus is dependent upon the 
protection of the existing population site and sites where 
introductions can be conducted, as well as the maintenance of 
ecological functions within these sites, including connectivity between 
colonies (i.e., groups of plants within sites) within close geographic 
proximity to facilitate pollinator activity and seed dispersal. The 
areas we are proposing to designate as critical habitat provide some or 
all of the habitat components essential for the conservation of A. 
pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus. Based on the best available 
information at this time, the primary constituent elements of critical 
habitat for A. pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus consist of, but are not 
limited to:
    (1) Vegetation cover of at least 50 percent but not exceeding 75 
percent, consisting primarily of known associated native species, 
including but not limited to, Baccharis salicifolia, Baccharis 
pilularis, Salix lasiolepis, Lotus scoparius (deerweed), and Ericameria 
ericoides (coast goldenbush);
    (2) Low densities of non-native annual plants and shrubs, not 
exceeding 25 percent cover (combined with the minimum 50 percent native 
cover requirement, total cover of natives and non-natives should not 
exceed 75 percent);
    (3) The presence of a high water table, either fresh or brackish, 
as evidenced by the presence of channels, sloughs, or depressions that 
may support stands of

[[Page 62932]]

Salix lasiolepis, Typha spp., and Scirpus spp. (cattail);
    (4) Soils that are fine-grained, composed primarily of sand with 
some clay and silt, yet are well-drained; and
    (5) Soils that do not exhibit a white crystalline crust that would 
indicate saline or alkaline conditions.

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

    Critical habitat being proposed for Astragalus pycnostachyus var. 
lanosissimus includes the only known location where the species 
currently occurs and two other sites with high potential to support the 
species based upon habitat characteristics (including the analysis of 
Wilken and Wardlaw 2001) and/or historical occurrences. We believe that 
establishment of new, self-sustaining populations of A. pycnostachyus 
var. lanosissimus at other sites is essential for the species' survival 
because the species is currently known from a single location at which 
its future is uncertain due to its small population size and the high 
degree of threat from chance catastrophic events. Catastrophic events 
are a concern when the number of populations or geographic distribution 
of a species is severely limited (Shaffer 1981, 1987; Primack 1998; 
Meffe and Carroll 1997), as is the case with A. pycnostachyus var. 
lanosissimus. Because a critical habitat designation limited to this 
species' present range--one known location--would be inadequate to 
ensure its conservation, the establishment of additional locations for 
A. pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus is critical to reducing the risk of 
extinction.
    For sites not currently occupied by Astragalus pycnostachyus var. 
lanosissimus, we first considered the historical range of the species 
based upon collection data and records from the CNDDB (CDFG 2001). From 
this potential distribution, we located the areas where the plants were 
observed or collected as closely as they could be discerned from the 
data. In some cases, we had to determine that old place names, such as 
``La Bolsa,'' referred to sites with some similar name, like Bolsa 
Chica, or found references that made conclusions about modern place 
names from the data.
    By examining aerial photographs and reviewing pertinent literature, 
and through discussions with knowledgeable individuals, we identified 
areas where habitat similar to that at the currently occupied site and 
where habitat similar to that occupied by the closest relative, 
Astragalus pycnostachyus var. pycnostachyus, may still exist. These 
broader areas were refined with information on the extant population 
and the other locations as derived from Wilken and Wardlaw (2001). We 
also engaged in discussions with the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 
which has responsibility for and experience with the historical 
locations in southern Los Angeles and Orange counties (K. Clark and J. 
Fancher, pers. comm., 2002).
    The boundaries of the units were identified on aerial photographs 
and U.S. Geological Survey topographical maps and refined based upon 
adjacent land uses. For example, one unit is bordered on three sides by 
urban areas and on the final side by the Pacific Ocean. We decided that 
due to the limited suitable habitat available, the patchiness of such 
habitat, and the lack of information on related ecosystem functions 
that would support Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus, we 
should include all natural vegetation within the units up to where land 
use changes and natural vegetation end. The critical habitat units were 
designed to encompass a large enough area to support existing 
ecological processes that may be essential to the conservation of A. 
pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus (e.g., that provide areas into which 
populations might expand, provide connectivity or linkage between 
colonies within a unit, and support populations of pollinators and seed 
dispersal organisms).
    Within the historical range of Astragalus pycnostachyus var. 
lanosissimus, we considered two of the collection localities: Bolsa 
Chica, Orange County, and the Ballona Wetlands, Los Angeles County. 
During discussions with biologists most familiar with these areas (K. 
Clark and J. Fancher, pers. comm., 2002), we concluded that, although 
the areas remain undeveloped for the most part, conditions have changed 
dramatically since the plants were collected. For example, the Bolsa 
Chica area has been altered by oil development, which created raised 
pads and lower excavated areas, and channelized the natural freshwater 
inflow that once existed. The influence of tidal flow is now more 
pronounced, to the point that the soils have become saline. The area, 
therefore, does not contain plant species that indicate freshwater 
influence. Plant species indicating freshwater influence are found at 
the currently occupied site and at locations where the close relative, 
A. pycnostachyus var. pycnostachyus, occurs. Also, long-range plans for 
Bolsa Chica are to increase the tidal influence by establishing a 
direct connection to the ocean across Bolsa Chica State Beach. The 
Ballona Wetlands are similarly isolated from a freshwater source and 
are subject to considerable disturbance. Consequently, we rejected both 
Bolsa Chica and the Ballona Wetlands as potential reintroduction sites 
for A. pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus and as critical habitat units.
    For critical habitat outside of the historical range, we considered 
areas from Gaviota State Beach, Santa Barbara County, south to San 
Diego County. We have included only one critical habitat unit 
(Carpinteria Marsh) that could be considered outside of the known range 
of the species in this critical habitat proposal. That location is 
included because of its proximity to the historical distribution, the 
initial success of efforts to establish a population there, and the 
presence of primary constituent elements. Data to support designation 
of critical habitat elsewhere outside the historic range of Astragalus 
pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus are limited. In addition, we do not 
believe introducing A. pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus in the vicinity 
of Astragalus pycnostachyus var. pychnostachyus is prudent because of 
the potential for hybridization and dilution of genetic identity 
between the two varieties. Therefore, we do not believe it is 
appropriate to designate critical habitat elsewhere outside the 
historic range of A. pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus.
    In selecting areas of proposed critical habitat we made an effort 
to avoid developed areas, such as housing developments, that are 
unlikely to contain the primary constituent elements or otherwise 
contribute to the conservation of Astragalus pycnostachyus var. 
lanosissimus. However, we did not map critical habitat in sufficient 
detail to exclude all lands unlikely to contain the primary constituent 
elements essential for the conservation of A. pycnostachyus var. 
lanosissimus. Areas within the boundaries of the mapped units, such as 
buildings, roads, parking lots, railroads, airport runways and other 
paved areas, lawns, and other urban landscaped areas will not contain 
any of the primary constituent elements. Federal actions limited to 
these areas, therefore, would not trigger a section 7 consultation, 
unless they affect the species and/or primary constituent elements in 
adjacent critical habitat.
    In summary, we selected critical habitat areas that provide for the 
conservation of Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus where it is 
known to occur, as well as areas suitable for establishment of new

[[Page 62933]]

populations. As noted above, establishment of new populations is 
important to reduce the risk of extirpation from chance catastrophic 
events. If we determine that areas outside of the boundaries of the 
designated critical habitat are important for the conservation of this 
species, we may propose these additional areas as critical habitat in 
the future.

