Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 98 / Monday, May 21, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 27901

services, including all applicable fixed

and traffic-sensitive charges.

(6) Rural CLEC shall mean a CLEC

that does not serve (i.e., terminate traffic

to or originate traffic from) any end

users located within either:

(i) Any incorporated place of 50,000

inhabitants or more, based on the most

recently available population statistics

of the Census Bureau or

(ii) An urbanized area, as defined by

the Census Bureau.

(b) Except as provided in paragraphs

(c) and (e) of this section, a CLEC shall

not file a tariff for its interstate switched

exchange access services that prices

those services above the higher of:

(1) The rate charged for such services

by the competing ILEC or

(2) The lower of:

(i) The benchmark rate described in

paragraph (c) of this section or

(ii) The lowest rate that the CLEC has

tariffed for its interstate exchange access

services, within the six months

preceding June 20, 2001.

(c) From June 20, 2001 until June 20,

2002, the benchmark rate for a CLEC’s

interstate switched exchange access

services will be $0.025 per minute.

From June 20, 2002 until June 20, 2003,

the benchmark rate for a CLEC’s

interstate switched exchange access

services will be $0.018 per minute.

From June 20, 2003 until June 21, 2004,

the benchmark rate for a CLEC’s

interstate switched exchange access

services will be $0.012 per minute. After

June 20, 2005, the benchmark rate for a

CLEC’s interstate switched exchange

access services will be the rate charged

for similar services by the competing

ILEC, provided, however, that the

benchmark rate for a CLEC’s interstate

switched exchange access services will

not move to bill-and-keep, if at all, until

June 20, 2005.

(d) Notwithstanding paragraphs (b)

and (c) of this section, in the event that,

after June 20, 2001, a CLEC begins

serving end users in a metropolitan

statistical area (MSA) where it has not

previously served end users, the CLEC

shall not file a tariff for its interstate

exchange access services in that MSA

that prices those services above the rate

charged for such services by the

competing ILEC.

(e) Rural exemption. Notwithstanding

paragraphs (b) through (3) of this

section, a rural CLEC competing with a

non-rural ILEC shall not file a tariff for

its interstate exchange access services

that prices those services above the rate

prescribed in the NECA access tariff,

assuming the highest rate band for local

switching and the transport

interconnection charge. If the competing

ILEC is subject to the Commission’s

CALLS Order, 65 FR 38684, June 21,

2000, this rate shall be reduced by the

NECA tariff’s carrier common line

charge.

[FR Doc. 01–12758 Filed 5–18–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AF61

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Final Rule for Endangered

Status for Astragalus pycnostachyus

var. lanosissimus (Ventura marsh milkvetch)

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (Service), determine

endangered status for Astragalus

pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus

(Ventura marsh milk-vetch) pursuant to

the Endangered Species Act (Act) of

1973, as amended. Historically known

from a three-county region in coastal

southern California, A. pycnostachyus

var. lanosissimus was believed extinct

until its rediscovery in 1997. The only

known extant population of this

recently rediscovered plant occurs in

Ventura County, California, on less than

1 acre of degraded dune habitat that was

previously used for disposal of

petroleum wastes. The most significant

current threats to A. pycnostachyus var.

lanosissimus are direct destruction of

this population from proposed soil

remediation, residential development,

and associated activities. This taxon is

also threatened by unanticipated

human-caused and natural events that

could eliminate the single remaining

population. Competition from nonnative

invasive plant species is an additional

threat. This action will extend the Act’s

protection to this plant.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective

June 20, 2001.

ADDRESSES: The complete file for this

rule is 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,

California 93003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick

Farris or Lois Grunwald, Ventura Fish

and Wildlife Office, at the address above

(telephone 805/644–1766; facsimile

805/644–3958).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Astragalus pycnostachyus var.

lanosissimus (Ventura marsh milkvetch) was first described by Per Axel

Rydberg (1929) as Phaca lanosissima

from an 1882 collection by S.B. and

W.F. Parish made from ‘‘La Bolsa,’’

probably in what is now Orange County,

California. The combination A.

pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus was

assigned to this taxon by Philip Munz

and Jean McBurney in 1932 (Munz

1932).

Astragalus pycnostachyus var.

lanosissimus is a herbaceous perennial

in the pea family (Fabaceae). It has a

thick taproot and multiple erect, reddish

stems, 40 to 90 centimeters (cm) (16 to

36 inches (in)) tall, that emerge from the

root crown. The pinnately compound

leaves are densely covered with silvery

white hairs. The 27–39 leaflets are 5 to

20 millimeters (mm) (0.2 to 0.8 in) long.

The numerous greenish-white to cream

colored flowers are in dense clusters

and are 7 to 10 mm (0.3 to 0.4 in) long.

The calyx teeth are 1.2 to 1.5 mm (0.04

in) long. The nearly sessile, singlecelled pod is 8 to 11 mm (0.31 to 0.43

in) long (Barneby 1964). The blooming

time has been recorded as July to

October (Barneby 1964); however, the

one extant population was observed in

flower in June 1997. This variety is

distinguished from A. pycnostachyus

var. pycnostachyus by the length of

calyx tube, calyx teeth, and peduncles.

It is distinguished from other local

Astragalus species by its size, perennial

habit, size and shape of fruit, and

flowering time.

