Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 18 /Wednesday, January 28, 1998 / Proposed Rules 4207

with the Commission’s minimum

distance separation requirements at city

reference coordinates. The coordinates

for Channel 234C3 at Manson are North

Latitude 47–53–18 and West Longitude

120–09–18. Since Manson is located

within 320 kilometers (200 miles) the

U.S.-Canadian border, concurrence of

the Canadian government has been

requested.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or

before March 16, 1998, and reply

comments on or before March 31, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In

addition to filing comments with the

FCC, interested parties should serve the

petitioner, his counsel, or consultant, as

follows: Duane J. Polich, Manson

Broadcasting, P.O. Box 70, Oak Harbor,

Washington 98277 (Petitioner).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sharon P. McDonald, Mass Media

Bureau, (202) 418–2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of

Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No.

98–3, adopted January 14, 1998, and

released January 23, 1998. The full text

of this Commission decision is available

for inspection and copying during

normal business hours in the FCC

Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M

Street, NW., Washington, DC. The

complete text of this decision may also

be purchased from the Commission’s

copy contractor, International

Transcription Service, Inc., (202) 857–

3800, 1231 20th Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20036.

Provisions of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to

this proceeding.

Members of the public should note

that from the time a Notice of Proposed

Rule Making is issued until the matter

is no longer subject to Commission

consideration or court review, all ex

parte contacts are prohibited in

Commission proceedings, such as this

one, which involve channel allotments.

See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules

governing permissible ex parte contacts.

For information regarding proper

filing procedures for comments, see 47

CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Radio broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.

John A. Karousos,

Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules

Division, Mass Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 98–2032 Filed 1–27–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AE57

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Proposed Threatened

Status for the Plant Astragalus

Desereticus (Deseret milk-vetch)

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (Service) proposes to determine

a Utah plant species, Astragalus

desereticus (Deseret milk-vetch), to be a

threatened species under the authority

of the Endangered Species Act of 1973,

as amended (Act). Astragalus

desereticus, considered extinct for 72

years prior to 1981, exists as one small

population in Utah County, Utah.

Threats to the plant include residential

development, livestock grazing,

livestock and wildlife trampling, and

threats associated with small population

size. This proposal, if made final, would

implement Federal protection provided

by the Act. The Service seeks data and

comments from the public on this

proposal.

DATES: Comments from all interested

parties must be received by March 30,

1998. Public hearing requests must be

received by March 16, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments and materials

concerning this proposal should be sent

to the Field Supervisor, Utah Ecological

Services Field Office, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Lincoln Plaza Suite

404, 145 East 1300 South, Salt Lake

City, Utah 84115. Comments and

materials received will be available for

public inspection, by appointment,

during normal business hours at the

above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

L. England at the above address

(telephone: 801/524–5001, ext. 138).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Marcus E. Jones collected a distinctive

Astragalus from ‘‘below Indianola,’’ a

town in Sanpete County, Utah, on June

2, 1893. The same species was again

collected by Ivar Tidestrom from ‘‘near

Indianola’’ on June 17, 1909. Specimens

from these two collections lay in

obscurity in various herbaria until

Rupert Barneby recognized their

uniqueness and described them as

Astragalus desereticus (Barneby 1964).

Efforts to relocate the species were

initially fruitless (Barneby 1964; Welsh

1978a, 1978c), leading to a presumption

of extinction (Ripley 1975; Welsh 1975,

1978b). However, a population of A.

desereticus was discovered by Elizabeth

Neese on May 27, 1981, on a sandstone

outcrop above the town of Birdseye,

Utah County, Utah, less than 16

kilometers (km) (10 miles (mi)) from

Indianola (Welsh and Chatterley 1985).

This population remains the only

known occurrence of this species

(Franklin 1990, 1991; U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (USFWS) 1991). It is

possible that this population is the one

from which Jones and/or Tidestrom

made their collections more than 70

years earlier (Franklin 1990, 1991;

Welsh and Chatterley 1985).