Special Management Considerations

    It is essential to manage the critical habitat areas in a manner 
that provides for the conservation of Astragalus pycnostachyus var. 
lanosissimus. This includes not only the immediate area where the 
species may be present, but an additional area that can provide for 
normal population fluctuations that may occur in response to natural 
and unpredictable events. A. pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus is also 
dependent upon habitat components beyond the immediate areas on which 
the plant occurs, including the adjacent vegetation communities with 
which the species is associated, and sufficient areas to support the 
ecological processes of which the plant's life cycle is a part. These 
ecological processes include hydrology, pollination, seed dispersal, 
expansion of distribution, recolonization, and maintenance of natural 
predator-prey relationships.
    Of paramount importance is the maintenance of a pollinator 
community as Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus appears to be 
suffering from poor seed set (Wilken and Wardlaw 2001). Although self-
compatible, A. pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus has a flower structure 
that suggests a relationship with large insects. In this case, the 
number of plants in the host plant population (A. pycnostachyus var. 
lanosissimus) appears to be insufficient in itself to support the 
pollinator community. Thus, the survival of a pollinator community is 
dependent upon sufficient natural vegetation beyond the footprint of 
the rare plant in question, as these other plants are able to sustain 
the pollinators which are not solely dependent upon the resources of 
the rare species, yet still provide pollination services to the rare 
plant. Given the patchiness of suitable habitat for A. pycnostachyus 
var. lanosissimus in the region under consideration in this proposal, 
and the lack of data on the minimum size of patches that can support 
the appropriate pollinators of A. pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus, we 
believe that all of the remaining natural vegetation within the 
proposed critical habitat units must be managed to maintain and enhance 
the value to a pollinator community. Maintenance and enhancement can 
include eradication of non-native plants, control of non-native insects 
(especially Argentine ants) and snails, revegetation with native shrubs 
and annuals, and irrigation as needed.
    Because only one extant population of Astragalus pycnostachyus var. 
lanosissimus remains, Wilken and Wardlaw (2001) provided the following 
recommendations for experimental introductions of the species into the 
proposed critical habitat units:
    (1) The experimental areas should be free from human incursion, 
except by researchers and monitors. Exclusion can be accomplished by 
signs, fencing, and enforcement;
    (2) Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus plantings should 
attempt to establish clusters to examine the gradients of conditions 
that may be present in the critical habitat areas;
    (3) Plants should be grown in containers for transplant into 
experimental population areas, with emphasis on larger containers (one 
gallon minimum);
    (4) Seeds should be collected from as many different plants as 
possible each year to establish a diverse genetic pool, and propagate 
individuals from many different collections;
    (5) Transplantation of new container stock, germinated yearly, 
should occur once per year for at least 3 years to achieve a balanced 
age structure in the new population and to compensate for fluctuating 
mortality rates; and
    (6) A monitoring program should be implemented to achieve specific 
goals defined prior to introduction of Astragalus pycnostachyus var. 
lanosissimus. The goals should include, at a minimum: population size; 
age class structure; survivorship; and reproductive success (i.e., 
pollination, seed production, seedling survival).

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation

    The proposed critical habitat areas described below constitute our 
best assessment at this time of the areas essential for the 
conservation of Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus. The areas 
being proposed as critical habitat are: (1) Mandalay, including the 
site of the extant population at Fifth Street and Harbor Boulevard in 
Oxnard, Ventura County; (2) McGrath Lake area, McGrath State Beach, 
California Department of Parks and Recreation (CDPR), Ventura County, 
and (3) Carpinteria Salt Marsh Reserve run by the University of 
California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara County.
    The only site occupied by a natural population of Astragalus 
pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus is in the Mandalay Unit, located at 
Fifth Street and Harbor Boulevard in the City of Oxnard. A research 
population has been initiated at the Mandalay State Beach portion of 
the unit. Research introductions have also occurred at the Carpinteria 
Salt Marsh Reserve and McGrath State Beach units. Despite the presence 
of research populations, we consider all of the units unoccupied except 
the portion of the Mandalay unit where the natural population occurs. 
Therefore, we propose to designate currently unoccupied habitat because 
the conservation of A. pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus requires it. The 
single extant natural population is likely to be extirpated by direct 
and indirect effects of the approved development of the North Shore at 
Mandalay project (i.e., due to inadequate preserve design), or a 
catastrophic event could eliminate the population regardless of the 
development. In the absence of suitable off-site locations where the 
species could be established, it is possible that it could go extinct. 
The two unoccupied sites proposed for inclusion have been identified 
through research as the most likely candidates for new populations 
because the primary constituent elements are present and they can be 
adequately protected from the threats identified earlier. One site is 
within the historical range of the species and one is not. We believe 
the designation of currently unoccupied locations as critical habitat 
is essential to the conservation of A. pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus.
    Also, our evaluation of Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus 
has shown that suitable habitat areas are scarce within the historical 
range of the species. The combination of associated plant species, high 
groundwater, low salinity, and other primary constituent elements has 
either been removed by urbanization, agriculture, oil field 
development, or flood control projects. Other areas within the 
historical range were considered and rejected, and areas outside of the 
historical range were limited in scope and only one was included. The 
scarcity of suitable habitat has also contributed to the need to 
propose areas currently unoccupied by A. pycnostachyus var. 
lanosissimus as critical habitat.
    In summary, we propose to designate approximately 170 ha (420 ac) 
of land in three units as critical habitat for Astragalus pycnostachyus 
var. lanosissimus. The approximate areas of proposed critical habitat 
by land ownership are shown in Table 1. Private lands comprise 
approximately 33 percent of the proposed critical habitat; and State 
lands comprise 67 percent. No

[[Page 62934]]

Federal lands are proposed for inclusion.

     Table 1.--Approximate Areas in Hectares (ha) and Acres (ac) of Proposed Critical Habitat for Astragalus
                                pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus by Land Ownership
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Unit name                 Private            State            Federal                 Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mandalay Unit.................  42 ha (104 ac)..  20 ha (49 ac)...  0 ha (0 ac).....  62 ha (153 ac)
McGrath Unit..................  14 ha (35 ac)...  11 ha (27 ac)...  0 ha (0 ac).....  25 ha (62 ac)
Carpenteria Salt Marsh Unit...  0 ha (0 ac).....  83 ha (205 ac)..  0 ha (0 ac).....  83 ha (205 ac)
    Total.....................  56 ha (139 ac)..  114 ha (281 ac).  0 ha (0 ac).....  170 ha (420 ac)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Approximate acres have been converted to hectares (1 ha = 2.47 ac). Based on the level of precision of
  mapping of each unit, hectares and acres greater than 10 have been rounded to the nearest whole number. Totals
  are sums of units.

