[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 98 (Thursday, May 20, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29081-29100]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-11382]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AI21


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Designation 
of Critical Habitat for Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus 
(Ventura Marsh milk-vetch)

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), designate 
critical habitat pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended (Act), for Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus (Ventura 
marsh milk-vetch). Approximately 420 acres (170 hectares) of land fall 
within the boundaries of the critical habitat designation. The 
designated critical habitat is located in Santa Barbara and Ventura 
Counties, California.
    This critical habitat designation requires the Service to consult 
under section 7 of the Act with regard to actions carried out, funded, 
or authorized by a Federal agency. Section 4 of the Act requires us to 
consider economic and other relevant impacts when specifying any 
particular area as critical habitat. We solicited data and comments 
from the public on all aspects of this designation, including data on 
economic and other impacts of the designation.

DATES: This rule becomes effective June 21, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Comments and materials received, as well as supporting 
documentation used in the preparation of this final rule, will be 
available for inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours 
at the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, 2493 Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura CA 93003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Diane Noda, Field Supervisor, 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).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Designation of critical habitat provides 
little additional protection to species. In 30 years of implementing 
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), we have found 
that the designation of statutory critical habitat provides little 
additional protection to most listed species, while consuming 
significant amounts of available conservation resources. The present 
system for designating critical habitat has evolved since its original 
statutory prescription into a process that provides little real 
conservation benefit, is driven by litigation and the courts rather 
than biology, limits our ability to fully evaluate the science 
involved, consumes enormous agency resources, and imposes huge social 
and economic costs. We have determined that additional agency 
discretion would allow our focus to return to those actions that 
provide the greatest benefit to the species most in need of protection.

Role of Critical Habitat in Actual Practice of Administering and 
Implementing the Act

    While attention to and protection of habitat is paramount to 
successful conservation actions, we have consistently found that, in 
most circumstances, the designation of critical habitat is of little 
additional value for most listed species, yet it consumes large amounts 
of conservation resources. [Sidle (1987) stated, ``Because the ESA can 
protect species with and without critical habitat designation, critical 
habitat designation may be redundant to the other consultation 
requirements of section 7.'' Currently, only 445 species or 36 percent 
of the 1,244 listed species in the U.S. under the jurisdiction of the 
Service have designated critical habitat. We address the habitat needs 
of all 1,244 listed species through conservation mechanisms such as 
listing, section 7 consultations, the section 4 recovery planning 
process, section 9 protective prohibitions of unauthorized take, 
section 6 funding to the States, and the section 10 incidental take 
permit process. We conclude that it is these measures that may make the 
difference between extinction and survival for many species.

Procedural and Resource Difficulties in Designating Critical Habitat

    We have been inundated with lawsuits for our failure to designate 
critical habitat, and we face a growing number of lawsuits challenging 
critical habitat determinations once they are made. These lawsuits have 
subjected the Service to an ever-increasing series of court orders and 
court-approved settlement agreements, compliance with which now 
consumes nearly the entire listing program budget. This leaves us with 
little ability to prioritize our activities to direct scarce listing 
resources to the listing program actions with the most biologically 
urgent species conservation needs.
    The consequence of the critical habitat litigation activity is that 
limited listing funds are used to defend active lawsuits, to respond to 
Notices of Intent to sue relative to critical habitat, and to comply 
with the growing number of adverse court orders. As a result, listing 
petition responses, our own proposals to list critically imperiled 
species, and final listing determinations on existing proposals are 
significantly delayed. Litigation over critical habitat issues for 
species already listed and receiving the Act's full protection has 
precluded or

[[Page 29082]]

delayed many listing actions nationwide.
    The accelerated schedules of court ordered designations have left 
us with almost no ability to provide for adequate public participation 
or to ensure a defect-free rulemaking process before making decisions 
on listing and critical habitat proposals due to the risks associated 
with noncompliance with judicially-imposed deadlines. This, in turn, 
fosters a second round of litigation in which those who fear adverse 
impacts from critical habitat designations challenge those 
designations. The cycle of litigation appears endless, is very 
expensive, and in the final analysis provides relatively little 
additional protection to listed species.
    The costs resulting from the designation include legal costs, the 
cost of preparation and publication of the designation, the analysis of 
the economic effects and the cost of requesting and responding to 
public comment, and in some cases the costs of compliance with National 
Environmental Policy Act, all are part of the cost of critical habitat 
designation. None of these costs result in any benefit to the species 
that is not already afforded by the protections of the Act enumerated 
earlier, and they directly reduce the funds available for direct and 
tangible conservation actions.

Background

    Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus (Ventura marsh milk-
vetch) is an herbaceous perennial in the Pea family (Fabaceae). Little 
is known of the habitat requirements of this subspecies. The only known 
population of Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus occurs in a 
sparsely vegetated low area, at an elevation of about 30 feet (ft) (10 
meters (m)), on the North Shore at Mandalay site, which was previously 
used for disposal of petroleum waste products (Impact Sciences, Inc. 
1997). Based on existing information from historical collections, the 
best description we have of its habitat is from Wilken and Wardlaw 
(2001), who concluded that the subspecies 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 Astragalus 
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 that would indicate saline or alkaline 
conditions. For additional information on the biology, habitat 
requirements, and historical collection information of Astragalus 
pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus, please refer to the proposed critical 
habitat rule (October 9, 2002; 67 FR 62926).
    Due to the combination of poor seedling and young plant 
survivorship and low seed production, the single naturally occurring 
population of Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus has continued 
to decline since its rediscovery in 1997 and through the 2001 season 
(Impacts Sciences 1997, 1998; Wilken and Wardlaw 2001; Dieter Wilken, 
Santa Barbara Botanic Garden, pers. comm. 2002). The population is able 
to persist 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 (Michael Wall, Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden, 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 Astragalus pycnostachyus var. 
lanosissimus is that low seed production and, thus, a seedbank deficit, 
combined with low seedling survival and the mortality of some adult 
plants, may contribute to the population's decline unless other threats 
to the plants (e.g., reduced survivorship of seedlings and adult plants 
due to snail herbivory) can be addressed.
    The single natural 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 (hereafter, 
North Shore at Mandalay) was used as a disposal site for oilfield 
wastes (Impact Sciences, Inc. 1998). A development proposal for the 
site includes remediation of soils contaminated with hydrocarbons, 
followed by construction of 300 homes and a 6-acre (ac) (2-hectare 
(ha)) lake on 91 ac (37 ha) 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). In 1998, the City of Oxnard published a Final 
Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), pursuant to the California 
Environmental Quality Act, for development of this site (Impact 
Sciences, Inc. 1998). In a final step, the project was approved by the 
California Coastal Commission (2002).
    Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus is State-listed as 
endangered under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). CESA 
prohibits the take of any species listed under CESA, including plants. 
Section 2081 of CESA allows private landowners to obtain a permit for 
the incidental take of listed species, including plants, which must 
include mitigation measures commensurate with the level of take 
proposed, adequate funding for any mitigation, and assurance that the 
proposed take would not jeopardize the continued existence of the 
species. The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) concluded 
that the North Shore at Mandalay project would not have direct effects 
on the subspecies and that therefore a permit was not required; 
however, the project would have indirect effects on the plant. The 
landowner entered into a memorandum of understanding with CDFG in order 
to provide some conservation benefit to the subspecies. The proposed 
conservation measures for Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus on 
the site would be to establish a 1.65-ac (0.67-ha) ``milk-vetch 
preservation area'' encompassing the entire natural population 
(California Coastal Commission 2002). The milk-vetch preservation area 
would be buffered from soil remediation activities by a 100-foot (ft) 
(30 meters (m)) limit line within which no excavation would occur. The 
milk-vetch preservation area would ultimately be inside a 23.8-ac (9.6-
ha) resource protection area (RPA).
    According to a comprehensive review of rare plant preserve design 
compiled by the Conservation Biology Institute (2000), areas to protect 
a rare plant species should be at a minimum 300 ft (91 m) wide but a 
larger area is preferred, because effects (e.g., fuel management, loss 
of pollinators, introduction of competing exotic plants) are not 
absorbed by smaller areas, and the effects are likely to extend well 
into adjacent preserved areas.
    The efforts to conserve Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus 
on the North Shore site are much improved over earlier concepts, and we 
appreciate the efforts of the landowner. However, the Service believes, 
based on the published literature, that the