Astragalus desereticus is a perennial,

herbaceous plant in the bean family

(Fabaceae). Individual plants are

approximately 4 to 15 centimeters (cm)

(2 to 6 inches (in)) in height, with stems

about 6 cm (2 in) tall. The pinnately

compound leaves are 4 to 11 cm (2 to

4 in) long with 11 to 17 leaflets. The

leaflets are elliptic to ovate in shape,

with dense silvery gray hairs on both

sides. The flowers are 1.8 to 2.2 cm (0.7

to 0.9 in) long, white in color with a

purple tip on the keel, and borne on a

stalk of 5 to 10 flowers. The seed pods

are 1 to 2 cm (0.4 to 0.8 in) long,

covered with lustrous hairs, and bear 14

to 16 ovules (Barneby 1964; Barneby in

Cronquist et al. 1989; Welsh 1978c;

Welsh et al. 1987).

Astragalus desereticus occurs

primarily on steep south- and westfacing slopes. The plant grows on soils

derived from a specific and unusual

portion of the geologic Moroni

Formation. This geologic feature is

characterized by coarse, crudely bedded

conglomerate (Franklin 1990). The plant

community in which A. desereticus

occurs is dominated by pinon pine

(Pinus edulis) and Utah juniper

(Juniperus osteosperma). Other

associated plant species include:

sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata), scrub

oak (Quercus gambelii), and wild

buckwheat (Eriogonum brevicaule)

(Franklin 1990).

The only known population of

Astragalus desereticus consists of

between 5,000 and 10,000 individuals

growing in an area of less than 120

hectares (ha) (300 acres (ac)) (Franklin

1990, Stone 1992). The species’ total

range is approximately 2.6 km (1.6 mi)

long and 0.5 km (0.3 mi) across.

Extensive searches of similar habitat in

other parts of Utah have not revealed

any other populations (Franklin 1991;

Larry England, USFWS, pers. comm.,

1997). The land upon which A.

desereticus grows is owned by the State
4208 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 18 /Wednesday, January 28, 1998 / Proposed Rules

of Utah and three private landowners

(Franklin 1990, 1991; Chris Montague,

The Nature Conservancy, pers. comms.,

1992, 1997). This plant species is

threatened by grazing and trampling by

ungulates, alteration of its habitat due to

residential development and road

widening, and naturally occurring

events such as fire, due to its limited

distribution.

Previous Federal Action

Section 12 of the Act directed the

Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution

to prepare a report on those plants

considered to be endangered,

threatened, or extinct. This report,

designated as House Document No. 94–

51, was presented to Congress on

January 9, 1975. On July 1, 1975, the

Service published a notice in the

Federal Register (40 FR 27823)

accepting the report as a petition to list

those taxa named therein under section

4(c)(2) (now 4(b)(3)) of the Act, and its

intention to review the status of those

plants. Astragalus desereticus was

included in the July 1, 1975, notice on

list ‘‘C,’’ indicating that the species was

probably extinct.

On June 16, 1976, the Service

published a proposed rule in the

Federal Register (41 FR 24523) to

designate approximately 1,700 vascular

plant species, including Astragalus

desereticus, as endangered pursuant to

section 4 of the Act. The list of those

1,700 plant species was assembled on

the basis of comments and data received

by the Smithsonian Institution and the

Service in response to House Document

No. 94–51 and the July 1, 1975, Federal

Register publication. In the proposed

rule, the Service also designated A.

desereticus as a species about which the

Service was particularly interested in

obtaining any new information on living

specimens and extant populations.

General comments received in relation

to the 1976 proposal are summarized in

an April 26, 1978, Federal Register

publication (43 FR 17909). The 1978

amendments to the Act required that all

proposals over 2 years old be

withdrawn, although proposals

published before the 1978 amendments’

enactment could not be withdrawn

before the end of a 1-year grace period

beginning on the enactment date. On

December 10, 1979, the Service

published a notice of withdrawal (44 FR

70796) of that portion of the June 16,

1976, proposal that had not been made

final, which included A. desereticus.