    The proposed critical habitat areas constitute our best assessment 
at this time of the areas that are essential for the conservation of 
Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus. The three critical habitat 
units include the only known location where the species currently 
occurs and two other sites with high potential to support the species. 
A brief description of each critical habitat unit is given below:

Mandalay Unit

    The Mandalay Unit is located on both sides of Harbor Boulevard and 
north of Fifth Street in the city of Oxnard, Ventura County. On the 
east side of Harbor Boulevard, the unit extends north from Fifth Street 
to the Edison Canal, and east from Harbor Boulevard to the Edison 
Canal. The western portion on Mandalay State Beach includes the area 
north of Fifth Street, west of Harbor Boulevard, east of an access road 
that bisects the park, and south of a point halfway between where 
Harbor Boulevard crosses the Edison Canal and Fifth Street. This unit 
covers 62 ha (152 ac) and is important because it contains the only 
known location where Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus 
naturally exists and one research population. Additional area is 
included beyond the footprint of the extant population to provide area 
for expansion of the population and to preserve habitat that may 
support important pollinators.
    The eastern portion of this unit is part of a pending development 
called the North Shore at Mandalay. The project includes a 2-ha (5-ac) 
preserve for Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus; however, we 
believe it is unlikely that the species will persist on the site in the 
long-term, despite proposed management measures in the Memorandum of 
Understanding between the developer and the California Department of 
Fish and Game (CDFG), and a settlement agreement between the developer 
and the California Native Plant Society. The population will be mostly 
isolated from surrounding vegetation, and the ecological processes 
sustaining the population may be interrupted. Also, the project may 
allow increased human intrusion, provide habitat for non-native plants 
and snails, alter the hydrologic regime, and introduce pesticides and 
fertilizers that adversely affect the plants.
    The portion of this unit on Mandalay State Beach is identified by 
Wilken and Wardlaw (2001) as a potential site for establishing a new 
population of Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus. In 2002, the 
first efforts at establishing a new population were begun. The 
proximity of Mandalay State Beach to the extant population indicates 
that some natural exchange of seeds or pollen could take place if a 
second population were established at Mandalay State Beach. The site 
contains most of the primary constituent elements defined for A. 
pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus critical habitat, although Wilken and 
Wardlaw (2001) note some dense cover of non-native annuals. Also, using 
their five parameters, Wilken and Wardlaw (2001) ranked the Mandalay 
State Beach portion of this unit as one of the most similar to the 
natural occurrences of A. pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus and the 
closely related A. pycnostachyus var. pycnostachyus, and hence one of 
the top candidates for establishing a new population.
    We discussed designation of critical habitat in this area with the 
CDPR. Because the area is currently operated by that agency and is 
public land, there is opportunity to work with the state to develop 
strategies to introduce Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus and 
to form manageable reserves.
    As discussed above, currently unoccupied areas (or those with 
research populations) that support the primary constituent elements are 
essential for the conservation of Astragalus pycnostachyus var. 
lanosissimus because they provide additional areas separate from the 
existing population of A. pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus, into which 
it can be introduced. We believe it is extremely important to have 
additional area to reduce the likelihood that the species may become 
extinct as the result of a catastrophic event, such as a fire or 
disease, that can affect an isolated population.

McGrath Unit

    The site within McGrath Beach State Park is adjacent to McGrath 
Lake on the leeward side of the southern end of the lake, between the 
lake and Harbor Boulevard. A second site to the north, just south of 
the existing camping facilities, was examined but considered unsuitable 
by Wilken and Wardlaw (2001) due to frequent use by the public and 
large stands of non-native vegetation. The unit covers 25 ha (62 ac), 
of which 14 ha (35 ac) is privately owned.
    Of the sites they examined, Wilken and Wardlaw (2001) identify the 
McGrath Lake area as having the best combination of characteristics 
similar to that of the extant population of Astragalus pycnostachyus 
var. lanosissimus and its closest relative, A. pycnostachyus var. 
pycnostachyus based upon five parameters (i.e., dominant vegetation 
composed of a shrub canopy less than 75 percent; absence of competitive 
annual or perennial exotic plants; water table in close proximity; soil 
types consistent with that at the site of the extant population; and 
native habitat supporting pollinators).
    The CDPR agreed to allow the CDFG and the RSABG to establish a 
research population on this site. The effort is still in its early 
stages and no conclusive data has yet been retrieved. We also discussed 
the proposed designation with representatives of the CDPR. Because part 
of this unit is currently operated by the CDPR and is public land, 
there is opportunity to work with

[[Page 62935]]

the state to develop strategies to introduce Astragalus pycnostachyus 
var. lanosissimus and to form manageable reserves. This unit is also 
one of the last known places where the species was observed growing 
naturally, and it is close to the extant population and shares many of 
the broader climatic and habitat features of that site.
    As discussed above, currently unoccupied units (or those with 
research populations underway) are essential for the conservation of 
Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus because they provide 
additional areas separate from the existing population of A. 
pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus into which it can be established. We 
believe it is important to have additional units to reduce the 
likelihood that the species may become extinct as the result of a 
catastrophic event. Additional geographically separated units can 
provide protection from chance events such as disease that can destroy 
the only remaining population.

Carpinteria Salt Marsh Unit

    The Carpenteria Salt Marsh Unit extends from the Southern Pacific 
Railroad tracks south and west to Sand Point Drive and Santa Monica 
Creek. It lies north and west of Sandyland Cove Road and north of 
Avenue del Mar. The area is identified on the U.S.G.S. 7.5-minute 
Carpinteria quadrangle as ``El Estero'' and covers 83 ha (206 ac), 
which is all State-owned.
    Much of this area may be saltmarsh habitat that is unsuitable for 
Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus; however, the habitats 
surrounding the area where a research population has been established 
may support the pollinators and other ecological processes that A. 
pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus requires. The preliminary introduction 
of the plant occurred in a portion of the unit near the intersection of 
Sandyland Cove Road and the railroad tracks. We do not have recent data 
on the introduced plants' status. Wilken and Wardlaw (2001) identify 
this area as one of those ranking highest for A. pycnostachyus var. 
lanosissimus using the five parameters of habitat suitability they 
devised. These parameters closely parallel the primary constituent 
elements, so we believe that most, if not all, of the elements are 
represented at this site. The diverse native vegetation present may 
support a good pollinator community; however, a residential community 
is nearby and non-native snails were observed in the area.
    This site in Santa Barbara County is near the range of the species 
as predicted by the historical collections and described by Skinner and 
Pavlik (1994), who list the known counties as Ventura, Los Angeles, and 
Orange. The regulations state that we do not designate critical habitat 
in areas outside the geographic area occupied by the species unless the 
best available scientific and commercial data demonstrate that the 
unoccupied areas are essential for the conservation needs of the 
species (50 CFR 424.12(e)). We have included it here because of the 
high potential for successful establishment of a new population per 
Wilken and Wardlaw's (2001) findings. Also, given the limited 
availability of suitable sites within the known range and uncertainty 
surrounding the success of any attempt to establish new populations of 
a rare plant where it does not already occur, we believe this site is 
essential for the conservation of Astragalus pycnostachyus var. 
lanosissimus.
    As discussed above, additional, currently unoccupied, units (or 
those with research populations) are essential for the conservation of 
Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus because they provide 
additional areas separate from the existing population for A. 
pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus into which it can be introduced. We 
believe it is extremely important to have additional units to reduce 
the likelihood that the species may become extinct as the result of a 
catastrophic event. Additional geographically separated units can 
provide protection from chance events such as disease that can destroy 
the only remaining population.

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Section 7 Consultation

    Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the 
Service, to ensure that actions they fund, authorize, permit, or carry 
out do not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Destruction or 
adverse modification of critical habitat occurs when a Federal action 
directly or indirectly alters critical habitat to the extent that it 
appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat for the 
conservation of the species. Individuals, organizations, States, local 
governments, and other non-Federal entities are affected by the 
designation of critical habitat only if their actions occur on Federal 
lands, require a Federal permit, license, or other authorization, or 
involve Federal funding.
    Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the 
Service, 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 designated or proposed. Regulations 
implementing this interagency cooperation provision of the Act are 
codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires 
Federal agencies to confer with 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. 
Conference reports provide conservation recommendations to assist 
Federal agencies in eliminating conflicts that may be caused by their 
proposed actions. The conservation measures in a conference report are 
advisory.
    We may issue a formal conference report, if requested by the 
Federal action agency. Formal conference reports include an opinion 
that is prepared according to 50 CFR 402.14, as if the species was 
listed or critical habitat designated. We may adopt the formal 
conference report as the biological opinion when the species is listed 
or critical habitat designated, if no substantial new information or 
changes in the action alter the content of the opinion (50 CFR 
402.10(d)).
    If a species is listed or critical habitat is designated, section 
7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities 
they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of such a species or to destroy or adversely modify 
its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a listed species 
or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) 
must enter into consultation with us. Through this consultation, the 
Federal action agency would ensure that the permitted actions do not 
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat.
    If we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is 
likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat, we also provide ``reasonable and prudent alternatives'' to the 
project, if any are identifiable. Reasonable and prudent alternatives 
are defined at 50 CFR 402.02 as alternative actions identified during 
consultation that can be implemented in a manner consistent with the 
intended purpose of the action, that are consistent with the scope of 
the Federal agency's legal authority and jurisdiction, that are 
economically and technologically feasible, and that the Director 
believes would avoid the likelihood of jeopardizing the continued 
existence of listed species, or resulting in the destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat.