The type locality is ‘‘La Bolsa,’’ where

the plant was collected in 1882 by S.B.

and W.F. Parish (Barneby 1964). Based

on the labeling of other specimens

collected by the Parishes in 1881 and

1882, Barneby (1964) suggested that this

collection may have come from the

Ballona marshes in Los Angeles County.

However, Critchfield (1978) believed

that ‘‘La Bolsa’’ could easily have

referred to Bolsa Chica, a coastal marsh

system located to the south in what is

now Orange County. He noted that

Orange County was not made a separate

county from Los Angeles until 1889, 7

years after the Parish’s collection was

made. In the five decades following its

discovery, Astragalus pycnostachyus

var. lanosissimus was collected from

about four locations in Los Angeles and

Ventura counties, three of which are

near one another. In Los Angeles County

it was collected from near Santa Monica

in 1882, the Ballona marshes just to the

south in 1902, and ‘‘Cienega’’ in 1904,

also likely near the Ballona wetlands. In

27902 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 98 / Monday, May 21, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

Ventura County it was collected in 1901

and 1925 from Oxnard and in 1911 from

Ventura, a city adjacent to Oxnard. By

1964, Barneby (1964) believed that it

had certainly been extirpated from

Santa Monica southward, noting that

there was still the possibility it survived

in Ventura County (although he knew of

no locations at that time). The species

was briefly rediscovered in 1967 by R.

Chase, who collected a single specimen

growing by a roadside between the cities

of Ventura and Oxnard. Subsequent

searches uncovered no other living

plants at that location, although some

mowed remains discovered on McGrath

State Beach lands, across the road from

the collection site, were believed to

belong to this taxon (information on

herbarium label from specimen

collected by R.M. Chase, 1967). Floristic

surveys and focused searches conducted

in the 1970s and 1980s at historic

locations failed to locate any A.

pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus, and

the plant was presumed extinct (Isley

1986; Spellenberg 1993; Skinner and

Pavlik 1994) until June 12, 1997, when

a population of the plant was

rediscovered by U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (Service) biologist Kate

Symonds, in a degraded coastal dune

system near Oxnard, California.

Almost nothing is known of the

habitat requirements of Astragalus

pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus. All

but two of the known collections of this

taxon were made prior to 1930.

Specimen labels from these collections

and original published descriptions

contain virtually no habitat information.

The related variety, Astragalus

pycnostachyus var. pycnostachyus, is

found in or at the high edge of coastal

saltmarshes and seeps. The newly

discovered population of A.

pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus occurs

in a sparsely vegetated low area, at an

elevation of about 10 meters (30 feet), in

a site previously used for disposal of

petroleum waste products (Impact

Sciences, Inc. 1997). Dominant shrub

species at the site are Baccharis pilularis

(coyote brush), Baccharis salicifolia

(mule fat), Salix lasiolepis (arroyo

willow), and the nonnative Myoporum

laetum (myoporum) (Impact Sciences,

Inc. 1997). The population itself occurs

with sparse vegetative cover provided

primarily by Baccharis pilularis,

Baccharis salicifolia, a nonnative

Carpobrotus sp. (seafig), and a

nonnative annual grass, Bromus

madritensis ssp. rubens (red brome).

Soils are reported to be loam-silt loams

(Impact Sciences, Inc. 1997). Soils were

likely transported from other locations

as a cap for the disposal site once it was

closed. The Service is not aware of

records on the origin of the soil used to

cap the waste disposal site; however,

because of the costs of transport, the soil

source is likely of local origin.

The population of Astragalus

pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus

consisted of about 374 plants total in

1997, of which 260 were small plants,

thought to have germinated in the last

year. Fewer than 65 plants in the

population produced fruit in 1997

(Impact Sciences, Inc. 1997). The plants

are growing in an area of less than 1

acre, with one outlying plant located 10

to 20 meters (30–60 feet) from the main

group in 1997 (D. Steeck, Service, pers.

obs. 1997). In 1998, surveys revealed

192 plants. In 1999, Service efforts went

into placing hardware cloth cages

around a sample of plants. This

experimental caging was initiated due to

severe herbivory, apparently by small

mammals. An estimate of between 30

and 40 plants produced flowers in 1999,

believed to be fewer than half of those

blooming in 1998 (D. Steeck in litt.

1999).

The land on which the only known

population of Astragalus pycnostachyus

var. lanosissimus grows is privately

owned and a project to decontaminate

the soils and construct a housing

development on the site has been

proposed (Impact Sciences, Inc. 1998).

Limited efforts to assist with the

conservation of the species have been

initiated by the project proponent, the

Service, the State, and other

cooperators. The project proponent has

successfully grown plants in a remote

greenhouse facility. Several plants were

excavated from the natural population

and potted, and several plants were

started from seed gathered from the

natural population. In addition, we

cooperated with the California

Department of Fish and Game in making

conservation seed collections from the

site. This seed was divided into a seed

storage collection and a seed bulking

project at the Rancho Santa Ana Botanic

Gardens.

Previous Federal Action

Federal actions on this taxon began as

a result of section 12 of the Endangered

Species Act of 1973, as amended (16

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (Act), which

directed the Secretary of the

Smithsonian Institution to prepare a

report on those plants considered to be

endangered, threatened, or extinct in the

United States. This report (House

Document No. 94–51) was presented to

Congress on January 9, 1975, and

Astragalus pycnostachyus var.

lanosissimus was included on List C,

among those taxa believed possibly

extinct in the wild. The Service

published a notice in the July 1, 1975,

Federal Register (40 FR 27823) of its

acceptance of the report as a petition

within the context of section 4(c)(2)

(petition provisions are now found in

section 4(b)(3)) of the Act and its

intention to review the status of the

plant taxa named therein.