[[Page 29083]]

configuration of the preserve is not suitable for buffering the plants 
from adjacent land uses. Although the RPA is 23.8 acres and one 
contiguous area, the Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus 
population is near the edge of the RPA, where it would be adjacent to 
residential development, and the majority of the natural vegetation in 
the vicinity to the Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus 
population would be removed. Although no measurements of buffer size 
were available, and maps we received were not to scale and not overly 
clear, it appears that the majority of the RPA is to the south of the 
Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus preserve and thus does not 
provide sufficient buffering (i.e., at least 300 feet) from adjacent 
residential development and roads. Furthermore, at least 50 feet of the 
RPA, including the buffer area surrounding the milk-vetch preserve, 
will be landscaped, and not natural vegetation, thus further affecting 
hydrology, pollinators, and potentially introducing non-native species 
to the preserve. Also, the RPA was not intended to provide protection 
solely for the Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus population, 
and as such, much of the 23.8 acre area (approximately 30 percent by 
our estimate) encompasses habitat which would not support Astragalus 
pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus (e.g., willow riparian habitat along 
the Edison Canal). Lastly, the soil remediation the developer has 
agreed to provide, which will take place to within 100 feet of the 
Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus preserve, will alter the 
local hydrology upon which the plant relies. We are uncertain if the 
local hydrology can or will be restored following soil remediation. The 
RPA is likely to become dominated by non-native plants, and the 
replacement soil may contain seeds of plant species which will invade 
the Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus preserve. We have not 
seen a restoration plan that establishes that the area would be 
replanted with native plants.
    We were 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 was involved at 
this site, and our role was strictly advisory. However, if a landowner 
takes a State-listed species in violation of CESA, and the species is 
also federally listed, the take would also violate section 9 of the 
Act.
    A sooty fungus was found on the leaves of Astragalus pycnostachyus 
var. lanosissimus in late summer 1997, as leaves began to wither or 
senesce (die) 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 and matured seed by October 
1997, at which point the fungus was noted. The plants were regrowing in 
March 1998, after a period of dormancy, without obvious signs of the 
fungus (Diane Steeck, Service, in litt. 1998). Wilken and Wardlaw's 
2001 study 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 
nonnative Argentine ants (Linepithema humile). Wilken (2002) reported 
finding cucumber mosaic virus, which is transmitted by aphids, in the 
Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus population.
    In 1997, the seeds of Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus 
were heavily infested with seed beetles (Family Bruchidae: Coleoptera). 
In a seed collection done for conservation purposes in 1997, we found 
that most fruits partially developed at least four seeds; however, seed 
predation reduced the average number of undamaged seeds to only 1.8 per 
fruit (D. 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 seed viability 
by 30 percent in a given year.
    Because of its small population size, the only known natural 
population is also threatened by competition with nonnative plant 
species. Cortaderia selloana (pampas grass), Carpobrotus sp., and 
Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens are invasive nonnative plant species 
that occur at the site (Impact Sciences, Inc. 1997). Carpobrotus sp., 
in particular, is a competitive, succulent species with the potential 
to cover vast areas in dense clonal mats and may harbor nonnative 
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 
sp. and Bromus spp. in 1998 (D. Steeck, in litt. 1998). Seedling 
survival rates for Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus in these 
areas have not been determined.
    Efforts to conserve Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus have 
been initiated by the landowner (North Shore at Mandalay LLC), a task 
force of scientists from the University of California, the Santa 
Barbara Botanic Garden, California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), 
the Service, and the Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden (RSABG). 
Consulting biologists for the landowner and proponents of the 
development 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, 
Astragalus 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 Astragalus 
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: One 
at Mandalay State Beach, across the street from the extant population, 
and the other at McGrath State Beach. A further research population is 
present outside of the known range of the subspecies, at Carpinteria 
Marsh in Santa Barbara County. In addition, approximately 250 
individuals were planted and are being irrigated at the Coal Oil Point 
Reserve, also in Santa Barbara County. Seed has been introduced at 10 
separate dune locations at the Reserve (Cristina Sandoval, Coal Oil 
Point Reserve Director, pers. comm. 2002). The data gathered from these 
efforts will be used in establishing self-sustaining populations of 
Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus. The plants at Coal Oil 
Point have been established primarily for the purpose of generating 
seeds (``bulking up seed'') to increase the seedbank in storage, and 
not necessarily for generating data on establishing new populations.
    In 1997, the population of Astragalus pycnostachyus var. 
lanosissimus at the North Shore at Mandalay consisted of about 374 
plants, of which 260 were small plants thought to have germinated in 
the last year, and 114 were ``adult'' plants. Fewer than 65 of the 
adult plants produced fruit in 1997 (Impact Sciences, Inc. 1997). In 
1998, 192 plants

[[Page 29084]]

were counted during surveys of the population. Service biologists 
placed cages around a sample of plants in 1999 to protect them from 
severe herbivory 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 (D. Steeck, 
in litt. 1998). It is not known why flowering was so low in 1999.
    The total number of adult plants in the natural population declined 
between 1997 and 2000 (Wilken and Wardlaw 2001). 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 (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 2000-01, more than 1,000 seedlings were observed (D. 
Wilken, pers. comm. 2002). Of these, more than 300 survived until 
October 2001, when they became dormant, indicating an increase in the 
number of plants in the natural population.
    A census of the natural population on September 15, 2002, revealed 
that 37 reproductive plants had survived from the seedlings present in 
2001, and 38 reproductive plants remained from seedlings established in 
2000 or earlier, for a total of 75 reproductive plants in 2002. 
Approximately 350 plants had germinated in 2002. The total number of 
surviving plants was not determined. Some mortality is expected among 
all age classes in the following years depending upon rainfall and 
other factors.
    As of June 2003, the status of the research populations at McGrath 
State Beach, Carpinteria Marsh Reserve, and Mandalay State Beach (CDFG, 
in litt. 2003a), was as follows (the Coal Oil Point population is 
excluded because it is not part of the research, as described earlier):
    (1) McGrath State Beach. In April 2002, 167 plants were planted at 
McGrath State Beach. As of February 2003, 88 percent (147) of the 
plants had survived, and most were still alive in June 2003. Three 
sites at McGrath had produced a total of 236 seedlings.
    (2) Carpinteria Marsh Reserve. In April 2002, 155 plants were 
planted. As of February 2003, 44 percent (68) of the plants survived. 
Only 20 seedlings had been produced by plants at one of the planting 
sites as of June 2003.
    (3) Mandalay State Beach. On February 23, 2003, 57 Astragalus 
pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus plants in one-gallon containers were 
planted. All plants had survived as of June 2003.
    The most recent census data we have includes information from the 
experimental populations at McGrath State Beach and Carpinteria Marsh 
Reserve gathered over the summer of 2003 (CDFG, in litt. 2003b). Of the 
five experimental plots at McGrath State Beach, the plants at two plots 
had died out, and plants at the remaining three plots were vigorous, 
with a total of 79 plants surviving out of 167 that were alive during 
the previous census. Of the five plots started at Carpinteria Marsh, 
only two still supported plants, with a total of 30 plants surviving 
out of 155 planted (19 percent). At McGrath State Beach, the losses and 
successes were attributed to moisture availability (i.e., plants died 
where the roots were not able to reach freshwater, but did well where 
freshwater was available). At Carpinteria, the losses were attributed 
to high salinity and gopher foraging (CDFG, in litt. 2003b).