[[Page 62936]]

    Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate 
consultation on previously reviewed actions under certain 
circumstances, including instances where critical habitat is 
subsequently designated and the Federal agency has retained 
discretionary involvement or control over the action or such 
discretionary involvement or control is authorized by law. 
Consequently, some Federal agencies may request reinitiation of 
consultation or conference with us on actions for which formal 
consultation has been completed, if those actions may affect designated 
critical habitat, or adversely modify or destroy proposed critical 
habitat.
    We may issue a formal conference report if requested by a Federal 
agency. Formal conference reports on proposed critical habitat contain 
an opinion that is prepared according to 50 CFR 402.14, as if critical 
habitat were designated. We may adopt the formal conference report as 
the biological opinion when the critical habitat is designated, if no 
substantial new information or changes in the action alter the content 
of the opinion (see 50 CFR 402.10(d)).
    Activities on Federal lands that may affect Astragalus 
pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus or its critical habitat will require 
section 7 consultation. Activities on private or State lands requiring 
a permit from a Federal agency, such as a permit from the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers (Corps) under section 404 of the Clean Water Act, a 
section 10(a)(1)(B) permit from the Service, or some other Federal 
action, including funding (e.g., Federal Highway Administration, 
Environmental Protection Agency, or Federal Emergency Management 
Authority funding), would also be subject to the section 7 consultation 
process. Federal actions not affecting listed species or critical 
habitat and actions on non-Federal and private lands that are not 
Federally funded, authorized, or permitted do not require section 7 
consultation.
    We recognize that designation of critical habitat may not include 
all of the habitat areas that may eventually be determined to be 
necessary for the recovery of the species. For these reasons, all 
should understand that critical habitat designations do not signal that 
habitat outside the designation is unimportant or may not be required 
for recovery. Areas outside the critical habitat designation will 
continue to be subject to conservation actions that may be implemented 
under section 7(a)(1) of the Act and to the regulatory protections 
afforded by the section 7(a)(2) of the Act jeopardy standard and the 
prohibitions of section 9 of the Act, as determined on the basis of the 
best available information at the time of the action. Critical habitat 
designations made on the basis of the best available information at the 
time of designation will not control the direction and substance of 
future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans, or other species 
conservation planning efforts if new information available to these 
planning efforts calls for a different outcome.
    To properly portray the effects of critical habitat designation, we 
must first compare the section 7 requirements for actions that may 
affect critical habitat with the requirements for actions that may 
affect a listed species. Section 7 ensures that actions funded, 
authorized, or carried out by Federal agencies are not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species, or destroy or 
adversely modify the listed species' critical habitat. Actions likely 
to jeopardize the continued existence of a species are those that would 
appreciably reduce the likelihood of the species' survival and 
recovery. Actions likely to destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat are those that would appreciably reduce the value of critical 
habitat for the survival and recovery of the listed species.
    Common to both definitions is an appreciable detrimental effect on 
the recovery of a listed species. Given the similarity of these 
definitions, actions likely to destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat would almost always result in jeopardy to the species 
concerned, particularly when the area of the proposed action is 
occupied by the species concerned. Designation of critical habitat in 
the only area occupied by Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus is 
not likely to result in a regulatory requirement above that already in 
place due to the presence of the listed species. Designation of 
critical habitat in areas not occupied by A. pycnostachyus var. 
lanosissimus may result in an additional regulatory requirement when a 
Federal nexus exists.
    Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to evaluate briefly and 
describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical 
habitat, those activities involving a Federal action that may adversely 
modify such habitat or that may be affected by such designation. 
Activities that may destroy or adversely modify critical habitat would 
be those that alter the primary constituent elements to the extent that 
the value of critical habitat for the conservation of Astragalus 
pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus is appreciably reduced. We note that 
such activities may also jeopardize the continued existence of the 
species.
    Activities that, when carried out, funded, or authorized by a 
Federal agency, may directly or indirectly destroy or adversely modify 
critical habitat of Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus include, 
but are not limited to the following:
    (1) Alteration of existing hydrology by lowering the groundwater 
table through surface changes or pumping of groundwater, or redirection 
of freshwater sources through diverting surface waters (e.g., 
channelization);
    (2) Compaction of soil through the establishment of trails or 
roads;
    (3) Placement of structures or hardscape (e.g., pavement, concrete, 
non-native rock or gravel);
    (4) Removal of native vegetation that reduces native plant cover to 
below 50 percent;
    (5) Introduction of non-native vegetation or creation of conditions 
that encourage the growth of non-natives, such as irrigation, 
landscaping, soil disturbance, addition of nutrients, etc.;
    (6) Use of pesticides or other chemicals that can directly affect 
Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus, its associated native 
vegetation, or pollinators;
    (7) Introduction of non-native snails or Argentine ants or creation 
of conditions favorable to these species, through landscaping with non-
native groundcover plants such as iceplant, irrigation, or other 
activities that encourage populations of these non-native species that 
have been detrimental to the existing population;
    (8) Activities that isolate the plants or their populations from 
neighboring vegetation or open space and thus interfere with ecological 
processes that rely upon connectivity with adjacent habitat, such as 
maintaining pollinator populations and seed dispersal; and
    (9) Soil disturbance that damages or interferes with the seedbank 
of the species, such as discing, tilling, grading, removal, or 
stockpiling.
    Designation of critical habitat could affect the following agencies 
and/or actions: development on private lands requiring permits from 
Federal agencies, such as authorization from the Corps, pursuant to 
section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or a section 10(a)(1)(B) permit 
from the Service, or some other Federal action that includes Federal 
funding that will subject the action to the section 7 consultation 
process (e.g., from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal 
Emergency Management Agency, or the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development);

[[Page 62937]]

military activities of the U.S. Department of Defense (Navy) on their 
lands or lands under their jurisdiction; the release or authorization 
of release of biological control agents by the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture; regulation of activities affecting point source pollution 
discharges into waters of the United States by the Environmental 
Protection Agency under section 402 of the Clean Water Act; 
construction of communication sites licensed by the Federal 
Communications Commission; and authorization of Federal grants or 
loans. Where Federally listed wildlife species occur on private lands 
proposed for development, any habitat conservation plans (HCPs) 
submitted by the applicant to secure an incidental take permit pursuant 
to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act would be subject to the section 7 
consultation process, a process that would consider all federally-
listed species affected by the HCP, including plants.
    Several other species that are listed under the Act have been 
documented to occur in the same general areas as the current 
distribution of Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus. These 
include brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis), western snowy plover 
(Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus), California least tern (Sterna 
antillarum browni), light-footed clapper rail (Rallus longirostris 
levipes), and Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. maritimus (salt marsh bird's 
beak).
    If you have questions regarding whether specific activities will 
likely constitute adverse modification of critical habitat, contact the 
Field Supervisor, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section). Requests for copies of the regulations on 
listed wildlife and inquiries about prohibitions and permits may be 
addressed to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland Regional 
Office, 911 NE 11th Avenue, Portland, OR 97232-4181 (503/231-6131, FAX 
503/231-6243).