On June 16, 1976, the Service

published a proposed rule in the

Federal Register (41 FR 24523) to

determine approximately 1,700 vascular

plant species to be endangered species

pursuant to section 4 of the Act. This

list, which included Astragalus

pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus, was

assembled on the basis of comments and

data received by the Smithsonian

Institution and the Service in response

to House Document No. 94–51 and the

July 1, 1975, Federal Register

publication. General comments received

in relation to the 1976 proposal were

summarized in an April 26, 1978,

Federal Register publication (43 FR

17909). In 1978, amendments to the

Endangered Species Act required that

all proposals more than 2 years old be

withdrawn. A 1-year grace period was

given to those proposals already more

than 2 years old. In a December 10,

1979, notice (44 FR 70796), the Service

withdrew the portion of the June 16,

1976, proposal that had not been made

final, along with four other proposals

that had expired. A. pycnostachyus var.

lanosissimus was included in that

withdrawal notice.

We published an updated candidate

notice of review for plants on December

15, 1980 (45 FR 82480). This notice

included Astragalus pycnostachyus var.

lanosissimus in a list of category 1

candidate species that were possibly

extinct in the wild. These category 1

candidates would have been given high

priority for listing if extant populations

were confirmed.

The Service maintained Astragalus

pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus as a

category 1 candidate in subsequent

notices published on November 28,

1983 (48 FR 53640), September 27, 1985

(50 FR 39526), and February 21, 1990

(55 FR 6184). The Service published a

notice (58 FR 51144) on September 30,

1993, in which taxa whose existence in

the wild was in doubt, including A.

pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus, were

moved to Category 2. On February 28,

1996, we published a Notice of Review

in the Federal Register (61 FR 7596)

that discontinued the designation of

category 2 species as candidates,

including those taxa thought to be

extinct. Thus, A. pycnostachyus var.

lanosissimus was excluded from this

and subsequent notices of review. In

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 98 / Monday, May 21, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 27903

1997, A. pycnostachyus var.

lanosissimus was rediscovered and a

review of the taxon’s status indicated

that a proposed rule was warranted.

We published a proposed rule to list

Astragalus pycnostachyus var.

lanosissimus as endangered in the

Federal Register on May 25, 1999 (64

FR 28136). We have updated this rule to

reflect any changes in information

concerning distribution, status, and

threats since the publication of the

proposed rule.

Summary of Comments and

Recommendations

In the May 25, 1999, proposed rule

(64 FR 28136), we requested interested

parties to submit factual reports or

information that might contribute to

development of a final rule. We

contacted appropriate Federal agencies,

State agencies, county and city

governments, scientific organizations,

and other interested parties and

requested information and comments.

We published a newspaper notice

inviting public comment in the Los

Angeles Times on June 3, 1999.

During the comment period we

received comments from 4 individuals,

agencies, or group representatives

concerning the proposed rule. Two

commenters supported the proposal,

one was neutral, and one was opposed

to the proposal. Comments provided

additional information that, along with

other clarifications, has been

incorporated into the ‘‘Background’’ or

‘‘Summary of Factors’’ sections of this

final rule. Opposing comments and our

responses are summarized as follows:

Comment 1: The proposed rule failed

to meet any listing criteria as defined by

the Act.

Response 1: We disagree. The

arguments presented in the Summary of

Factors Affecting the Species section of

the rule have been supported by the

peer review process as well as our

internal legal and biological reviews for

compliance with the Act.

Comment 2: The proposed rule

utilized outdated and incomplete data,

and failed to include information about

the horticultural experiments conducted

in central California.

Response 2: The data used in

determining the status of Astragalus

pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus was

current and complete at the time the

proposed rule was written.

Experimental horticultural activities

involving the removal of some plants

and seeds from the natural population

and their propagation in a greenhouse

facility have been initiated, and we

believe that such activities may prove to

be useful in conserving the plant

species. However, these initial

experiments have shown limited

success, and the ability to maintain

populations necessary for the recovery

of A. pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus

has not been demonstrated.

Comment 3: There are no additional

benefits for the species by listing it.

Response 3: Federal listing will

provide additional protection for the

species through Federal regulations and

recovery efforts. Additional protection

will potentially be provided through the

consultation process for projects which

may affect the species that are funded,

permitted, or carried out by a Federal

agency as required by section 7 of the

Act. In addition, Federal listing of a

species generally provides for

recognition and additional funding, by

our agency as well as others, for the

conservation and recovery of the

species. Although our recovery planning

process typically occurs after the

species has been federally listed, the

State listing of this species has served to

advance the process of identifying

appropriate recovery actions. We

currently do not know what population

size and habitat areas are needed to

support the continued existence of this

species. However, specific recovery

objectives and criteria to delist the

species in the future, including targets

for population/habitat sizes, will be

developed during the formal recovery

planning process. This process will

involve species experts, scientists, and

interested members of the public, in

accordance with the interagency policy

on recovery plans under the Act,

published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR

34272).

Peer Review

In accordance with our peer review

policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR

34270), we solicited the expert opinions

of three peer reviewers regarding

pertinent scientific or commercial data

and assumptions relating to population

status and biological and ecological

information for Astragalus

pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus. Only

one reviewer responded. This reviewer

provided supporting information for the

listing of the species and described the

information included in the rule as

factually correct to the best of his

knowledge.