Previous Federal Action

    On October 9, 2002, we published the proposed critical habitat 
designation for Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus (67 FR 
62926) in compliance with the August 2, 2001, stipulated settlement 
agreement and order. In that proposed rule, we included a detailed 
summary of the previous Federal actions completed prior to publication 
of the proposal. We re-opened the public comment period to seek 
comments on the draft economic analysis on March 20, 2003 (68 FR 
13663). Due to funding shortfalls for critical habitat work in FY 2003, 
we were unable to complete the final rule by the stipulated date of 
October 1, 2003. On September 29, 2003, the court granted the Service's 
motion to modify the August 2, 2001 Stipulated Settlement Agreement and 
Order and extended the date for publication of the final rule to May 
15, 2004 (Center for Biological Diversity v. United States Fish and 
Wildlife Service, C 01-0352 SI (N.D. Cal.)).

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    We solicited comments from appropriate Federal, State, and local 
agencies, the scientific community, and other interested parties. We 
invited public comment through notification sent to local newspapers in 
Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties. Additionally, we invited public 
comment on the proposed critical habitat designation on October 9, 2002 
(67 FR 62926), and again on March 20, 2003, when we published the draft 
economic analysis and re-opened the comment period on the critical 
habitat proposal (68 FR 13663).
    We received three comment letters on the proposed critical habitat 
designation. All three were reviewed for substantive issues and new 
information regarding critical habitat. One of the commentors was 
against the designation on the single piece of privately-owned land 
included in the proposal. The other two commentors were neutral but 
provided some new information and clarification on the subspecies' 
natural history and status.

Peer Review

    In accordance with our policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 
34270), we solicited the expert opinions of six independent specialists 
regarding this rule. The purpose of such review is to ensure listing 
decisions are based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and 
analyses. We sent these peer reviewers copies of the proposed rule 
immediately following publication in the Federal Register. Two of the 
peer reviewers responded, providing comments that we have incorporated 
into the final rule.

Responses to Comments

    (1) Comment: One comment stated that a critical habitat designation 
could add nothing to the multiple protections already in place for 
Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus at the North Shore site, 
which supports the only natural population of the subspecies and 
warrants exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. The comment 
further states that similar exemptions have been granted to military 
installations.
    Our Response: The comment's rationale for exclusion of the North 
Shore at Mandalay site from the critical habitat designation, citing 
that it is similar to exclusions we have granted under section 4(b)(2) 
for military installations, is not accurate. Where we have excluded a 
military installation from a critical habitat designation pursuant to 
section 4(b)(2), we determined that the benefits of excluding lands 
under the jurisdiction of the U.S. military outweigh the benefits of 
including them as critical habitat, and would not result in the 
extinction of the species.
    As stated previously, this site supports the only naturally-
occurring population. While there are other locations where the 
subspecies has been planted, these remain under study and

[[Page 29085]]

it is not clear at this time how or whether they will contribute to the 
survival of the species. This site is the only seed source, has 
provided all of the initial propagules for establishing research 
populations of the species at other sites, and continues to be the 
source of genetic variability for future propagation. The research 
populations at McGrath State Beach, Carpinteria Marsh, and Mandalay 
State Beach are not intended to become new populations for the recovery 
of the species, but were established to generate data on the species' 
needs when such introductions for recovery begin. Their persistence is 
uncertain, and we have observed some failures (see Background section). 
Consequently, the population of Astragalus pycnostachyus var. 
lanosissimus on the North Shore at Mandalay site is currently the only 
one of which we can be relatively certain that the plants will persist. 
If this population is extirpated, and the research populations 
ultimately fail, all of the remaining individuals of Astragalus 
pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus will exist as seeds in collections or 
propagated in greenhouses. The designation of the North Shore at 
Mandalay site as critical habitat recognizes that this population is 
essential to the species' conservation. This southernmost unit is 
geographically separated from other critical habitat within its 
historical range. This will reduce the likelihood of all populations 
being destroyed by one naturally occurring catastrophic event.
    (2) Comment: One comment stated that the proposed rule was based 
upon the wrong legal standard for determining critical habitat. 
Critical habitat is to be narrowly drawn.
    Our Response: The critical habitat units as proposed meet the 
definition of critical habitat in the Act. The occupied areas 
designated are essential to the conservation of the species and may 
require special management. In addition, we have made the finding that 
the unoccupied areas are essential to the conservation of the species. 
The North Shore at Mandalay site, for which the comment seeks 
exclusion, supports the only naturally-occurring population of 
Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus in existence. The plants on 
this site are the source of all genetic variation available to the 
subspecies, and its survival is dependent upon a diverse genetic base 
that can respond to environmental fluctuations and disease.
    The designation includes the site of the one existing population 
and sufficient area to establish new populations necessary for survival 
and recovery of Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus.
    (3) Comment: One comment stated that the proposed rule was not 
specific enough to identify properties or whether they contained 
primary constituent elements, and, therefore, did not allow for 
comments on specific parcels.
    Our Response: We disagree that the proposed rule did not adequately 
identify locations of critical habitat. The proposed rule provided maps 
and Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates of the proposed 
critical habitat units. The UTM coordinates are typically used in 
Global Positioning System (GPS) data and are at a scale of 3.3 ft (1 
m), which is of sufficient detail for locating the extent and 
configuration of the units, and should allow most property owners to 
determine if their property is within the boundaries of critical 
habitat. Detailed maps of the designation are available on our web 
site, and property owners may call our office for further assistance if 
necessary.
    (4) Comment: One comment asserted that the proposed rule failed to 
include an economic analysis as required under the Act.
    Our Response: We conducted an economic analysis as required by the 
Act. The draft economic analysis was made available for public review 
on March 20, 2003 (68 FR 13663), and we accepted public comments on it 
from March 20, 2003, until April 21, 2003. We did not receive any 
comments on the draft economic analysis. The final economic analysis is 
part of the administrative record for this rulemaking.
    (5) Comment: One comment stated that the Service cannot designate 
critical habitat for the milk-vetch until it first complies with the 
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. The comment 
cites Catron County Board of Commissioners v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service (1996) to support its contention.
    Our Response: As we indicated in our proposed rule, we have 
determined that an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact 
Statement, as defined under the authority of the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared in connection with regulations 
adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. A notice outlining our 
reason for this determination was published in the Federal Register on 
October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This position has been upheld by the 
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 
1495 (9th Cir. 1995).
    Also, the public involvement and notification requirements under 
both the Endangered Species Act and the Administrative Procedure Act 
provide ample opportunity for public involvement in the process, 
similar to the opportunities for public involvement and economic 
analysis of effects that would be provided in the NEPA process.
    (6) Comment: One comment recommended that we avoid making 
conclusions about the success of efforts to establish Astragalus 
pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus at Carpinteria Marsh until the 
population proves to be self-sustaining, which could take 3 to 4 years.
    Our Response: We recognize that the efforts to establish Astragalus 
pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus at Carpinteria Marsh were preliminary 
at the time the proposed rule was published. More recent data has been 
incorporated into this final rule that shows limited success with the 
experimental population due to physical (e.g., salinity) and biological 
factors (e.g., competition from nonnative plants).
    (7) Comment: Two comments stated that a research population had not 
been initiated at Mandalay State Beach, despite our contention to that 
effect in the proposal.
    Our Response: At the time the critical habitat proposal was 
published, the comments are correct that the research population had 
not yet been initiated; however, the CDFG has now implemented an 
experimental population at Mandalay State Beach in addition to those at 
McGrath State Beach, Carpinteria Marsh, and Coal Oil Point. The CDFG 
planted 57 1-gallon specimens of Astragalus pycnostachyus var. 
lanosissimus at Mandalay State Beach in February 2003. The status of 
this outplanting is described in the background section of this final 
rule.
    (8) Comment: One comment stated that the plants at Coal Oil Point 
are an in-ground nursery and not intended to become a self-sustaining 
population.
    Our Response: The intent of the Coal Oil Point experiment was not 
clear to us at the time the critical habitat proposal was published. 
From discussions with the science task force, we now recognize that the 
population is meant to provide propagules (cuttings or seed) for other 
populations.
    (9) Comment: One comment expressed concern that critical habitat 
designations on land within the University of California's Natural 
Reserve System could cause regulatory delays for federally funded 
research projects on these lands.
    Our Response: We did not receive any comments from representatives 
of the University of California's Natural