Relationship to Habitat Conservation Plans

    Currently, no HCPs exist that include Astragalus pycnostachyus var. 
lanosissimus as a covered species. Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act 
authorizes us to issue permits for the take of listed wildlife species 
incidental to otherwise lawful activities. An incidental take permit 
application must be supported by an HCP that identifies conservation 
measures that the permittee agrees to implement for the species to 
minimize and mitigate the impacts of the permitted incidental take. 
Although take of listed plants is not prohibited by the Act, listed 
plant species may also be covered in an HCP for wildlife species.
    In the event that future HCPs are developed within the boundaries 
of proposed or designated critical habitat, we will work with 
applicants to ensure that the HCPs provide for protection and 
management of habitat areas essential for the conservation of this 
species. This will be accomplished by either directing development and 
habitat modification to nonessential areas, or appropriately modifying 
activities within essential habitat areas so that such activities will 
not adversely modify the primary constituent elements. The HCP 
development process would provide an opportunity for more intensive 
data collection and analysis regarding the use of particular habitat 
areas by Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus. The process would 
also enable us to conduct detailed evaluations of the importance of 
such lands to the long-term survival of the species in the context of 
constructing a system of interlinked habitat blocks configured to 
promote the conservation of the species through application of the 
principles of conservation biology.
    We will provide technical assistance and work closely with 
applicants throughout the development of any future HCPs to identify 
lands essential for the long-term conservation of Astragalus 
pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus and appropriate management for those 
lands. Furthermore, we will complete intra-Service consultation on our 
issuance of section 10(a)(1)(B) permits for these HCPs to ensure permit 
issuance will not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat.

Economic Analysis and Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2)

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate critical 
habitat on the basis of the best scientific and commercial information 
available, and that we consider the economic and other relevant impacts 
of designating a particular area as critical habitat. We may exclude 
areas from critical habitat designation if the benefits of exclusion 
outweigh the benefits of designation, provided the exclusion will not 
result in the extinction of the species.
    We will conduct an analysis of the economic impacts of designating 
these proposed areas as critical habitat prior to a final 
determination. When completed, we will announce the availability of the 
draft economic analysis with a notice in the Federal Register, and we 
will open a comment period on the draft economic analysis and the 
proposed rule at that time.

Public Comments Solicited

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal will 
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, comments or 
suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, the 
scientific community, industry, or any other interested party 
concerning this proposed rule are hereby solicited. Comments are sought 
particularly concerning:
    (1) The reasons why any habitat should or should not be determined 
to be critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Act, including 
whether the benefits of designation will outweigh any threats to the 
species due to designation;
    (2) Specific information on the amount and distribution of 
Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus habitat, and what habitat is 
essential to the conservation of the species and why;
    (3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the 
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat;
    (4) Any foreseeable economic or other impacts resulting from the 
proposed designation of critical habitat, in particular, any impacts on 
small entities or families;
    (5) Economic and other values associated with designating critical 
habitat for Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus such as those 
derived from non-consumptive uses (e.g., hiking, camping, bird-
watching, enhanced watershed protection, improved air quality, 
increased soil retention, ``existence values,'' and reductions in 
administrative costs);
    (6) The methodology we might use, under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, 
in determining if the benefits of excluding an area from critical 
habitat outweigh the benefits of specifying the area as critical 
habitat; and
    (7) Whether our approach to critical habitat designation could be 
improved or modified in any way to provide for greater public 
participation and understanding, or to assist us in accommodating 
public concern and comments.
    If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and materials 
concerning this proposal by any one of several methods: (1) You may 
mail comments to the Field Supervisor at the address provided in the 
ADDRESSES section above; (2) You may also comment via the Internet to 
[email protected]. Please submit internet comments as an 
ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of 
encryption.

[[Page 62938]]

Please also include ``Attn: RIN-1018-AI21'' and your name and return 
address in your internet message. If you do not receive a confirmation 
from the system that we have received your internet message, contact us 
directly by calling our Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office at phone 
number 805-644-1766. Please note that the Internet address 
[email protected] will be closed out at the termination of 
the public comment period; (3) You may hand-deliver comments to our 
Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section above).
    Our practice is to make comments, including names and home 
addresses of respondents, available for 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. 
Comments and materials received will be available for public 
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above 
address.

Peer Review

    In accordance with our policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 
34270), we will solicit the expert opinions of at least three 
appropriate and independent specialists regarding this proposed rule. 
The purpose of such review is to ensure listing decisions are based on 
scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We will send 
these peer reviewers copies of this proposed rule immediately following 
publication in the Federal Register. We will invite these peer 
reviewers to comment, during the public comment period, on the specific 
assumptions and conclusions regarding the proposed designation of 
critical habitat.
    We will consider all comments and information received during the 
60-day comment period on this proposed rule during preparation of a 
final rulemaking. Accordingly, the final determination may differ from 
this proposal.

Public Hearings

    The Endangered Species Act provides for one or more public hearings 
on this proposal, if requested. Requests must be received within 45 
days of the date of publication of the proposal in the Federal 
Register. Such requests must be made in writing and be addressed to the 
Field Supervisor (see ADDRESSES section). We will schedule public 
hearings on this proposal, if any are requested, and announce the 
dates, times, and places of those hearings in the Federal Register and 
local newspapers at least 15 days prior to the first hearing.

Clarity of the Rule

    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations and 
notices that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to 
make this proposed rule easier to understand, including answers to 
questions such as the following: (1) Are the requirements in the 
proposed rule clearly stated? (2) Does the proposed rule contain 
technical jargon that interferes with the clarity? (3) Does the format 
of the proposed rule (grouping and order of the sections, use of 
headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its clarity? (4) Is the 
description of the notice in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 
the preamble helpful in understanding the notice? (5) What else could 
we do to make this proposed rule easier to understand?
    Send a copy of any comments that concern how we could make this 
notice easier to understand to: Office of Regulatory Affairs, 
Department of the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, 
DC 20240. You may e-mail your comments to this address: 
[email protected].

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review

    In accordance with Executive Order 12866, this document is a 
significant rule and was reviewed by the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB). The Service is preparing a draft economic analysis of 
this proposed action. The Service will use this analysis to meet the 
requirement of section 4(b)(2) of the Act to determine the economic 
consequences of designating the specific areas as critical habitat and 
excluding any area from critical habitat if it is determined that the 
benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such 
areas as part of the critical habitat, unless failure to designate such 
area as critical habitat will lead to the extinction of Astragalus 
pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus. This analysis will be available for 
public comment before finalizing this designation. The availability of 
the draft economic analysis will be announced in the Federal Register.