On December 15, 1980, the Service

published a revised notice of review for

native plants in the Federal Register (45

FR 82480) designating Astragalus

desereticus a category 1 candidate

species. Category 1 candidates were

defined as those taxa for which the

Service had on file information on

biological vulnerability and threats to

support the preparation of listing

proposals. In addition, A. desereticus

was identified as a species that may

have recently become extinct. In 1981,

a population of A. desereticus was

discovered. On November 28, 1983, the

Service published a revised notice of

review in the Federal Register (48 FR

53640) in which A. desereticus was

included as a category 2 candidate

species. Category 2 candidates were

formerly defined as taxa for which data

on biological vulnerability and threats

indicated that listing was possibly

appropriate, but for which data were not

sufficient to support issuance of listing

proposals. In preparing the 1983 notice,

the Service deemed it appropriate to

acquire additional information on the

distribution and abundance of A.

desereticus before proposing the species

for listing. The Service maintained A.

desereticus as a category 2 species in

updated notices of review published on

September 27, 1985 (50 FR 39526), and

February 21, 1990 (55 FR 6184). As a

result of additional information

obtained in 1990 and 1991 status

surveys (Franklin 1990, USFWS 1991),

the Service reclassified A. desereticus as

a category 1 candidate in the September

30, 1993, notice of review (58 FR

51144). In the February 28, 1996, notice

of review (61 FR 7596), the Service

discontinued the designation of category

2 candidates. Astragalus desereticus

was included as a candidate in the

February 28, 1996 (61 FR 7596), and

September 19, 1997, notices of review

(62 FR 49398).

The processing of this proposed rule

conforms with the Service’s final listing

priority guidance for fiscal year 1997,

published in the Federal Register on

December 5, 1996 (61 FR 64475). In a

Federal Register notice published on

October 23, 1997 (62 FR 55628), the

guidance was extended beyond fiscal

year 1997 until new guidance is

published following passage of the fiscal

year 1998 appropriations bill for the

Department of the Interior. The fiscal

year 1997 guidance clarifies the order in

which the Service will process

rulemakings following two related

events: (1) The lifting on April 26, 1996,

of the moratorium on final listings

imposed on April 10, 1995 (Public Law

104–6), and (2) the restoration of

significant funding for listing through

passage of the Omnibus Budget

Reconciliation Act on April 26, 1996,

following severe funding constraints

imposed by a number of continuing

resolutions between November 1995

and April 1996. Based on biological

considerations, this guidance

establishes a ‘‘multi-tiered approach

that assigns relative priorities, on a

descending basis, to actions to be

carried out under section 4 of the Act’’

(61 FR 64479). The guidance calls for

giving highest priority to handling

emergency situations (Tier 1) and

second highest priority (Tier 2) to

resolving the listing status of the

outstanding proposed listings. Tier 3

includes the processing of new

proposed listings for species facing high

magnitude threats. This proposed rule

for Astragalus desereticus falls under

Tier 3. The guidance states that

‘‘effective April 1, 1997, the Service will

concurrently undertake all of the

activities presently included in Tiers 1,

2, and 3’’ (61 FR 64480). The Service

has thus begun implementing a more

balanced listing program, including

processing more Tier 3 activities. The

completion of this Tier 3 activity (a

proposal for a species with highmagnitude, imminent threats) follows

those guidelines.

Summary of Factors Affecting the

Species

Section 4 of the Act and regulations

(50 CFR part 424) promulgated to

implement the listing provisions of the

Act set forth the procedures for adding

species to the Federal lists. A species

may be determined to be endangered or

threatened due to one or more of the

five factors described in section 4(a)(1).

These factors and their application to

Astragalus desereticus Barneby (Deseret

milk-vetch) are as follows:

A. The Present or Threatened

Destruction, Modification, or

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range

Astragalus desereticus is located on

highly accessible public and private

land that is used for cattle grazing and

wildlife management (Franklin 1991,

Stone 1992). The land managed by the

State of Utah Division of Wildlife

Resources (DWR) is a wildlife

management area that is also used for

cattle grazing (Franklin 1991). Cattle are

used by DWR in the spring to encourage

plant growth for big game forage in the

winter. This grazing occurs within the

habitat of A. desereticus (Stone 1992).

The cattle tend to concentrate primarily

on the upslope areas where forage

production is greater (Stone 1992).