[[Page 29086]]

Reserve System (Reserve) objecting to the proposed designation. We 
understand that one of the purposes of the Reserve system is 
conservation of plants and animals, such as Astragalus pycnostachyus 
var. lanosissimus, so the critical habitat designation is consistent 
with that goal. Federal funding of research projects at Carpinteria 
Marsh could trigger consultation under section 7 of the Act if the 
research project would adversely affect designated critical habitat for 
Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus. However, we have concluded 
that these consultations would not cause undue delays in initiating 
research projects. Compliance with section 7 could range from simple 
concurrence, which is usually completed within 30 days, to formal 
consultation, which could take 135 days or less. Formal consultation on 
critical habitat would only be necessary if the action would have an 
adverse effect on the critical habitat. We anticipate that most 
research within the Reserve would be designed not to adversely affect 
the primary constituent elements of the critical habitat of Astragalus 
pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus.
    (10) Comment: Two comments noted that the Wilken and Wardlaw (2001) 
report was not intended to represent a comprehensive analysis of all 
potential sites for introduction of Astragalus pycnostachyus var. 
lanosissimus, and that areas to the south of Ventura County within the 
historical range of Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus should 
have been included.
    Our Response: While Wilken and Wardlaw (2001) was not intended to 
be an exhaustive analysis of all potential sites for introduction of 
Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus at the time critical habitat 
was proposed, it was, and remains, the best scientific information 
available to support the designations. Our designation is to be based 
on the best available scientific data. We do not have similar data for 
all other potential introduction sites, so we did not attempt to 
include areas for which we did not have data indicating that the 
location was essential to the conservation of Astragalus pycnostachyus 
var. lanosissimus. Based on museum records, we know that Astragalus 
pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus was once known from Los Angeles and 
Orange Counties. In preparation of the proposed rule, we interviewed 
biologists familiar with the coastal wetlands in Los Angeles and Orange 
Counties, and specifically, historical locations at the Ballona 
Wetlands and Bolsa Chica. The information they provided led us to 
conclude that opportunities for introductions of Astragalus 
pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus were incompatible with current 
conditions and future restoration efforts. We agree that the areas to 
the south within the historical range of Astragalus pycnostachyus var. 
lanosissimus are worth exploring for recovery efforts; however, the 
information we had at the time critical habitat units were identified 
did not support inclusion of sites in Los Angeles and Orange Counties.
    (11) Comment: One comment asked why land at the Navy Base Ventura 
County was excluded from the designation when Wilken and Wardlaw (2001) 
included it, and why the Ormond Beach area was not included.
    Our Response: Based upon Wilken and Wardlaw's (2001) research, we 
considered a site at the Navy Base Ventura County, Point Mugu for 
inclusion as critical habitat. Point Mugu Naval Air Weapons Station, in 
southern Ventura County, may have suitable habitat (Wilken and Wardlaw 
2001). 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). Further, our criteria 
for including sites required more than just suitable habitat. We 
designated areas with primary constituent elements, where the existing 
population occurs and those where research populations have been 
established. Nevertheless, we intend to continue to work with the Navy 
to develop an introduction and conservation plan for Astragalus 
pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus at the Navy Base Ventura.
    For the Ormond Beach area, we did not have sufficient information 
at the time critical habitat for Astragalus pycnostachyus var. 
lanosissimus was proposed to warrant its inclusion. As stated above, we 
did not attempt to include areas for which we did not have data 
indicating that the location was essential to the conservation of 
Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus.
    (12) Comment: One comment stated that gophers (Thomomys bottae) are 
a continuing threat to the plants at some of the sites where Astragalus 
pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus has been introduced, but not at the 
native population site where buried oil sludge may deter gophers. 
Further, the comment notes that the nonnative Melilotus indicus is a 
competitor for the likely pollinator of Astragalus pycnostachyus var. 
lanosissimus where the two plants occur together.
    Our Response: We recognize that current and new threats to 
Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus exist; however, this new 
information does not affect the critical habitat designation at this 
time. We will consider this information and incorporate this data into 
the recovery efforts currently under way for Astragalus pycnostachyus 
var. lanosissimus.

Summary of Changes From Proposed Rule

    Based upon our review of the public comments, peer review 
responses, and the economic analysis, we reevaluated our critical 
habitat and made changes as necessary. Although some pertinent 
information on the background of the subspecies was provided by 
reviewers, we did not receive new information that would warrant 
changes to the boundaries of critical habitat as proposed. We did 
incorporate changes to the information on Astragalus pycnostachyus var. 
lanosissimus which include the following:
    (1) We updated the status of the natural and research populations. 
These changes are generally the result of more recent counts of the 
numbers of individual plants. Where available, we included new data on 
factors affecting the plants' growth and development.
    (2) Information on participants in the science task force 
overseeing current experiments with Astragalus pycnostachyus var. 
lanosissimus has been revised.
    (3) We updated information on experiments being conducted at 
Mandalay State Beach, which we erroneously described in the proposed 
rule.
    (4) We updated the description of a proposed development on the 
North Shore at Mandalay site that supports the only natural population 
of Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus.
    (5) We provided a summary of the Economic Analysis that has been 
adopted as final for this rule.

Critical Habitat

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act 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

[[Page 29087]]