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)

    This discussion is based upon the information regarding potential 
economic impact that is available to the Service at this time. This 
assessment of economic effect may be modified prior to final rulemaking 
based upon development and review of the economic analysis being 
prepared pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act and E.O. 12866. This 
analysis is for the purposes of compliance with the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act and does not reflect the position of the Service on the 
type of economic analysis required by New Mexico Cattle Growers Assn. 
v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 248 F.3d 1277 (10th Cir. 2001).
    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as 
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice 
of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make 
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that 
describes the effects of the rule on small entities (i.e., small 
businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). 
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of 
the agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a 
statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have 
a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small 
entities. SBREFA also amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require 
a certification statement. In today's rule, we are certifying that this 
rule will not have a significant effect on a substantial number of 
small entities. The following discussion explains our rationale.
    According to the Small Business Administration (http://www.sba.gov/size/), small entities include small organizations, such as independent 
non-profit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions, 
including school boards and city and town governments that serve fewer 
than 50,000 residents, as well as small businesses. Small businesses 
include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 
employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, 
retail and service

[[Page 62939]]

businesses with less than $5 million in annual sales, general and heavy 
construction businesses with less than $27.5 million in annual 
business, special trade contractors doing less than $11.5 million in 
annual business, and agricultural businesses with annual sales less 
than $750,000. To determine if potential economic impacts to these 
small entities are significant, we consider the types of activities 
that might trigger regulatory impacts under this rule as well as the 
types of project modifications that may result. In general, the term 
``significant economic impact'' is meant to apply to a typical small 
business firm's business operations.
    In determining whether this rule could ``significantly affect a 
substantial number of small entities,'' we consider the number of small 
entities affected within particular types of economic activities and 
whether critical habitat could potentially affect a ``substantial 
number'' of small entities in counties supporting critical habitat 
areas. While SBREFA does not explicitly define ``substantial number,'' 
the Small Business Administration, as well as other Federal agencies, 
have interpreted this to represent an impact on 20 percent or greater 
of the number of small entities in any industry. In some circumstances, 
especially with critical habitat designations of limited extent, we may 
aggregate across all industries and consider whether the total number 
of small entities affected is substantial. In estimating the numbers of 
small entities potentially affected, we also considered whether their 
activities have any Federal involvement. Designation of critical 
habitat only affects activities conducted, funded, or permitted by 
Federal agencies. Some kinds of activities are unlikely to have any 
Federal involvement and so will not be affected by critical habitat 
designation.
    Designation of critical habitat only affects activities conducted, 
funded, or permitted by Federal agencies; non-Federal activities are 
not affected by the designation if they lack a Federal nexus. In areas 
where the species is present, Federal agencies funding, permitting, or 
implementing activities are already required to avoid jeopardizing the 
continued existence of Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus 
through consultation with us under section 7 of the Act. If this 
critical habitat designation is finalized, Federal agencies must also 
ensure that their activities do not destroy or adversely modify 
designated critical habitat through consultation with us. However, we 
do not believe this will result in any additional regulatory burden on 
Federal agencies or their applicants where the species is present 
because conservation already would be required due to the presence of a 
listed species.
    In unoccupied areas, or areas of uncertain occupancy, designation 
of critical habitat could trigger additional review of Federal 
activities under section 7 of the Act, and may result in additional 
requirements on Federal activities to avoid destroying or adversely 
modifying critical habitat. Because Astragalus pycnostachyus var. 
lanosissimus has only been listed since June 2001, there have been no 
formal consultations involving the species. Therefore, for the purposes 
of this review and certification under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 
we are assuming that any future consultations in the areas proposed for 
critical habitat which are considered unoccupied will be due to the 
critical habitat designation. Should a federally funded, permitted, or 
implemented project be proposed that may affect designated critical 
habitat, we will work with the Federal action agency and any applicant, 
through section 7 consultation, to identify ways to implement the 
proposed project while minimizing or avoiding any adverse effect to the 
species or critical habitat. In our experience, the vast majority of 
such projects can be successfully implemented with at most minor 
changes that avoid significant economic impacts to project proponents.
    The majority of the areas proposed for critical habitat are state-
managed public lands, for which projected land uses are resource 
protection, recreation, research, and education. Additionally, the 
private lands under consideration include the proposed North Shore 
development in the Mandalay unit. On non-federal lands, activities that 
lack federal involvement would not be affected by the critical habitat 
designation. Activities of an economic nature that are likely to occur 
on non-federal lands in the area encompassed by this proposed 
designation are primarily commercial or residential development. None 
of the developments recently approved by the local jurisdictions have 
any Federal involvement, and we are not aware of a significant number 
of future activities on any of the proposed units that would require 
Federal permitting or authorization; therefore, we conclude that the 
proposed rule would not affect a substantial number of small entities.
    In general, two different mechanisms in section 7 consultations 
could lead to additional regulatory requirements. First, if we 
conclude, in a biological opinion, that a proposed action is likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of a species or adversely modify its 
critical habitat, we can offer ``reasonable and prudent alternatives.'' 
Reasonable and prudent alternatives are alternative actions that can be 
implemented in a manner consistent with the scope of the Federal 
agency's legal authority and jurisdiction, that are economically and 
technologically feasible, and that would avoid jeopardizing the 
continued existence of listed species or resulting in adverse 
modification of critical habitat. A Federal agency and an applicant may 
elect to implement a reasonable and prudent alternative associated with 
a biological opinion that has found jeopardy or adverse modification of 
critical habitat. An agency or applicant could alternatively choose to 
seek an exemption from the requirements of the Act or proceed without 
implementing the reasonable and prudent alternative. However, unless an 
exemption were obtained, the Federal agency or applicant would be at 
risk of violating section 7(a)(2) of the Act if it chose to proceed 
without implementing the reasonable and prudent alternatives.
    Second, if we find that a proposed action is not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of a listed animal species, we may 
identify reasonable and prudent measures designed to minimize the 
amount or extent of take and require the Federal agency or applicant to 
implement such measures through non-discretionary terms and conditions. 
However, the Act does not prohibit the take of listed plant species or 
require terms and conditions to minimize adverse effect to critical 
habitat. We may also identify discretionary conservation 
recommendations designed to minimize or avoid the adverse effects of a 
proposed action on listed species or critical habitat, help implement 
recovery plans, or develop information that could contribute to the 
recovery of the species.
    Based on our experience with section 7 consultations for all listed 
species, virtually all projects--including those that, in their initial 
proposed form, would result in jeopardy or adverse modification 
determinations in section 7 consultations--can be implemented 
successfully with, at most, the adoption of reasonable and prudent 
alternatives. These measures, by definition, must be economically 
feasible and within the scope of authority of the Federal agency 
involved in the consultation. As we have no consultation history for 
Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus, we can only describe the 
general kinds of actions that may be identified in future reasonable 
and prudent alternatives. These are based on

[[Page 62940]]