Erosion in these areas is exacerbated by

cattle grazing and game trails. In

addition to the effects of erosion,

trampling threatens A. desereticus,

particularly at the southern end of the

range (Franklin 1991). As cattle and
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 18 /Wednesday, January 28, 1998 / Proposed Rules 4209

wildlife graze the habitat of A.

desereticus, the animals are likely to

trample plants as they forage. Whereas

mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) have

maintained stable numbers recently,

Rocky Mountain elk (Cervas elephas)

populations are increasing. Erosion and

trampling by cattle and wildlife

constitute threats to A. desereticus.

Development in the Wasatch Front

metropolitan area is spreading into the

surrounding agricultural lands,

especially small communities in the

drainages of the Provo, Spanish Fork,

and Weber rivers (Utah Governor’s

Office of Planning and Budget (UGOPB)

1997). Areas such as Birdseye are

predicted to be rezoned residential

within a short time. The population

growth of the metropolitan area is

expected to nearly double by the year

2020. In addition, conversion of

agricultural land to urban use is also

expected to nearly double in the same

time period (UGOPB 1997). The entire

Astragalus desereticus population is

within 300 meters (1,000 feet) of U.S.

Highway 89 and is within the area

proposed for future development

(UGOPB 1997). Transportation needs of

the expanding population will also

require roads to be widened or

improved. U.S. Highway 89 is currently

a two-lane rural highway that will likely

be expanded when residential

development expands into southern

Utah County and northern Sanpete

County. Such highway widening and

the concomitant residential

development could destroy a significant

portion of the remaining habitat of A.

desereticus.

A potential threat to Astragalus

desereticus is related to the populations

of ungulates in the area and their effect

on pollinators. Other species in the

genus Astragalus have suffered from

low numbers of pollinators due to the

indirect effects ungulates may have on

the pollinators’ nest sites (Stone 1992).

Bumblebees (Bombus sp.), which nest in

abandoned rodent burrows, are likely

the primary pollinators of A.

desereticus. Land use practices which

increase grazing pressure may cause

burrows to collapse, destroying

bumblebee nests (Stone 1992). Since

bees have low fecundity, their

populations may not recover for many

years, particularly if grazing by large

numbers of ungulates is maintained.

B. Overutilization for Commercial,

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational

Purposes

Overutilization is not known to be a

threat to Astragalus desereticus.

C. Disease or Predation

In contrast to many species of

Astragalus, A. desereticus appears to be

palatable to cattle. Many Astragalus

species concentrate the toxic element

selenium in their tissues; these species,

called selenophytes, poison grazing

cattle (Stone 1992). The fact that A.

desereticus does not produce a

‘‘snakelike’’ odor typical of other

‘‘snakeweeds,’’ as selenophytes are

sometimes called, and the fact that no

other selenophytes occur in the area,

indicate that A. desereticus is not a

selenophyte (Stone 1992). While A.

desereticus may not be preferred forage

for cattle or native ungulates, it is

palatable and may be inadvertently

taken along with preferred forage in the

area.

In habitat similar to that occupied by

Astragalus desereticus in Utah County

that has been surveyed by Service

personnel, overgrazing by domestic

ungulates has almost completely

denuded the landscape (USFWS 1991).

Similar grazing pressure has been

known from the current habitat of A.

desereticus; therefore, the effects of

grazing, particularly overgrazing,

constitute a likely threat. This species is

much less abundant in the more heavily

grazed southern portion of its habitat

(Franklin 1990, 1991), indicating that

grazing may be a significant threat.

Cattle grazing may be particularly

harmful because it occurs during a

critical period for A. desereticus

reproduction (i.e., flowering) (Stone

1992).

There are no known insect parasites

or disease organisms that significantly

affect this species.