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.
    The designation of critical habitat does not affect land ownership 
or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other 
conservation area. It does not allow government or public access to 
private lands. Under section 7 of the Act, Federal agencies must 
consult with us on activities they undertake, fund, or permit that may 
affect critical habitat and lead to its destruction or adverse 
modification. However, the Act prohibits unauthorized take of listed 
species and requires consultation for activities that may affect them, 
including habitat alterations, regardless of whether critical habitat 
has been designated.
    To be included in a critical habitat designation, habitat must be 
either a specific area within the geographic area occupied by the 
species on which are found those physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the species (primary constituent 
elements, as defined at 50 CFR 424.12(b)) and which may require special 
management considerations or protections, or be specific areas outside 
of the geographic area occupied by the species which are determined to 
be essential to the conservation of the species. Section 3(5)(C) of the 
Act states that critical habitat shall not include the entire 
geographical area which can be occupied by a species unless the 
Secretary determines that circumstances require such designation. 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, when the best available scientific and 
commercial data do not demonstrate that the conservation needs of the 
species require designation of critical habitat outside of occupied 
areas, we will not designate critical habitat in areas outside the 
geographic area occupied by the species. Within the geographic area 
occupied by Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus, we will 
designate only areas currently known to be essential. Essential areas 
should already have the features and habitat characteristics that are 
necessary to sustain Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus. We 
will not speculate about what areas might be found to be essential if 
better information became available, or what areas may become essential 
over time. We have also excluded from this proposal, areas of suitable 
habitat where they might potentially occur, and some localities where 
they historically occurred.
    To be included in a critical habitat designation, the Service must 
also find that habitat may require special management considerations or 
protections. As discussed in more detail below, with respect to the 
individual units, the Service finds that the three units designated as 
critical habitat for Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus may 
require special management considerations or protections due to threats 
to the species and/or its habitat. Such special management 
considerations or protections may include management of invasive, non-
native plants; reducing or eliminating herbivory by snails and rabbits; 
and reducing or eliminating the indirect effects of development, as 
well as protecting the composition of native plant and animal 
communities within critical habitat units.
    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we take into consideration 
the economics, 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 habitats, 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, 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 conservation 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 recovery.
    Areas that support populations, 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 permitted 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, HCPs, or other species conservation planning efforts if 
new information available to these planning efforts calls for a 
different outcome.

Methods

    As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act and regulations at 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 California Natural 
Diversity Data Base (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 to locations managed by Federal and State 
agencies, including NBVC, McGrath State Beach, and Carpinteria Marsh.
    Much of our understanding of the habitat requirements of Astragalus 
pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus is derived from Wilken and Wardlaw 
(2001), which represents the most complete information to date 
regarding the biology and habitat of the species. Of particular 
relevance to this critical habitat determination, Wilken and Wardlaw 
(2001) provide descriptions of the habitat of Astragalus pycnostachyus 
var. lanosissimus' closest relative, Astragalus pycnostachyus var.

[[Page 29088]]

pycnostachyus (northern marsh milk-vetch). Wilken and Wardlaw (2001) 
collected data on habitat characteristics at sites occupied by 
Astragalus pycnostachyus var. pycnostachyus and compared these with the 
characteristics at the extant population of Astragalus 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 Astragalus 
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 
Astragalus 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 because there is only one extant 
population, and the site has been altered by soil dumping and oil waste 
disposal. 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 data (D. Steeck, in litt. 1998) were used to 
characterize the habitat of Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus 
and to determine the primary constituent elements. Some differences 
between the two subspecies of Astragalus pycnostachyus are apparent, 
especially in regard to associated plant species and general habitat 
type. For example, some individuals of Astragalus pycnostachyus var. 
pycnostachyus are found in habitats similar to Astragalus pycnostachyus 
var. lanosissimus, but individuals are also found some distance from 
wet habitats in relatively dry or gravelly soils. Such differences may 
be a function of a small data set for Astragalus pycnostachyus var. 
lanosissimus due to its single population, uncertainty surrounding its 
presence on the extant site (i.e., whether it is a natural occurrence 
or was introduced through soil dumping), and differences in habitat 
needs of the two subspecies. We have paid particular attention to 
information from Wilken and Wardlaw (2001) because they analyzed 
conditions at the only known site where Astragalus 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 designate 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 final rule. The designated critical 
habitat is designed to provide sufficient habitat to maintain self-
sustaining populations of Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus 
throughout its range, and to provide those components essential for the 
conservation of the subspecies. These habitat components provide for: 
(1) Individual and population growth, including sites for germination, 
pollination, reproduction, pollen and seed dispersal, and seed 
dormancy; and (2) areas that provide basic requirements for growth, 
such as water, light, and minerals.
    We have concluded that the long-term success 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 designating as critical habitat provide some or all of the 
habitat components essential for the conservation of Astragalus 
pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus. Based on the best available 
information from the only extant site of the species, the primary 
constituent elements of critical habitat for Astragalus 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 nonnative annual plants and shrubs;
    (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 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 designated for Astragalus pycnostachyus var. 
lanosissimus includes the only known location where the subspecies 
currently occurs and two other sites with high potential to support the 
subspecies based upon habitat and/or historical occurrences. We have 
concluded that establishment of new, self-sustaining populations of 
Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus at other sites is essential 
for the subspecies' survival because it is currently known from a 
single location where 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; Meffe and Carroll 1997; Primack 1998), as is the 
case with Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus. Because a 
critical habitat designation limited to this subspecies' present range, 
which is one known location, would be inadequate to ensure its 
conservation, the establishment of additional locations for Astragalus 
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 
subspecies based upon collection data and records from the CNDDB (CDFG 
2001). From this potential distribution, we located areas where the 
plants were observed or collected in the past.
    By examining aerial photographs and reviewing pertinent literature, 
and

[[Page 29089]]

through discussions with botanical experts, we identified areas where 
the primary constituent elements 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, by phone and electronic mail, 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, Service, pers. comm. 2002; J. Fancher, Service, pers. comm. 
2002).
    We identified the boundaries of the units on aerial photographs and 
U.S. Geological Survey topographical maps and refined them based upon 
adjacent land uses. For example, one unit is bordered on three sides by 
urban areas and on the other side by the Pacific Ocean. 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 Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus (i.e., that provide areas 
for population expansion, 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, pers. comm. 2002; 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, also, 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, Astragalus pycnostachyus var. pycnostachyus, occurs. Also, 
long-range plans for Bolsa Chica would 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 from human 
activities. Consequently, we rejected both Bolsa Chica and the Ballona 
Wetlands as potential reintroduction sites for Astragalus 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 subspecies in this critical habitat designation. That location 
is included because of its proximity to the historical distribution 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, 
introducing Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus in the vicinity 
of Astragalus pycnostachyus var. pycnostachyus is not prudent because 
of the potential for hybridization and dilution of genetic identity 
between the two varieties. Therefore, we did not consider other 
locations outside the historical range of Astragalus pycnostachyus var. 
lanosissimus.
    In designating critical habitat, we made an effort to avoid 
developed areas, such as housing developments, that are unlikely to 
contain the primary constituent elements for Astragalus pycnostachyus 
var. lanosissimus. However, we did not map critical habitat at a small 
enough scale to all for the exclusion of all lands unlikely to contain 
the primary constituent elements essential for the conservation of 
Astragalus 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 essential for establishment of new 
populations in order for the species to be conserved. As noted above, 
establishment of new populations is important to reduce the risk of 
extirpation from chance catastrophic events.

Special Management Considerations or Protections

    When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the areas 
determined to be essential for the conservation of the species may 
require special management or protections. The Mandalay Unit may 
require special management considerations or protections due to the 
threats to the species and its habitat posed by development (e.g., loss 
of native vegetation, disruption of pollinator community, herbivory by 
snails, increase in non-native plants, soil remediation), herbivory by 
rabbits, and trampling as a result of human activity. Currently, 
competition by non-native plants, herbivory by snails and rabbits, and 
human activity are ongoing in the Mandalay Unit. The McGrath Unit may 
require special management considerations or protections due to the 
threats to the species and its habitat posed by invasive, non-native 
plants and trampling as a result of human activity. Currently, 
competition from non-native plants and human activity are ongoing in 
the McGrath Unit. The Carpinteria Salt Marsh Unit may require special 
management considerations or protections due to the threats to the 
species and its habitat posed by non-native plants and high salinity. 
Currently, competition from non-native plants and fluctuations in 
salinity levels are ongoing in the Carpinteria Salt Marsh Unit.