our understanding of the needs of the species and the threats it faces, 
especially as described in the final listing rule and in this proposed 
critical habitat designation, as well as our experience with similar 
listed plants in California. In addition, the State of California 
listed A. pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus as an endangered species 
under the California Endangered Species Act of 1978, and we have also 
considered the kinds of actions required through State consultations 
for this species. The kinds of actions that may be included in future 
reasonable and prudent alternatives include conservation set-asides, 
management of competing non-native species, restoration of degraded 
habitat, construction of protective fencing, and regular monitoring. 
These measures are not likely to result in a significant economic 
impact to project proponents.
    As required under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we will conduct an 
analysis of the potential economic impacts of this proposed critical 
habitat designation, and will make that analysis available for public 
review and comment before finalizing this designation. However, court 
deadlines require us to publish this proposed rule before the economic 
analysis can be completed. In the absence of this economic analysis, we 
have reviewed our previously published analyses of the likely economic 
impacts of designating critical habitat for other California plant 
species, such as Chorizanthe robusta var. hartwegii (Scotts Valley 
spineflower). Like Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus, C. 
robusta var. hartwegii is a native species restricted to certain 
specific habitat types along the coast of California and may require 
similar protective and conservation measures. C. robusta var. hartwegii 
also occurs close to the coast, in an area experiencing residential and 
commercial development pressure. Our high-end estimate of the economic 
effects of designating one critical habitat unit of C. robusta var. 
hartwegii ranged from $82,500 to $287,500 over ten years.
    We believe that the economic effects of the proposed rule for 
Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus will be less than those 
identified for other California plant critical habitat designations, 
such as Chorizanthe robusta var. hartwegii, because there is limited 
private land involved and the plant occurs naturally in only one of the 
proposed units. The designation of critical habitat in areas not 
occupied by A. pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus could result in extra 
costs involved with consultations that may not have occurred were it 
not for the designations; however, one unit is entirely State-owned and 
the burden of consultation should not cause economic hardship on 
private entities.
    Efforts to establish Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus on 
unoccupied sites would be mostly funded by Federal, State, and non-
governmental organizations, and would likely not require private 
funding. Consequently, we believe that the economic effects of the 
proposed rule for A. pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus are likely to be 
minimal, similar to those identified for Chorizanthe robusta var. 
hartwegii.
    In summary, we have concluded that this proposed rule would not 
result in a significant economic effect on a substantial number of 
small entities. The proposed designation includes one privately-owned 
parcel for which a project has been proposed and for which there is no 
Federal involvement or section 7 consultation required. This rule would 
result in project modifications only when proposed Federal activities 
would destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. While this may 
occur, it is not expected to affect any small entities. Even if a small 
entity is affected, we do not expect it to result in a significant 
economic impact, as the measures included in reasonable and prudent 
alternatives must be economically feasible and consistent with the 
proposed action. The kinds of measures we anticipate we would recommend 
can usually be implemented at low cost. Therefore, we are certifying 
that the proposed designation of critical habitat for Astragalus 
pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities, and an initial 
regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

Executive Order 13211

    On May 18, 2001, the President issued an Executive Order (E.O. 
13211) on regulations that significantly affect energy supply, 
distribution, and use. Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to 
prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. 
Although this rule is a significant regulatory action under Executive 
Order 12866, it is not expected to significantly affect energy 
supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a 
significant energy action and no Statement of Energy Effects is 
required.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)

    The Service will use the economic analysis to evaluate consistency 
with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).

Takings

    In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (``Government Actions and 
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property 
Rights''), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of 
proposing to designate approximately 170 ha (420 ac) of lands in Santa 
Barbara and Ventura counties, California as critical habitat for 
Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus in a takings implications 
assessment. This preliminary assessment concludes that this proposed 
rule does not pose significant takings implications.

Federalism

    In accordance with Executive Order 13132, this rule does not have 
significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment is not 
required. In keeping with Department of the Interior policy, we 
requested information from, and coordinated development of this 
critical habitat designation with, appropriate State resource agencies 
in California. The designation of critical habitat in areas currently 
occupied by Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus imposes no 
additional restrictions beyond those currently in place and, therefore, 
has little incremental impact on State and local governments and their 
activities. The designation of critical habitat in unoccupied areas may 
require consultation under section 7 of the Act on non-Federal lands 
(where a Federal nexus occurs) that might otherwise not have occurred.
    The designation may have some benefit to the CDPR in that the areas 
essential to the conservation of this species are more clearly defined, 
and the primary constituent elements of the habitat necessary to the 
survival of this species are specifically identified. While this 
definition and identification does not alter where and what Federally 
sponsored activities may occur, it may assist local governments in 
long-range planning (rather than waiting for case-by-case section 7 
consultations to occur).

Civil Justice Reform

    In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Department of the 
Interior's Office of the Solicitor has determined that this rule does 
not unduly burden the judicial system and does meet the requirements of 
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We are proposing to designate 
critical habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Endangered

[[Page 62941]]

Species Act. The rule uses standard property descriptions and 
identifies the primary constituent elements within the designated areas 
to assist the public in understanding the habitat needs of Astragalus 
pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

    This rule does not contain any new collections of information that 
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule 
will not impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements on State or 
local governments, individuals, businesses, or organizations. An agency 
may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, 
a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB 
control number.

National Environmental Policy Act

    We have determined that an Environmental Assessment and/or an 
Environmental Impact Statement as defined by the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969 need not be prepared in connection with regulations 
adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Endangered Species Act, as 
amended. A notice outlining our reason for this determination was 
published in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). 
This proposed rule does not constitute a major Federal action 
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, 
``Government-to-Government Relations With Native American Tribal 
Governments'' (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, and the Department 
of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our 
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with Federally recognized 
Tribes on a Government-to-Government basis. The proposed designation of 
critical habitat for Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus does 
not contain any Tribal lands or lands that we have identified as 
impacting Tribal trust resources.

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited herein, as well as others, 
is available upon request from the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office 
(see ADDRESSES section).

Author

    The primary author of this proposed rule is Rick Farris, Ventura 
Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, the Service hereby proposes to amend part 17, 
subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 
as set forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 
4201-4205; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise noted.

    2. In Sec.  17.12(h) revise the entry for Astragalus pycnostachyus 
var. lanosissimus under ``Flowering Plants'' to read as follows:


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
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Astragalus pycnostachyus var.      Ventura marsh milk-   U.S.A. (CA)........  Fabaceae--Pea......  E                       708     17.96(b)           NA
 lanosissimus.                      vetch.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. In Sec.  17.96, amend paragraph (a) by adding an entry for 
Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus in alphabetical order under 
Family Fabaceae to read as follows:


Sec.  17.96  Critical habitat--plants.

    (a) * * *
    Family Fabaceae: Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus 
(Ventura marsh milk-vetch).
    (1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Santa Barbara and 
Ventura counties, California, on the maps below.
    (2) The primary constituent elements of critical habitat for 
Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus are the habitat components 
that provide:
    (i) Vegetation cover of at least 50 percent but not exceeding 75 
percent, consisting primarily of known associated native species, 
including but not limited to, Baccharis salicifolia, Baccharis 
pilularis, Salix lasiolepis, Lotus scoparius, and Ericameria ericoides;
    (ii) Low densities of non-native annual plants and shrubs, not 
exceeding 25 percent cover (combined with the minimum 50 percent native 
cover requirement, total cover of natives and non-natives should not 
exceed 75 percent);
    (iii) The presence of a high water table, either fresh or brackish, 
as evidenced by the presence of channels, sloughs, or depressions that 
may support stands of Salix lasiolepis, Typha spp., and Scirpus spp.;
    (iv) Soils that are fine-grained, composed primarily of sand with 
some clay and silt, yet are well-drained; and
    (v) Soils that do not exhibit a white crystalline crust that would 
indicate saline or alkaline conditions.
    (3) Critical habitat does not include existing features and 
structures, such as buildings, roads, aqueducts, railroads, airport 
runways and buildings, other paved areas, lawns, and other urban 
landscaped areas not containing one or more of the primary constituent 
elements.
    (4) Critical Habitat Map Units.
    (i) Data layers defining map units were created on a base of USGS 
7.5' quadrangles, and proposed critical habitat units were then mapped 
using Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates.
    (5) McGrath and Mandalay Units. Ventura County, California.
    (i) Mandalay Unit A. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Oxnard, 
lands bounded by the following UTM zone 11 NAD83 coordinates (E,N): 
293381, 3786370; 293036, 3787170; 292994, 3787290; 292974, 3787330; 
292995, 3787330; 293017, 3787330; 293122, 3787270; 293269, 3787190; 
293331, 3787150; 293362, 3787140; 293399, 3787130; 293570, 3787080; 
293640,

[[Page 62942]]