D. The Inadequacy of Existing

Regulatory Mechanisms

Astragalus desereticus presently

receives no protection or consideration

under any Federal, State or local law or

regulation.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors

Affecting Its Continued Existence

By virtue of the limited number of

individuals and range of the single

remaining population of Astragalus

desereticus, this species may be

threatened with extinction from

naturally occurring events. The

probability that a natural event such as

a fire, drought, or disease will cause

extinction is greater for species having

a small population size and highly

restricted range (Stone 1992). Rare

species in the genus Astragalus have

exhibited low levels of genetic diversity

when compared to other more

widespread, closely related species

(Stone 1992). Low genetic variability

may make it difficult for a species to

respond to changes in the environment

and thus places it at greater risk to

extinction or additional range reduction.

The Service has carefully assessed the

best scientific and commercial

information available regarding the past,

present, and future threats faced by

Astragalus desereticus in determining to

propose this rule. Grazing and trampling

by ungulates, residential development,

road widening, and naturally occurring

events such as fire variously threaten

this species. Based on this evaluation,

the preferred action is to list A.

desereticus as threatened. Threatened

status reflects the vulnerability of this

species to factors that may negatively

affect the species and its limited habitat.

While not in immediate danger of

extinction, A. desereticus is likely to

become an endangered species in the

foreseeable future if present threats

continue or increase. Critical habitat is

not being proposed for this species for

reasons discussed in the ‘‘Critical

Habitat’’ section of this proposal.

Critical Habitat

Critical habitat is defined in section 3

of the Act as: (i) The specific areas

within the geographical area occupied

by a species, at the time it is listed in

accordance with the Act, on which are

found those physical or biological

features (I) essential to the conservation

of the species and (II) that may require

special management considerations or

protection and; (ii) specific areas

outside the geographical area occupied

by the species at the time it is listed,

upon determination that such areas are

essential for the conservation of the

species. ‘‘Conservation’’ means the use

of all methods and procedures needed

to bring the species to the point at

which listing under the Act is no longer

necessary.

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act and

implementing regulations (50 CFR

424.12) require that, to the maximum

extent prudent and determinable, the

Secretary designate critical habitat at the

time a species is determined to be

endangered or threatened. Service

regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state

that designation of critical habitat is not

prudent when one or both of the

following situations exist: (1) The

species is threatened by taking or other

human activity, and identification of

critical habitat can be expected to

increase the degree of threat to the

species, or (2) such designation of

critical habitat would not be beneficial

to the species. The Service determines

that designation of critical habitat for
4210 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 18 /Wednesday, January 28, 1998 / Proposed Rules

Astragalus desereticus is not prudent

due to lack of benefit to the species.

Critical habitat receives consideration

under section 7 of the Act with regard

to actions carried out, authorized, or

funded by a Federal agency (see

Available Conservation Measures

section). As such, designation of critical

habitat may affect activities on Federal

lands and may affect activities on nonFederal lands where such a Federal

nexus exists. Under section 7 of the Act,

Federal agencies are required to ensure

that their actions do not jeopardize the

continued existence of a species or

result in destruction or adverse

modification of critical habitat.

However, both jeopardizing the

continued existence of a species and

adverse modification of critical habitat

have similar standards and thus similar

thresholds for violation of section 7 of

the Act. In fact, biological opinions that

conclude that a Federal agency action is

likely to adversely modify critical

habitat but not jeopardize the species for

which the critical habitat has been

designated are extremely rare. Also, the

designation of critical habitat for the

purpose of informing Federal agencies

of the locations of Astragalus

desereticus habitat is not necessary

because the Service can inform Federal

agencies through other means. For these

reasons, the designation of critical

habitat for A. desereticus would provide

no additional benefit to the species

beyond that conferred by listing, and

therefore, such designation is not

prudent.

Astragalus desereticus has an

extremely narrow distribution in a

sandstone outcrop, totaling about 120 ha

(300 ac) in one population. At the

present time, no other site is known to

be occupied by or suitable for this plant.

The private landowners at Birdseye are

aware of the plant’s presence and

extremely limited habitat, as are the

DWR managers and others involved in

management of the area. Therefore,

designation of critical habitat would

provide no benefit with respect to

notification. In addition, given the

species’ narrow distribution and

precarious status, virtually any

conceivable adverse effect to the

species’ habitat would very likely

jeopardize its continued existence.

Designation of critical habitat for A.

desereticus would, therefore, provide no

benefit to the species apart from the

protection afforded by listing the plant

as threatened.