Critical Habitat Designation

    The 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 designated as 
critical habitat are: (1) Mandalay, including the site of the extant 
population at Fifth Street and Harbor Boulevard in the city of 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, (UC Santa Barbara) Santa Barbara County.
    The only site occupied by a natural population of Astragalus 
pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus is in the Mandalay Unit 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. 
Research populations may be present in some of the units; however, 
these are

[[Page 29090]]

not considered self-sustaining populations as they require continued 
monitoring and control. Therefore, we consider all of the units 
unoccupied except for the Mandalay Unit where the natural population 
occurs. We find that unoccupied areas are essential to the conservation 
of the species because the single extant natural population is likely 
to be affected by direct and indirect impacts of the approved 
development of the North Shore at Mandalay project (i.e., due to 
inadequate preserve design). Furthermore, a catastrophic event could 
eliminate the population regardless of the development. In the absence 
of suitable off-site locations where the subspecies could be 
established, it is possible that it could go extinct. The two 
unoccupied sites we have included 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 subspecies and one is not.
    Our evaluation of Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus has 
shown that suitable habitat areas are scarce within the historical 
range of the subspecies. The combination of associated plant species, 
high groundwater, low salinity, and other primary constituent elements 
has either been removed or disrupted by urbanization, agriculture, 
oilfield 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 
designate areas currently unoccupied by Astragalus pycnostachyus var. 
lanosissimus as critical habitat. We have therefore concluded that the 
designation of currently unoccupied locations as critical habitat is 
essential to the conservation of Astragalus pycnostachyus var. 
lanosissimus.
    In summary, we have designated approximately 420 ac (170 ha) of 
land in three units as critical habitat for Astragalus pycnostachyus 
var. lanosissimus. The approximate areas of designated critical habitat 
by land ownership are shown in Table 1. Private lands comprise 
approximately 33 percent of the designated critical habitat; and State 
lands comprise 67 percent. No Federal lands are included in the 
designation.

    Table 1.--Approximate Areas in Acres (ac) and Hectares (ha) of Designated Critical Habitat for Astragalus
                              pycnostachyus var. Lanosissimus by Land Ownership\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Unit name                 Private             State             Federal                Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mandalay Unit.................  104 ac (42 ha)...  49 ac (20 ha)....  0 ac (0 ha)......  153 ac (62 ha).
McGrath Unit..................  35 ac (14 ha)....  27 ac (11 ha)....  0 ac (0 ha)......  62 ac (25 ha).
Carpinteria Salt Marsh Unit...  0 ac (0 ha)......  205 ac (83 ha)...  0 ac (0 ha)......  205 ac (83 ha).
                               --------------------
    Total.....................  139 ac (56 ha)...  281 ac (114 ha)..  0 ac (0 ha)......  420 ac (170 ha).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Approximate acres have been converted to hectares (1 ha = 2.47 ac).

    The three critical habitat units include the only known location 
where the subspecies currently occurs and two unoccupied sites that 
contain the primary constituent elements. A brief description of each 
critical habitat unit is given below.

Mandalay Unit

    The Mandalay Unit is approximately 153 ac (62 ha) in size and is 
essential to the conservation of Astragalus pycnostachyus var. 
lanosissimus because it contains the only known location where 
Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus naturally exists and the 
remainder of the unit also supports the primary constituent elements. 
The State-owned Mandalay State Beach is managed by the Ventura County 
Parks and Recreation Department and comprises about 49 ac (20 ha) of 
this unit. The remaining area of the unit is privately owned and is 
currently undeveloped, but has been chosen as the site for a 300-
housing-unit subdivision (Economic and Planning Systems, Inc. 2003).
    The pending development is called North Shore at Mandalay and would 
occur in the eastern portion of this critical habitat unit. The project 
includes a 1.65-ac (0.67-ha) ``milk-vetch preservation area'' 
encompassing the entire natural population (California Coastal 
Commission 2002), which in turn, would be inside a 23.8-ac (9.6-ha) 
resource protection area (RPA). The RPA would be buffered from adjacent 
residential development by a 50-ft (15 m) wide landscaped area. 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 nonnative plants and snails, alter the hydrologic regime, and 
introduce pesticides and fertilizers that adversely affect the plants. 
Therefore, the risk of extinction of the subspecies is high without the 
development of additional populations.
    The portion of this unit on Mandalay State Beach is identified by 
Wilken and Wardlaw (2001) as a possible site for establishing a new 
population of Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus. In 2003, the 
first efforts at researching how new populations could be established 
in this unit 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 one or more of the primary 
constituent elements defined for Astragalus pycnostachyus var. 
lanosissimus critical habitat, although Wilken and Wardlaw (2001) note 
some dense cover of nonnative 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 Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus and the 
closely related Astragalus pycnostachyus var. pycnostachyus, and hence 
one of the top candidates for establishing a new population.
    California Department of Parks and Recreation (CDPR) has approved 
experimental introductions of Astragalus pycnostachyus var. 
lanosissimus conducted by the CDFG. Because the area is public land 
owned by the CDPR and the species is State-listed, we will work with 
the State to develop conservation strategies to reintroduce the 
subspecies and develop and manage reserves.
    As discussed above, this unit is essential for the conservation of 
Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus because it contains the

[[Page 29091]]

primary constituent elements for Astragalus pycnostachyus var. 
lanosissimus. The population of Astragalus pycnostachyus var. 
lanosissimus at the North Shore at Mandalay site is the only naturally-
occurring, self-perpetuating population of the species in existence. It 
has provided all of the initial propagules for establishing research 
populations of the species at other sites, and continues to be the 
source of genetic variability for future propagation. The research 
populations at McGrath State Beach and Carpinteria Marsh are not 
intended to become new populations for the recovery of the species, but 
were established to generate data on the species' needs when such 
introductions for recovery begin. Their persistence is uncertain, and 
we have observed some failures (see Background section). Consequently, 
the population of Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus on the 
North Shore at Mandalay site is currently the only one of which we can 
be relatively certain that the plants will persist. If this population 
is extirpated, and the research populations ultimately fail, all of the 
remaining individuals of Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus 
will exist as seeds in collections or propagated in greenhouses. The 
designation of the North Shore at Mandalay site as critical habitat 
recognizes that this population is essential to the species' 
conservation. This southernmost unit is geographically separated from 
other critical habitat within its historical range. This will reduce 
the likelihood of all populations being destroyed by one naturally 
occurring catastrophic event.

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. The unit covers 62 ac (25 ha). It includes 
35 ac (14 ha) of private land and 27 ac (11 ha) of State-owned land 
managed by CDPR.
    Of the sites they examined, Wilken and Wardlaw (2001) identify the 
McGrath Lake area as having the best combination of habitat 
characteristics similar to that of the extant population of Astragalus 
pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus and its closest relative, Astragalus 
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).
    CDPR agreed to allow CDFG and RSABG establish a research population 
on this site. This effort is still in its early stages, and no 
conclusive data have yet been retrieved. Because the area is currently 
operated by CDPR and is public land, there is opportunity to work with 
the State to develop reintroduction strategies for Astragalus 
pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus and to form manageable reserves. This 
unit is also one of the last known places where the subspecies 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, this unit is essential for the conservation of 
Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus because it once supported a 
population Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus until it was 
extirpated in 1967. It contains the primary constituent elements for 
Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus. It includes habitat that is 
necessary for the expansion of the only known population, which may 
become nonviable in the future. It contains habitat features that are 
essential for this species including, but not limited to, high 
diversity of native plants, open canopy, sandy dune hollows, seep 
margin areas, subterranean water table. This central unit is 
geographically separated from other critical habitat within Astragalus 
pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus historical range. This will reduce the 
likelihood of all populations being destroyed by one naturally 
occurring catastrophic event.