Summary of Factors Affecting the

Species

Section 4 of the Endangered Species

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 an endangered or

threatened species due to one or more

of the five factors described in section

4(a)(1). These factors and their

application to Astragalus pycnostachyus

var. lanosissimus are as follows:

A. The Present or Threatened

Destruction, Modification, or

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range

Astragalus pycnostachyus var.

lanosissimus is believed to have been

extirpated from all but one of the

general areas from which it has been

collected. In Los Angeles County, this

taxon was collected in the late 1800s

and early 1900s from Santa Monica,

Ballona Marsh, and ‘‘Cienega’’ (probably

near Ballona Marsh). These coastal areas

are now urbanized within the expansive

Los Angeles metropolitan area. About

90 percent of the Ballona wetlands, once

encompassing almost 2000 acres, have

been drained, dredged, and developed

into the urban areas of Marina del Rey

and Venice (Critchfield 1978; Friends of

Ballona Wetlands 1998). Ballona Creek,

the primary freshwater source for the

wetland, had been straightened,

dredged, and channelized by 1940

(Friesen, et al. 1981). Despite periodic

surveys of what remains at the Ballona

wetlands, A. pycnostachyus var.

lanosissimus has not been collected

there since the early 1900s (Gustafson

1981; herbarium labels from collections

by H. P. Chandler and by E. Braunton,

1902, housed at U.C. Berkeley Herbaria).

Barneby (1964) believed that A.

pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus was

extirpated from all areas south of Santa

Monica by the mid-1960s. In 1987,

botanists searched for A. pycnostachyus

var. lanosissimus at previous collection

locations throughout its range in coastal

habitats, including Bolsa Chica in

Orange County and on public lands

around Oxnard in Ventura County,

without success (F. Roberts, Service, in.

litt. 1987; R. Burgess, CNPS, in. litt.

1987; T. Thomas, Service, pers. comm.

1997). Point Mugu Naval Air Weapons

Station, in southern Ventura County,

may have potential habitat. Detailed

surveys have not been conducted there;

however, A. pycnostachyus var.

lanosissimus was not found during

cursory surveys of the base, and this

taxon has never been collected there.

The single known population of

Astragalus pycnostachyus var.

lanosissimus occurs near the city of

Oxnard, in a degraded backdune

community. From 1955 to 1981 the land

on which it occurs was used as a

disposal site for oil field wastes (Impact

Sciences, Inc. 1998). In 1998, the City of

Oxnard published a Final

Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for

27904 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 98 / Monday, May 21, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

development of this site (Impact

Sciences, Inc. 1998). The proposal for

the site includes remediation of soils

contaminated with hydrocarbons,

followed by construction of 364 homes

and a 6-acre lake on a total of 91 acres,

including the land on which A.

pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus grows.

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), destroying

the A. pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus

population that was identified on the

site late in the planning process. In

order to mitigate for this loss, the project

included provisions for seed collection

and horticultural propagation, and

transplantation of greenhouse seedlings

and plants collected from the wild to

off-site locations.

The proposed project, as described in

the FEIR, would adversely affect the

only known population of A.

pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus,

resulting in the likely extinction of this

taxon in the wild. On July 27, 1999, the

California Department of Fish and Game

(CDFG) signed a Memorandum of

Understanding (MOU) with the project

proponent to establish a permanent rare

plant preserve on site and provide for

experimental off-site mitigation (see

Appendix E, CDFG 2000). The intent of

the MOU was to increase protections to

the milk-vetch beyond that in the

original project description. However,

implementing the MOU would still

result in intensive habitat disturbance

during soil remediation, up to the edge

of the extant stand of A. pycnostachyus

var. lanosissimus. Under the MOU,

when the project is complete there will

be a 5-acre preserve surrounded by

urban land use.

The small size of the preserve and its

proximity to future urban and suburban

uses makes it subject to the effects of

nonnative, invasive plant and animal

species, increased water supply due to

suburban irrigation runoff, and

chemicals such as herbicides,

pesticides, and fertilizers (see

Conservation Biology Institute 2000,

CDFG 2000 and references therein).

Independently or in combinations, these

factors present difficult management

challenges which, if not adequately

addressed, could lead to the elimination

of A. pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus

from the site. Nonnative plant and

animal species are competitors and

predators, respectively, that can directly

reduce survival of native plants, and

they can also upset the invertebrate

(pollinator) and vascular plant

associations upon which native plants

depend (Conservation Biology Institute

2000). The limited information available

about possible specific effects of

competition and predation on the

Ventura marsh milk-vetch is described

in CDFG (2000). While the life-history

requirements of the Ventura marsh

milk-vetch are not well understood, any

factor that substantially alters the

hydrology of the site, such as increases

or decreases in urban/suburban runoff,

is likely to make the site unsuitable for

this wetland species (see the discussion

of hydrology and small preserves in

Conservation Biology Institute (2000)).

Likewise, increased levels of chemicals

arriving via runoff or drift can be

expected in small preserves and can

harm native species. Specific

predictions about the effects of

chemicals such as herbicides and

pesticides on the proposed milk-vetch

preserve would be speculative at this

point, but given the proximity of the

preserve to future suburban and urban

uses, increases in pesticides or

herbicides can be expected. These

increases could harm the milk-vetch

directly, or alter the pollinator or plant

associations upon which it depends.