Protection of the habitat of Astragalus

desereticus will be addressed through

the section 4 recovery process and the

section 7 consultation process.

Although this plant occurs only on

private and State land, it may be

affected by projects with Federal

connections, including potential Federal

Highway Administration funding of

road widening. The Service believes

that activities involving a Federal action

which may affect A. desereticus can be

identified without designating critical

habitat, by providing Federal agencies

with information on the location of

occupied habitat and information on the

kinds of activities which could affect

the species. For the reasons discussed

above, the Service finds that the

designation of critical habitat for A.

desereticus is not prudent.

Available Conservation Measures

Conservation measures provided to

species listed as endangered or

threatened under the Act include

recognition, recovery actions,

requirements for Federal protection, and

prohibitions against certain practices.

Recognition through listing results in

public awareness and conservation

actions by Federal, State and local

agencies, private organizations, and

individuals. The Act provides for

possible land acquisition and

cooperation with the States and requires

that recovery actions be carried out for

all listed species. The protection

required of Federal agencies and the

prohibitions against certain activities

involving listed plants are discussed, in

part, below.

Section 7(a) of the Act requires

Federal agencies to evaluate their

actions with respect to any species that

is proposed or listed as endangered or

threatened and with respect to its

critical habitat, if any is designated.

Regulations implementing this

interagency cooperation provision of the

Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402.

Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires

Federal agencies to confer with the

Service on any action that is likely to

jeopardize the continued existence of a

proposed species or result in

destruction or adverse modification of

proposed critical habitat. If a species is

listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2)

requires Federal agencies to ensure that

activities they authorize, fund, or carry

out are not likely to jeopardize the

continued existence of such a species or

to destroy or adversely modify its

critical habitat. If a Federal action may

affect a listed species or its critical

habitat, the responsible Federal agency

must enter into formal consultation with

the Service. The single known

population of Astragalus desereticus is

on State and privately owned land.

However, highway widening, which

could adversely affect A. desereticus

due to the proximity of the plants to the

highway, could be partially funded by

the Federal Highway Administration,

thereby providing an avenue for section

7 consultation.

The Act and its implementing

regulations set forth a series of general

prohibitions and exceptions that apply

to all threatened plants. All prohibitions

of section 9(a)(2) of the Act,

implemented by 50 CFR 17.71 for

threatened plants, apply. These

prohibitions, in part, make it illegal for

any person subject to the jurisdiction of

the United States to import or export,

transport in interstate or foreign

commerce in the course of a commercial

activity, sell or offer for sale in interstate

or foreign commerce, or remove and

reduce the species to possession from

areas under Federal jurisdiction. In

addition, for plants listed as

endangered, the Act prohibits malicious

damage or destruction on areas under

Federal jurisdiction, and the removal,

cutting, digging up, or damaging or

destroying of such plants in knowing

violation of any State law or regulation,

including State criminal trespass law.

Section 4(d) of the Act allows for the

provision of such protection to

threatened species through regulation.

This protection may apply to this

species in the future if such regulations

are promulgated. Seeds from cultivated

specimens of threatened plants are

exempt from these prohibitions

provided that their containers are

marked ‘‘Of Cultivated Origin.’’ Certain

exceptions to the prohibitions apply to

agents of the Service and State

conservation agencies.

The Act and 50 CFR 17.72 also

provide for the issuance of permits to

carry out otherwise prohibited activities

involving threatened species under

certain circumstances. Such permits are

available for scientific purposes and to

enhance the propagation or survival of

the species. For threatened plants,

permits are also available for botanical

and horticultural exhibition,

educational purposes, or special reasons

consistent with the Act’s purposes. With

respect to Astragalus desereticus, it is

anticipated that few, if any, trade

permits would be sought or issued,

since the species is not common in the

wild and is unknown in cultivation.

Requests for copies of the regulations

regarding listed species and inquiries

about prohibitions and permits may be

addressed to: Regional Director, U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box

25486, Denver Federal Center, Denver,

Colorado 80225.