Carpinteria Salt Marsh Unit

    The Carpinteria Salt Marsh Unit extends from the Southern Pacific 
Railroad tracks south and west to Sand Point Drive and Santa Monica 
Creek and is approximately 205 ac (83 ha) in size. The entire unit is 
managed by the UC, Santa Barbara.
    This unit includes saltmarsh habitat, which is essential to support 
the pollinators and other ecological processes that Astragalus 
pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus requires for its survival. The research 
population of Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus was introduced 
in April 2002 into a portion of the unit. As of February 2003, 44 
percent (68) of the 155 original plants survived. By June 2003, only 20 
seedlings had been produced by plants at one of the planting sites. We 
have determined that this area contains the primary constituent 
elements necessary for the introduction of Astragalus pycnostachyus 
var. lanosissimus based on Wilken and Wardlaw's (2001) description of 
five parameters of habitat suitability. These parameters closely 
parallel the primary constituent elements, so one or more of the 
elements are represented at this site. The diverse native vegetation 
provides for a robust pollinator community. The unit is bordered by a 
residential community where nonnative snails were observed; protection 
is required for herbivory by snails on Astragalus pycnostachyus var. 
lanosissimus plants.
    This site in Santa Barbara County is near the range of the 
subspecies as predicted by the historical collections and described by 
Skinner and Pavlik (1994), who list the known counties as Ventura, Los 
Angeles, and Orange. We have included this unit because, although it is 
outside the historical range for Astragalus pycnostachyus var. 
lanosissimus: (1) Insufficient suitable habitat for the subspecies 
remains within its historical range; and (2) the area has habitat 
features essential to the conservation of the subspecies, which 
suggests a high potential for successful establishment of a new 
population (Wilken and Wardlaw 2001). This unit is essential for the 
conservation of Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus because it 
supports the pollinators and other ecological processes for Astragalus 
pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus. It contains habitat features that are 
essential for this species including, but not limited to, 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 type; and native habitat supporting pollinators. 
Seedling recruitment has been observed at this site in the research 
population. This northernmost unit is geographically separated from 
other critical habitat. This will reduce the likelihood of all 
populations being destroyed by one naturally occurring catastrophic 
event.

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. In our 
regulations at 50 CFR 402.02, we define destruction or adverse 
modification as ``a direct or indirect alteration that appreciably 
diminishes the value of critical habitat for both the survival and 
recovery of a listed species. Such alterations include, but are not

[[Page 29092]]

limited to: Alterations adversely modifying any of those physical or 
biological features that were the basis for determining the habitat to 
be critical.'' However, in a March 15, 2001, decision of the United 
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (Sierra Club v. U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service et al., 245 F.3d 434), the court found our 
definition of destruction or adverse modification to be invalid. In 
response to this decision, we are reviewing the regulatory definition 
of adverse modification in relation to the conservation of the species.
    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 proposed or designated. Regulations 
implementing this interagency cooperation provision of the Act are 
codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires 
Federal agencies to confer with us on any action that is likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of a species proposed for listing or 
result in destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical 
habitat. Conference reports provide conservation recommendations to 
assist the agency in eliminating conflicts that may be caused by the 
proposed action. The conservation recommendations in a conference 
report are advisory.
    We may issue a formal conference report if requested by a Federal 
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, we 
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 destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat. Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight 
project modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the 
project.
    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.
    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 (EPA), 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.
    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 the subspecies is 
appreciably reduced. We note that such activities may also jeopardize 
the continued existence of the subspecies.
    Activities that, when carried out, funded, or authorized by a 
Federal agency, may affect critical habitat and require that a section 
7 consultation be conducted 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, 
nonnative rock or gravel);
    (4) Removal of native vegetation that reduces native plant cover to 
below 50 percent;
    (5) Introduction of nonnative vegetation or creation of conditions 
that encourage the growth of nonnatives, 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 nonnative snails or Argentine ants or creation 
of conditions favorable to these species. Such conditions arise as a 
result of landscaping with nonnative groundcover plants, irrigation, or 
other activities that increase moisture and food availability for these 
nonnative species that have been detrimental to the existing 
population;
    (8) Activities that isolate the plants or their populations from 
neighboring vegetation or reduce the size of natural open spaces, 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 subspecies, such as discing, tilling, grading, removal, or 
stockpiling.
    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. Critical habitat 
designations do not signal that habitat outside the designation is 
unimportant or not required for recovery. Areas outside the critical 
habitat designation will continue to be subject to conservation actions 
that may be

[[Page 29093]]

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 
applicable prohibitions of section 9 of the Act, as determined on the 
basis of the best available information at the time of the action.
    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 salt marsh bird's beak (Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. 
maritimus).
    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; 
facsimile 503/231-6243).

Relationship to Habitat Conservation Plans

    Currently, no HCPs exist that include Astragalus pycnostachyus var. 
lanosissimus as a covered species.

Economic Analysis

    Following the publication of the proposed critical habitat 
designation on October 9, 2002, a draft economic analysis was prepared 
to estimate the potential direct and indirect economic impacts 
associated with the designation, in accordance with the recent decision 
in N.M. Cattlegrowers Ass'n v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv., 248 F.3d 
1277 (10th Cir. 2001) (Economic and Planning Systems 2003). The draft 
analysis was made available for public review and comment on March 20, 
2003 (68 FR 13663), and we accepted comments on the draft analysis 
until April 21, 2003.
    Our draft economic analysis evaluated the potential direct and 
indirect economic impacts associated with the proposed critical habitat 
designation for Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus over the 
next 10 years. Direct impacts are those related to consultations under 
section 7 of the Act. They include the cost of completing the section 7 
consultation process and potential project modifications resulting from 
the consultation. Indirect impacts are secondary costs and benefits not 
directly related to operation of the Act. Examples of indirect impacts 
include potential effects to property values, redistricting of land 
from agricultural or urban to conservation, and social welfare benefits 
of ecological improvements.
    The categories of potential direct and indirect costs and benefits 
considered in the analysis included the costs associated with: (1) 
Conducting section 7 consultations, including incremental consultations 
and technical assistance; (2) modifications to projects, activities, or 
land uses resulting from the section 7 consultations; (3) uncertainty 
and public perceptions resulting from the designation of critical 
habitat including potential effects on property values and the 
interaction of State and local laws; and (4) potential offsetting 
beneficial costs associated with critical habitat, including 
educational benefits. The most likely economic effects of critical 
habitat designation are on activities funded, authorized, or carried 
out by a Federal agency (i.e., direct costs).
    Following the close of the comment period on the draft economic 
analysis, an addendum was completed. We received no comments on the 
draft economic analysis. The draft economic analysis and addendum 
addressed the impact of the proposed critical habitat designation that 
may be attributable coextensively to the listing of the subspecies. 
Because of the uncertainty about the benefits and economic costs 
resulting solely from critical habitat designations, we believe that it 
is reasonable to estimate the economic impacts of a designation 
utilizing this single baseline. It is important to note that the 
inclusion of impacts attributable coextensively to the listing does not 
convert the economic analysis into a tool to be used in deciding 
whether or not a species should be added to the Federal list of 
threatened and endangered species.
    The critical habitat designations for Astragalus pycnostachyus var. 
lanosissimus include State and private lands only. No Federal lands are 
involved. The estimates for section 7 consultation in the economic 
analysis were based upon activities that are ``reasonably 
foreseeable,'' which is defined as the time period from the present and 
for the next 10 years. Beyond 10 years, the numbers of projects and the 
potential for section 7 consultations become increasingly speculative.
    Together, the draft economic analysis and the addendum constitute 
our final economic analysis. The final economic analysis estimates that 
over the next 10 years, the designation (co-extensive with the listing) 
will likely not result in section 7 consultations in any of the 
designated three units. Therefore, costs associated with section 7 
implementation are anticipated to be $0. Similarly, the benefits of 
designation, which may include educational benefits that are difficult 
to quantify, are also limited. The cleanup of the Mandalay unit will be 
conducted by the developer and overseen by the Los Angeles Water 
Quality Control Board. There might have been a Federal nexus had the 
EPA overseen or funded the cleanup. However, the EPA has determined 
that the State's provision over the site cleanup was sufficient, and 
therefore, there will not be a Federal nexus (Economic and Planning 
Systems, Inc. 2003).
    A copy of the final economic analysis and supporting documents are 
included in our administrative record and may be obtained by contacting 
our Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review