Fuel management is also a concern for

small preserves in urban or suburban

areas; the fire hazard at the wildlandurban interface is receiving national and

local attention (Federal Fire Policy

2001, Ventura County 2001). In this part

of California much of the native and

some of the nonnative vegetation is

flammable. Currently the local fire

department requires 100 feet of

vegetation modification for fire safety

(Ventura County 2001). If the proposed

development design required that 100

feet of fuel modification was necessary

in the preserve, it would reduce the size

of the core preserve to 1.9 acres. Finally,

attempts to grow this species elsewhere

in the wild have failed, or require

constant intervention (Mary Meyer,

March 2000 In litt.; Wayne Ferren,

August 2000 In litt.). Thus, the preserve,

as designed, does not adequately

address the biological needs of the

species, relies on unproven management

measures, and will not insure protection

of the site.

B. Overuse for Commercial,

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational

Purposes

Overutilization is not known to be a

problem for Astragalus pycnostachyus

var. lanosissimus at present. Soon after

this taxon was discovered, the project

proponent installed a fence around the

population, which appears to have been

effective in minimizing unauthorized

visitation.

C. Disease or Predation

A sooty fungus was found on the

leaves of Astragalus pycnostachyus var.

lanosissimus in late summer, 1997, as

leaves began to senesce and the plants

entered a period of dormancy (Impact

Sciences, Inc. 1997; T. Yamashita,

Sunburst Plant Disease Clinic, pers.

comm. 1998). The effects of the fungus

on the population are not known, but it

is possible that the fungus attacks

senescing leaves in great number only at

the end of the growing season. The

plants appeared robust when in flower

in June 1997, matured seed by October

1997, and were regrowing in March

1998, after a period of dormancy,

without obvious signs of the fungus (D.

Steeck, Service, pers. obs. 1997, 1998,

1999).

The seeds of Astragalus

pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus in

1997 were heavily infested with seed

beetles (Bruchidae: Coleoptera). In a

seed collection made for conservation

purposes, the Service found that while

most fruits in 1997 partially developed

at least 4 seeds, seed predation reduced

the average number of undamaged seeds

to only 1.8 per fruit (D. Steeck, Service,

and M. Meyer, CDFG, unpublished

data). 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). The effects of seed

predation on the population and its

variability from year to year are not

known at this time.

The introduced nonnative milk snail

(Otala lactea) was observed causing

damage to the foliage of Astragalus

pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus in

1998 and 1999 concurrent with a

dramatic decline in seedling plants (D.

Steeck, Service pers. comm. 1999).

Severely pruned plants were observed

in 1999, which was attributed to small

mammal herbivory (D. Steeck field

notes 1999).

D. The Inadequacy of Existing

Regulatory Mechanisms

The California Fish and Game

Commission listed Astragalus

pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus as

endangered under the Native Plant

Protection Act (NPPA) (chapter 1.5 sec.

1900 et seq. of the California Fish and

Game Code) and the California

Endangered Species Act (CESA)

(chapter 1.5 sec. 2050 et seq.) on April

6, 2000. California Senate Bill 879,

passed in 1997 and effective January 1,

1998, requires individuals to obtain a

section 2081(b) permit from CDFG to

take a listed species incidental to

otherwise lawful activities, and requires

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 98 / Monday, May 21, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 27905

that all impacts be fully mitigated and

all measures be capable of successful

implementation. However, past attempts

to mitigate impacts to rare plant

populations have often failed (Howald

1993), and it is unclear how well these

requirements will provide for the longterm conservation of State-listed plants.

The California Environmental Quality

Act (CEQA) requires a full public

disclosure of the potential

environmental impacts of proposed

projects. The public agency with

primary authority or jurisdiction over

the project is designated as the lead

agency, and is responsible for

conducting a review of the project and

consulting with the other agencies

concerned with the resources affected

by the project. Section 15065 of the

CEQA Guidelines requires a finding of

significance if a project has the potential

to ‘‘reduce the number or restrict the

range of a rare or endangered plant or

animal.’’ Species that can be shown to

meet the criteria for State listing, such

as Astragalus pycnostachyus var.

lanosissimus, are considered under

CEQA (CEQA Section 15380). Once

significant effects are identified, the

lead agency must require mitigation for

effects through changes in the project

unless the agency decides that

overriding social or economic

considerations make mitigation

infeasible. In the latter case, projects

may be approved that cause significant

environmental damage, such as

destruction of endangered species.

Protection of listed species through

CEQA, therefore, is ultimately left to the

discretion of the agency involved.

The Coastal Zone Management Act of

1972 is a Federal statute that allowed for

the establishment of the California

Coastal Act (CCA) of 1976. CCA

established a coastal zone. In Ventura

County, the site of the only known

extant population of Astragalus

pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus occurs

in the California Coastal Zone (Impact

Sciences, Inc. 1998). As required by

CCA, Ventura County has developed a

Coastal Land Use Plan. It currently

designates the area occupied by A.

pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus as

Open Space, and amendments of the

Coastal Land Use Plan will be required

for approval of a residential

development on this property. Land use

decisions made by local agencies in the

Coastal Zone are appealable to the

California Coastal Commission.