It is the policy of the Service,

published in the Federal Register on

July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify

to the maximum extent practicable
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 18 /Wednesday, January 28, 1998 / Proposed Rules 4211

those activities that would or would not

constitute a violation of section 9 of the

Act if a species is listed. The intent of

this policy is to increase public

awareness of the effect of a proposed

listing on proposed and ongoing

activities within a species’ range. This

species is not located on areas under

Federal jurisdiction. Collection, damage,

or destruction of this species on Federal

lands is prohibited (although in

appropriate cases a Federal endangered

species permit may be issued to allow

collection for scientific or recovery

purposes). Such activities on areas not

under Federal jurisdiction would

constitute a violation of section 9 if

conducted in knowing violation of State

law or regulations, or in violation of

State criminal trespass law. Normal

highway maintenance, fence

maintenance, and recreational hunting

are among the activities that would be

unlikely to violate section 9. Questions

regarding whether specific activities

would constitute a violation of section

9, should this species be listed, should

be directed to the Field Supervisor,

Utah Ecological Services Field Office

(see ADDRESSES section).

Public Comments Solicited

The Service intends that any final

action resulting from this proposal will

be as accurate and effective as possible.

Therefore, comments or suggestions

from the public, other concerned

governmental agencies, the scientific

community, industry, or any other

interested party concerning this

proposed rule are hereby solicited. In

particular, comments are sought

concerning:

(1) Biological, commercial trade, or

other relevant data concerning any

threat (or lack thereof) to Astragalus

desereticus;

(2) The location of any additional

populations of this species and the

reasons why any habitat should or

should not be determined to be critical

habitat as provided by section 4 of the

Act;

(3) Additional information concerning

the range, distribution, and population

size of this species; and

(4) Current or planned activities in the

subject area and their possible impacts

on this species.

A final determination of whether to

list this species will take into

consideration the comments and any

additional information received by the

Service. Such communications may lead

to a final decision document that differs

from this proposal.

The Act provides for one or more

public hearings on this proposal, if

requested. Requests for hearings must be

received within 45 days of the date of

the publication of the proposal in the

Federal Register. Such requests must be

made in writing and be addressed to the

Field Supervisor, Utah Ecological

Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES

section).

National Environmental Policy Act

The Fish and Wildlife Service has

determined that Environmental

Assessments and Environmental Impact

Statements, as defined under the

authority of the National Environmental

Policy Act of 1969, need not be

prepared in connection with regulations

adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as

amended. A notice outlining the

Service’s reasons for this determination

was published in the Federal Register

on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

Required Determinations

This rule does not contain collections

of information that require approval by

the Office of Management and Budget

under 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

References Cited

A complete list of all references cited

herein is available upon request from

the Field Supervisor, Utah Ecological

Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES

section).

Author: The primary author of this

proposed rule is John L. England, Utah

Ecological Services Field Office (see

ADDRESSES section).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species,

Exports, Imports, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements,

Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

Accordingly, the Service hereby

proposes to amend part 17, subchapter

B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of

Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 17

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C.

1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99–

625, 100 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise noted.

2. Amend section 17.12(h) by adding

the following, in alphabetical order

under Flowering Plants, to the List of

Endangered and Threatened Plants:

§ 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants.

* * * * *

(h) * * *

Species

Historic range Family Status When listed Critical

habitat

Special

rules Scientific name Common name

FLOWERING PLANTS

* * * * * * *

Astragalus

desereticus.

Deseret milk-vetch .. U.S.A. (UT) ............. Fabaceae ................ T .................... NA NA

* * * * * * *
4212 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 18 /Wednesday, January 28, 1998 / Proposed Rules

Dated: December 30, 1997.

Jamie Rappaport Clark,

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 98–2012 Filed 1–27–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 226

[I.D. No. 101097A]

Designated Critical Habitat; Central

California Coast and Southern Oregon/

Northern California Coast Coho

Salmon

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of

comment period.

SUMMARY: NMFS is reopening the public

comment period on proposed

regulations to designate critical habitat

for Central California Coast and

Southern Oregon/Northern California

Coast coho salmon (Oncorhynchus

kisutch). These proposals were made on

November 25, 1997, under provisions of

the Endangered Species Act of 1973

(ESA). NMFS has received several

requests for additional time to complete

the review and compilation of

information. NMFS finds the requests to

be reasonable and hereby reopens the

comment period until April 26, 1998.