    In accordance with Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) has determined that this critical habitat designation 
is not a significant regulatory action. This rule will not have an 
annual economic effect of $100 million or more or adversely affect any 
economic sector, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, or 
other units of government. This designation will not create 
inconsistencies with other agencies' actions or otherwise interfere 
with an action taken or planned by another agency. It will not 
materially affect entitlements, grants, user fees, loan programs, or 
the rights and obligations of their recipients. Finally, this 
designation will not raise novel legal or policy issues. Accordingly, 
OMB has not formally reviewed this final critical habitat designation.

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

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (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

[[Page 29094]]

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 RFA 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 RFA to require a certification 
statement.
    According to the Small Business Administration, 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 (13 CFR 121 and http://www.sba.gov/size/). Small businesses include manufacturing and mining 
concerns with fewer than 500 employees, wholesale trade entities with 
fewer than 100 employees, retail and service 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.
    SBREFA does not explicitly define either ``substantial number'' or 
``significant economic impact.'' Consequently, to assess whether a 
``substantial number'' of small entities is affected by this 
designation, this analysis considers the relative number of small 
entities likely to be impacted in the area. Similarly, this analysis 
considers the relative cost of compliance on the revenues/profit 
margins of small entities in determining whether or not entities incur 
a ``significant economic impact.'' Only small entities that are 
expected to be directly affected by the designation are considered in 
this portion of the analysis. This approach is consistent with several 
judicial opinions related to the scope of the RFA (Mid-Tex Electric Co-
Op, Inc. v. F.E.R.C. and American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. EPA).
    To determine if the rule would affect a substantial number of small 
entities, we considered the number of small entities affected within 
particular types of economic activities (e.g., housing development, 
grazing, oil and gas production, timber harvesting). We applied the 
``substantial number'' test individually to each industry to determine 
if certification is appropriate. In estimating the numbers of small 
entities potentially affected, we also considered whether their 
activities have any Federal involvement; some kinds of activities are 
unlikely to have any Federal involvement and so will not be affected by 
critical habitat designation. The final economic analysis found that 
the designation of critical habitat will not affect a single entity, 
and therefore, the designation will not result in a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    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 subspecies 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. Following 
finalization of this critical habitat designation, Federal agencies 
must also ensure that their activities do not destroy or adversely 
modify designated critical habitat through consultation with us. 
However, this will not result in any additional regulatory burden on 
Federal agencies or their applicants where the subspecies 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. Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus 
has only been listed since June 2001, and no formal consultations 
involving the subspecies have taken place. Therefore, for the purposes 
of this review and certification under the RFA, we are assuming that 
any future consultations in the areas proposed for critical habitat 
that 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 
subspecies 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.
    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 our understanding of the 
needs of the subspecies and the threats it faces, especially as 
described in the final listing rule and in this final critical habitat 
designation, as well as our experience with similar listed plants in 
California. In addition, the State of California listed Astragalus 
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 regulations for this 
subspecies. The kinds of actions that may be included in future 
reasonable and prudent alternatives include conservation set-asides, 
management of competing nonnative 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 have conducted an 
analysis of the potential economic impacts and benefits of this 
critical habitat designation, and made that analysis available for 
public review and comment before finalizing this designation. Based 
upon the economic analysis, we conclude that the economic effects of 
the final rule for Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus will be 
less than those identified for other California plant critical habitat 
designations because the amount of private land involved is limited, 
and the plant occurs naturally in only one of the units. Further, no 
Federal nexus exists for a proposed development on the private land 
within the designated

[[Page 29095]]

critical habitat. 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 conclude that the economic effects of the 
designation of critical habitat for Astragalus pycnostachyus var. 
lanosissimus are likely to be minimal.
    In summary, we have concluded that this final rule would not result 
in a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small 
entities. The designation includes only 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 
designation of critical habitat for Astragalus pycnostachyus var. 
lanosissimus will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities, and a final regulatory 
flexibility analysis is not required.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2))

    Under SBREFA, this rule is not a major rule (see Regulatory 
Flexibility Act section). Our assessment of the economic effects of 
this designation is described in the economic analysis. Based upon the 
effects identified in the economic analysis, this rule will not have an 
effect on the economy of $100 million or more, will not cause a major 
increase in costs or prices for consumers, and will not have 
significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, 
productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to 
compete with foreign-based enterprises. Please refer to the final 
economic analysis for a discussion of the effects of this 
determination.

Executive Order 13211

    On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order (E.O.) 13211 
on regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, 
and use. E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy 
Effects when undertaking certain actions. This rule is not a 
significant regulatory action under E.O. 13211, and it is not expected 
to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use because 
none of those activities currently occur within the critical habitat 
units or would be affected by the designation. 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.)

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 
et seq.)
    (a) This rule will not ``significantly or uniquely'' affect small 
governments. A Small Government Agency Plan is not required. Small 
governments will be affected only to the extent that they must ensure 
that any programs involving Federal funds, permits, or other authorized 
activities, will not adversely modify the critical habitat.
    (b) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate of $100 million or 
greater in any year; that is, it is not a ``significant regulatory 
action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. The designation of 
critical habitat imposes no obligations on Tribal, State or local 
governments or private entities.

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 
designating approximately 420 ac (170 ha) of lands in Santa Barbara and 
Ventura Counties, California, as critical habitat for Astragalus 
pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus in a takings implications assessment. 
The takings assessment concludes that this final 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 California Department of Parks 
and Recreation in that the areas essential to the conservation of this 
subspecies are more clearly defined, and the primary constituent 
elements of the habitat necessary to the conservation of this 
subspecies are specifically identified. While this definition and 
identification do not alter where and what federally sponsored 
activities may occur, they 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 have designated critical 
habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Endangered 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 or revised information 
collections for which OMB approval is required under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act. 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

[[Page 29096]]

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. We published a notice outlining our reason for this 
determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 
49244). This final determination 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 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 final 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.

Regulation Promulgation

0
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of 
the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

0
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.


0
2. In Sec.  17.12(h), in the table, 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       Critical     Special
         Scientific name                Common name                                                                   listed      habitat       rules
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Flowering Plants
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Astragalus pycnostachyus var.      Ventura Marsh milk-   U.S.A. (CA)........  Fabaceae--Pea        E                       708     17.96(a)           NA
 lanosissimus.                      vetch.                                     Family.
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
3. In Sec.  17.96, amend paragraph (a) by adding critical habitat 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 as follows:
    (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 nonnative annual plants and shrubs;
    (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. Data layers defining map units were 
created on a base of USGS 7.5' quadrangles, and 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, 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,

[[Page 29097]]

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 1--McGrath and Mandalay Units--follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 29098]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20MY04.000

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

[[Page 29099]]

    (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 2--Carpinteria Salt Marsh Unit--follows:

[[Page 29100]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20MY04.001

* * * * *

    Dated: May 14, 2004.
Paul Hoffman,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 04-11382 Filed 5-19-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C