Although the Coastal Zone designation

and CEQA require that unique

biological resources, such as A.

pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus, be

considered in the planning process, any

protection offered by these regulatory

mechanisms is ultimately at the

discretion of the local and State

agencies involved and, therefore, does

not assure protection for, or preclude

the need to list, this taxon.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors

Affecting Its Continued Existence

Astragalus pycnostachyus var.

lanosissimus is threatened with

extinction from unanticipated human

activities and natural events by virtue of

the very limited number of individuals

in, and the small area occupied by, the

only known extant population. A

wildfire in the summer before seeds

have matured, a plane crash (the taxon

is under the extended center flight line

of the Oxnard airport and a crash

occurred on the site in 1995 (Murphy in

litt. 1997), and other natural or

unanticipated human-caused events

could eliminate the existing population

and result in the extinction of this taxon

from the wild.

The single known population of this

taxon 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, are

competitive, succulent species with the

potential to cover vast areas in dense

clonal mats. 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 and

Bromus in 1998 (D. Steeck, pers. obs.

1998). Seedling survival rates in these

areas have not yet been determined. As

explained under factor A, managing

nonnative plants and animals and other

threats to native species is difficult in

small preserves (Conservation Biology

Institute 2000, CDFG 2000). Carpobrotus

and Bromus can compete directly with

the milk-vetch and may also alter the

microenvironment so seriously that they

alter the invertebrate (pollinator) and

vascular plant associations upon which

the milk-vetch depends (see discussion

of nonnative predators and competitors

on the site in CDFG (2000)). In addition,

the life history and biology of

Astragalus pycnostachyus var.

lanosissimus is not well known, owing

to its only recent rediscovery. It will be

many years before we understand what

factors influence seedling germination

and the production of viable seeds in

the wild.

Astragalus pycnostachyus var.

lanosissimus is also threatened by

activities in occupied habitat associated

with planning for land use at the site.

For example, the project proponents

have conducted at least two excavations

in the population to examine the soils

in which the plants occur (D. Steeck,

pers. obs. 1997) and to examine the root

structure of an adult plant (R. Smith,

R.A. Smith and Associates, pers. comm.

1998). In April 1998 the project

proponents dug up and transported

three plants out of Ventura County to a

greenhouse in central California in a

preliminary attempt at transplanting

them. In addition to the direct removal

of reproducing individuals from the

population, exploratory excavations

within the population can potentially

alter the hydrology of the micro-site

where the plants are found, reduce

seedling establishment by burying or

removing seeds and seedlings from the

soil, and injure plant roots.

The Service has carefully assessed the

best scientific and commercial

information available regarding the past,

present, and future threats faced by this

taxon in determining this final rule.

Residential and commercial

development have resulted in the loss

and alteration of this taxon’s coastal

habitat and are the most likely cause of

population extirpation historically. Loss

and alteration of habitat from soil

remediation activities and proposed

residential development threaten the

only known extant population. Other

threats include competition from

nonnative plant species and

unanticipated human activities and

natural events which could diminish or

destroy the very small extant

population. Existing regulatory

mechanisms are inadequate to protect

this taxon. Because Astragalus

pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus is in

danger of extinction throughout all or a

significant portion of its range, it fits the

Act’s definition of endangered.

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 consideration or

protection; and (ii) specific areas

outside the geographical area occupied

by a species at the time it is listed, upon

a determination that such areas are

essential for the conservation of the

species. ‘‘Conservation’’ means the use

of all methods and procedures needed

to bring the species to the point at

which listing under the Act is no longer

necessary.

27906 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 98 / Monday, May 21, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as

amended, and implementing regulations

(50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the

maximum extent prudent and

determinable, we designate critical

habitat at the time the species is

determined to be endangered or

threatened. Our regulations (50 CFR

424.12(a)(1)) state that 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 activity and the

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.

In the proposed rule, we indicated

that designation of critical habitat for

Astragalus pycnostachyus var.

lanosissimus was not prudent because

we believed that designation of critical

habitat would not provide any

additional benefit beyond that provided

through listing as endangered. We came

to that conclusion because the plant

occurs only on private land with no

known Federal nexus, because the

designation of critical habitat would not

invoke the protection afforded under

section 9, and because, in this case, with

no permit requirement, section 10 is not

applicable. In addition, the private

landowner and all appropriate nonFederal agencies were aware of the

Federal status of this species and its

location on private land.

After further consideration, and in

light of recent court rulings regarding

critical habitat designations, we believe

that Astragalus pycnostachyus var.

lanosissimus may benefit from critical

habitat designation. For example,

critical habitat designation may educate

and inform the public and help focus

conservation efforts through future

Federal, State, and local planning efforts

and the public, by identifying the

habitat needs and crucial areas for

Astragalus pycnostachyus var.

lanosissimus. Therefore, we now believe

that critical habitat designation may be

prudent for Astragalus pycnostachyus

var. lanosissimus.

Critical habitat is not determinable

(50 CFR 424.12(a)(2)) when one or both

of the following situations exist—(1)

Information sufficient to perform

required analyses of the impacts of the

designation is lacking, or (2) the

biological needs of the species are not

sufficiently well known to permit

identification of an area as critical

habitat. Almost nothing is known of the

habitat requirements of Astragalus

pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus. All

but two of the known collections of this

taxon were made prior to 1930.

Specimen labels from these collections

and original published descriptions

contain virtually no habitat information.

The newly discovered population of A.

pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus occurs

at a site previously used for disposal of

petroleum waste products (Impact

Sciences, Inc. 1997), on soils that were

likely transported from other locations

as a cap for the disposal site once it was

closed. The original source of these soils

is not known. As a result of this lack of

information about the habitat needs of

the species, we believe that the

biological needs of the species are not

sufficiently well known to permit

designation of an area as critical habitat,

and find that critical habitat for A.

pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus is not

determinable at this time.