DATES: Comments on the proposed rule

must be received on or before April 26,

1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent

to: Garth Griffin, NMFS, Protected

Resources Division, 525 NE Oregon St.

- Suite 500, Portland, OR 97232–2737;

or Craig Wingert, NMFS, Southwest

Region, Protected Species Management

Division, 501 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite

4200, Long Beach, CA 90802–4213.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Garth Griffin at (503) 231–2005, Craig

Wingert at (562) 980–4021, or Joe Blum

at (301) 713–1401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On October 31, 1996, NMFS

published its determination to list the

Central California Coast Evolutionarily

Significant Unit (ESU) of coho salmon

as threatened under the ESA (61 FR

41514). Subsequently, on May 6, 1997,

NMFS published its determination to

list the Southern Oregon/Northern

California Coast coho salmon ESU as

threatened under the ESA (62 FR

24588). On November 25, 1997 (62 FR

62741), NMFS published a proposed

rule identifying critical habitat for each

ESU and identified a 90-day comment

period (which ends January 26, 1998) to

solicit information relevant to the

proposal. During the comment period,

three public hearings were held between

December 8–11, 1997 in Gold Beach,

Oregon; Eureka, California; and Santa

Rosa, California.

Requests for an extension of the

public comment period have been

received from a California Congressional

representative, as well as several county

and private organizations and private

citizens in northern California and

southern Oregon. Reasons given for

these requests included additional time

required under state law to assemble

county governments for a review of the

proposal, and time needed to assess the

scope and impact of the proposed rule.

NMFS finds the requests to be

reasonable and hereby reopens the

comment period.

Critical habitat is defined as the

specific areas within the geographical

area occupied by the species, on which

are found those physical and biological

features essential to the conservation of

the species and which may require

special management considerations or

protections (ESA section 3(5)(A)(I)).

Critical habitat shall not include the

entire geographical area occupied by the

species unless failure to designate such

areas would result in the extinction of

the species.

Proposed critical habitat for the

Central California Coast ESU

encompasses accessible reaches of all

rivers (including estuarine areas and

tributaries) between Punta Gorda and

the San Lorenzo River (inclusive) in

California. Also included are two rivers

entering San Francisco Bay: Mill Valley

Creek and Corte Madera Creek.

Proposed critical habitat for the

Southern Oregon/Northern California

Coast ESU encompasses accessible

reaches of all rivers (including estuarine

areas and tributaries) between the

Mattole River in California and the Elk

River in Oregon, inclusive.

The areas described in the proposed

rule represent the current freshwater

and estuarine range of the listed species.

Marine habitats are also vital to the

species and ocean conditions are

believed to have a major influence on

coho salmon survival. However, there

does not appear to be a need for special

management consideration or protection

of this habitat. Therefore, NMFS is not

proposing to designate critical habitat in

marine areas at this time. For both

ESUs, critical habitat includes all

waterways, substrate, and adjacent

riparian zones below longstanding,

naturally impassable barriers (i.e.,

natural waterfalls in existence for at

least several hundred years). NMFS has

identified twelve dams in the range of

these ESUs (see proposed rule) that

currently block access to habitats

historically occupied by coho salmon.

However, NMFS has not designated

these inaccessible areas as critical

habitat because areas downstream are

believed to be sufficient for the

conservation of the ESUs. The economic

and other impacts resulting from this

critical habitat designation are expected

to be minimal.

NMFS is soliciting information,

comments and/or recommendations on

any aspect of this proposal from all

concerned parties (see ADDRESSES);

comments must be received by April 26,

1998. In particular, NMFS is requesting

any data, maps, or reports describing

areas that currently or historically

supported coho salmon populations and

that may require special management

considerations. NMFS will consider all

information received before reaching a

final decision.

Date: January 22, 1998.

Patricia A. Montanio,

Deputy Director, Office of Protected

Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 98–2074 Filed 1–27–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F