3787050; 293665, 3787040; 293686, 3787020; 293699, 3786990; 293707, 
3786960; 293701, 3786620; 293713, 3786580; 293732, 3786540; 293760, 
3786520; 293851, 3786460; 293903, 3786420; 293928, 3786380; 293936, 
3786360; 293381, 3786370.
    (ii) Mandalay Unit B. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Oxnard, 
lands bounded by the following UTM zone 11 NAD83 coordinates (E,N): 
293352, 3786380; 293044, 3786380; 292798, 3786960; 292761, 3787040; 
293070, 3787030; 293352, 3786380.
    (iii) McGrath Unit. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Oxnard, lands 
bounded by the following UTM zone 11 NAD83 coordinates (E,N): 292406, 
3788600; 292474, 3788440; 292752, 3787790; 292716, 3787780; 292704, 
3787770; 292702, 3787770; 292717, 3787730; 292718, 3787720; 292715, 
3787710; 292692, 3787680; 292725, 3787600; 292530, 3787600; 292415, 
3787630; 292394, 3787670; 292400, 3787690; 292403, 3787710; 292407, 
3787720; 292412, 3787770; 292412, 3787800; 292412, 3787820; 292409, 
3787840; 292401, 3787900; 292375, 3787940; 292348, 3787960; 292338, 
3787980; 292338, 3788000; 292343, 3788010; 292353, 3788030; 292358, 
3788040; 292360, 3788050; 292360, 3788060; 292354, 3788070; 292338, 
3788070; 292326, 3788090; 292322, 3788120; 292313, 3788150; 292310, 
3788170; 292312, 3788230; 292309, 3788250; 292301, 3788260; 292302, 
3788280; 292304, 3788290; 292308, 3788300; 292311, 3788320; 292307, 
3788330; 292308, 3788350; 292310, 3788380; 292310, 3788390; 292310, 
3788400; 292311, 3788420; 292306, 3788450; 292305, 3788480; 292301, 
3788490; 292295, 3788500; 292297, 3788520; 292304, 3788550; 292306, 
3788560; 292406, 3788600.
    (iv) Map of McGrath and Mandalay Units Follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 62943]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09OC02.000

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C?

[[Page 62944]]

    (6) Carpinteria Salt Marsh. Santa Barbara and Ventura counties, 
California.
    (i) Carpinteria Salt Marsh Unit A. Santa Barbara County, 
California. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Carpinteria, lands 
bounded by the following UTM zone 11 NAD83 coordinates (E,N): 266039, 
3810060; 266166, 3810060; 266335, 3810050; 266449, 3810040; 266521, 
3810040; 266572, 3810030; 266621, 3810010; 266711, 3809980; 266784, 
3809950; 266912, 3809880; 267485, 3809530; 267463, 3809500; 267453, 
3809470; 267428, 3809440; 267403, 3809390; 267381, 3809360; 267343, 
3809300; 267290, 3809250; 267255, 3809190; 267243, 3809170; 267214, 
3809160; 267185, 3809170; 267148, 3809200; 267094, 3809240; 267058, 
3809260; 267023, 3809260; 266973, 3809260; 266932, 3809250; 266889, 
3809250; 266813, 3809250; 266793, 3809260; 266772, 3809270; 266720, 
3809290; 266690, 3809300; 266655, 3809310; 266644, 3809330; 266645, 
3809350; 266602, 3809360; 266580, 3809380; 266544, 3809420; 266498, 
3809480; 266456, 3809530; 266408, 3809590; 266356, 3809650; 266320, 
3809690; 266264, 3809750; 266206, 3809810; 266162, 3809860; 266122, 
3809900; 266081, 3809940; 266053, 3809960; 266042, 3809980; 266033, 
3809990; 266032, 3810010; 266037, 3810060; 266039, 3810060.
    (ii) Carpinteria Salt Marsh Unit B. Santa Barbara County, 
California. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Carpinteria, lands 
bounded by the following UTM zone 11 NAD83 coordinates (E,N): 267531, 
3809510; 267588, 3809470; 267654, 3809440; 267708, 3809400; 267767, 
3809360; 267755, 3809360; 267733, 3809360; 267710, 3809360; 267684, 
3809360; 267662, 3809340; 267638, 3809310; 267621, 3809290; 267602, 
3809270; 267587, 3809240; 267577, 3809220; 267563, 3809180; 267555, 
3809150; 267544, 3809120; 267526, 3809100; 267504, 3809090; 267480, 
3809080; 267458, 3809080; 267434, 3809090; 267413, 3809100; 267387, 
3809110; 267357, 3809120; 267342, 3809130; 267318, 3809140; 267270, 
3809140; 267275, 3809160; 267291, 3809170; 267303, 3809190; 267309, 
3809210; 267319, 3809220; 267342, 3809240; 267365, 3809260; 267384, 
3809280; 267411, 3809330; 267435, 3809360; 267454, 3809390; 267469, 
3809420; 267490, 3809470; 267508, 3809490; 267531, 3809510.
    (iii) Carpinteria Salt Marsh Unit C. Santa Barbara County, 
California. From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Carpinteria, lands 
bounded by the following UTM zone 11 NAD83 coordinates (E,N): 267638, 
3809260; 267658, 3809240; 267668, 3809240; 267775, 3809120; 267611, 
3808980; 267584, 3808950; 267538, 3808970; 267516, 3808980; 267504, 
3808960; 267488, 3808950; 267462, 3808960; 267437, 3808980; 267408, 
3809010; 267386, 3809020; 267354, 3809040; 267344, 3809070; 267320, 
3809080; 267337, 3809110; 267410, 3809070; 267443, 3809060; 267461, 
3809050; 267487, 3809050; 267513, 3809060; 267532, 3809070; 267548, 
3809080; 267564, 3809100; 267576, 3809120; 267600, 3809170; 267613, 
3809210; 267627, 3809250; 267638, 3809260.
    (iv) Carpinteria Salt Marsh Unit D. Ventura County, California. 
From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Carpinteria, lands bounded by the 
following UTM zone 11 NAD83 coordinates (E,N): 266801, 3809220; 266818, 
3809220; 266839, 3809220; 266859, 3809220; 266883, 3809220; 266912, 
3809220; 266939, 3809230; 266960, 3809230; 266988, 3809230; 267008, 
3809230; 267025, 3809220; 267044, 3809210; 267062, 3809200; 267085, 
3809180; 267105, 3809170; 267127, 3809150; 267149, 3809140; 267171, 
3809130; 267190, 3809120; 267211, 3809120; 267239, 3809120; 267262, 
3809120; 267290, 3809120; 267312, 3809120; 267331, 3809110; 267323, 
3809100; 267314, 3809090; 267305, 3809080; 267294, 3809060; 267290, 
3809060; 267279, 3809060; 267271, 3809060; 267258, 3809070; 267240, 
3809070; 267223, 3809070; 267208, 3809070; 267190, 3809080; 267169, 
3809090; 267147, 3809100; 267125, 3809100; 267099, 3809100; 267079, 
3809110; 267061, 3809120; 267047, 3809140; 267029, 3809150; 267022, 
3809160; 267012, 3809170; 266993, 3809170; 266970, 3809180; 266940, 
3809180; 266912, 3809180; 266883, 3809190; 266862, 3809190; 266843, 
3809180; 266823, 3809180; 266810, 3809180; 266795, 3809180; 266787, 
3809180; 266781, 3809190; 266775, 3809200; 266773, 3809210; 266776, 
3809220; 266783, 3809220; 266791, 3809230; 266801, 3809220.
    (v) Map of Carpinteria Salt Marsh Unit Follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 62945]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09OC02.001


* * * * *

    Dated: September 30, 2002.
Craig Manson,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 02-25372 Filed 10-8-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C