Our regulations (50 CFR 424.17(b)(2))

require that, when we make a ‘‘not

determinable’’ finding, we designate

critical habitat within two years of the

publication date of the original

proposed listing rule, unless the

designation is found to be not prudent.

However, our listing budget is currently

insufficient to allow us to immediately

complete all of the listing actions

required by the Act. Listing the Ventura

marsh milk-vetch without designation

of critical habitat will allow us to

concentrate our limited resources on

higher-priority critical habitat and other

listing actions, while allowing us to

invoke protections needed for the

conservation of this species without

further delay. We will make a

determination regarding critical habitat

in the future at such time when our

available resources and priorities allow.

Available Conservation Measures

Conservation measures provided to

species listed as endangered or

threatened under the Endangered

Species Act include recognition,

recovery actions, requirements for

Federal protection, and prohibitions

against certain activities. Recognition

through listing encourages public

awareness and results in conservation

actions by Federal, State, and local

agencies, private organizations, and

individuals. The Act provides for

possible land acquisition from willing

sellers 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, as amended,

requires Federal agencies to evaluate

their actions with respect to any species

that is proposed or listed as endangered

or threatened and with respect to its

critical habitat, if any is being

designated. Regulations implementing

this interagency cooperation provision

of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part

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

Federal agencies to confer with the

Service 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. If a species is

listed subsequently, 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

the species or destroy or adversely

modify its critical habitat. If a Federal

action may affect a listed species or its

critical habitat, the responsible Federal

agency must enter into formal

consultation with the Service. The

single known extant population of

Astragalus pycnostachyus var.

lanosissimus occurs on privately owned

land. While currently there are no direct

Federal authorizations needed for

remediation of the contaminated soils of

the site, Federal involvement could

potentially arise from this situation in

the future.

The listing of Astragalus

pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus as

endangered will provide for the

development of a recovery plan for this

taxon. Such a plan will bring together

Federal, State, and local efforts for the

conservation of this taxon. The plan will

establish a framework for agencies to

coordinate activities and to cooperate

with each other in conservation efforts.

The plan will set recovery priorities and

describe site-specific management

actions necessary to achieve the

conservation of this taxon.

The Act and its implementing

regulations set forth a series of general

prohibitions and exceptions that apply

to all endangered plants. With respect to

Astragalus pycnostachyus var.

lanosissimus, all prohibitions of section

9(a)(2) of the Act, implemented by 50

CFR 17.1 for endangered plants, apply.

These prohibitions, in part, make it

illegal for any person subject to the

jurisdiction of the United States to

import or export, transport in interstate

or foreign commerce in the course of a

commercial activity, sell or offer for sale

in interstate or foreign commerce, or

remove and reduce the species to

possession from areas under Federal

jurisdiction. In addition, for plants

listed as endangered, the Act prohibits

the malicious damage or destruction on

areas under Federal jurisdiction and the

removal, cutting, digging up, or

damaging or destroying of such

endangered plants in knowing violation

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 98 / Monday, May 21, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 27907

of any State law or regulation, including

State criminal trespass law. Certain

exceptions to the prohibitions apply to

agents of the Service and State

conservation agencies.

The Act and 50 CFR 17.62 and 17.63

also provide for the issuance of permits

to carry out otherwise prohibited

activities involving endangered plant

taxa under certain circumstances. Such

permits are available for scientific

purposes and to enhance the

propagation or survival of the species.

Requests for copies of the regulations on

listed species and inquiries about

prohibitions and permits may be

addressed to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Endangered Species Permits,

911 NE 11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon

97232–4181 (503/231–2063, facsimile

503/231–6243).

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 at

the time a species is listed those

activities that would or would not be

likely to constitute a violation of section

9 of the Act. The intent of this policy

is to increase public awareness of the

effect of the listing on proposed and

ongoing activities within the taxon’s

range. Astragalus pycnostachyus var.

lanosissimus is not located on areas

currently 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 constitutes a

violation of section 9 if conducted in

knowing violation of State law or

regulations, or in violation of State

criminal trespass law. Questions

regarding whether specific activities

would constitute a violation of section

9 should be directed to the Field

Supervisor of the Service’s Ventura Fish

and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES

section).

National Environmental Policy Act

The Fish and Wildlife Service has

determined that Environmental

Assessments, 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).

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not contain any new

information collection requirements for

which the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) approval under the

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq., is required. Any

information collection related to the

rule pertaining to permits for

endangered and threatened species has

OMB approval and is assigned clearance

number 1018–0094. This rule does not

alter that information collection

requirement. For additional information

concerning permits and associated

requirements for threatened species, see

50 CFR 17.32.

References Cited

A complete list of all references cited

herein is available upon request from

the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office

(see ADDRESSES section).

Author

The primary authors of this notice are

Diane Steeck and Tim Thomas, U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura Fish

and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES

section).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species,

Exports, Imports, Reporting and record

keeping requirements, Transportation.

Regulation Promulgation

Accordingly, the Service hereby

amends 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. Section 17.12(h) is amended by

adding the following, in alphabetical

order under the families indicated, to

the List of Endangered and Threatened

Plants to read as follows:

§ 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants.

* * * * *

(h) * * *

Species Historic

range Family Status Whenlisted

Critical

habitat

Special

rules Scientific name Common name

FLOWERING PLANTS

*******

Astragalus

pycnostachyus

var. lanosissimus.

Ventura marsh milkvetch.U.S.A. (CA) ............. Fabaceae—Pea ...... E 708 NA NA

*******

27908 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 98 / Monday, May 21, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

Dated: May 14, 2001.

Marshall P. Jones, Jr.,

Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 01–12663 Filed 5–18–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 679

[Docket No. 001108316–1083–02; I.D.

060600B]

RIN 0648–AK50

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic

Zone Off Alaska; Improved Individual

Fishing Quota Program

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: NMFS issues a final rule to

amend regulations implementing the

Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) Program

for the Pacific halibut and sablefish

fixed gear fisheries in and off Alaska.

NMFS has identified parts of the

program that need further refinement or

correction for effective management of

the affected fixed gear fisheries. This

action is intended to effect those

refinements and is necessary to further

the objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens

Fishery Conservation and Management

Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) with

respect to the IFQ fisheries.

DATES: Effective June 20, 2001, except

for the gear type data element of

§§ 679.5(l)(2)(vi) and 679.42 (j)(6),

which are not effective until the Office

of Management and Budget (OMB)

approves the information collection

requirements contained in those

sections. NMFS will announce the

effective date for those sections by

publication in the Federal Register.

Comments on the information

collections must be received by June 20,

2001.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Regulatory

Impact Review/Supplementary Final

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis may be

obtained from Sue Salveson, Assistant

Regional Administrator for Sustainable

Fisheries, Alaska Region, NMFS, Room

453, 709 West 9th Street, Juneau, AK

99801, or P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK

99802, (Attn: Lori J. Gravel). Send

comments on the information

collections to NMFS and to OMB at the

Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs, Office of Management and

Budget, Washington, DC 20503 (Attn:

NOAA Desk Officer).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James Hale, 907–586–7228.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Regulations codified at 50 CFR part

679 implement the IFQ Program, a

limited access system for management

of the Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus

stenolepis) and sablefish (Anoplopoma

fimbria) fixed gear fisheries in and off

Alaska, under the authority of the

Halibut Act with respect to halibut and

the Magnuson-Stevens Act with respect

to sablefish. Further information on the

rationale for and implementation of the

IFQ Program is codified in the final rule

published in the Federal Register,

November 9, 1993 (58 FR 59375).

NMFS’ continuing assessment of the

IFQ Program’s responsiveness to

conservation and management goals for

Pacific halibut and sablefish fisheries

has produced two ‘‘omnibus’’ packages

of IFQ regulatory reforms since the

inception of the program (60 FR 22307,

May 5, 1995; 61 FR 41523, August 9,

1996). This final rule, the third such

‘‘omnibus’’ package of regulatory

changes to the IFQ Program, amends

various portions of the program’s

implementing regulations. These

changes are necessary to promote the

ability of fishermen to conduct IFQ

fishing operations more efficiently, to

enhance NMFS’ ability to administer the

program, and to improve the clarity and

consistency of IFQ Program regulations.

This final rule makes the following

changes to the IFQ regulations: (1) In

§ 679.1 Purpose and scope, adds an

explicit reference to the Halibut Act,

under which regulations in this part

regarding the Pacific halibut fishery

were developed, and in § 679.1(d) revise

‘‘IFQ management plan’’ to read ‘‘IFQ

management measures’’ to prevent any

inference that the IFQ Program is itself

a ‘‘fishery management plan’’ as that

term is used in the Magnuson-Stevens

Act; (2) amends the requirements for

IFQ fishermen participating in openaccess sablefish fisheries in Alaska State

waters; (3) adds nomenclature to reflect

organizational changes in NMFS’

Restricted Access Management (RAM)

program; (4) amends the definition of an

IFQ landing to include vessels that are

removed from the water and put on

trailers; (5) removes the reference to an

‘‘accompanying statement’’ establishing

IFQ balances; (6) adds an exemption for

lingcod fishermen using dinglebar gear

from the IFQ 6-hour prior notice of

landing and 12-hour landing window

requirements; (7) adds gear type to the

information required on a completed

IFQ landing report; (8) amends the

information required for a shipment

report to clarify which registered buyer,

in landings involving multiple

registered buyers, is responsible for

compliance with shipment report

requirements; (9) makes minor

corrections to errors arising from the

consolidation of regulations; (10)

amends the survivorship transfer

provisions to allow the temporary

transfer of a deceased QS holder’s QS

and IFQ to a designated beneficiary and

revise a paragraph on an IFQ leasing

provision that expired in 1998; (11)

amends the limitations on the use of QS

and IFQ to require annual updates on

the status of corporations, partnerships,

and other collective entities holding QS;

(12) amends the submission of appeals

to allow appeals to initial administrative

decisions to be submitted by facsimile

machine; and (13) amends reporting

requirements for consistency with the

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA).

A detailed discussion of each of these

changes may be found in the preamble

to the proposed rule published

December 14, 2000, at 65 FR 78126.

NMFS invited public comment on the

changes contained in this action

through January 16, 2001. No comments

were received, and NMFS publishes this

rule unchanged from the proposed rule.

This rule revises regulations

pertaining to certain IFQ forms and

reports to clarify further the data

required of the public in these

collections of information. Two of the

collections of information contained in

this final rule have not yet been

authorized by OMB pursuant to the

PRA. The pertinent collections of

information are the addition of ‘‘gear

type’’ to information required in a

completed IFQ Landing Report at

§ 679.5 (l)(2) and the addition of a

requirement that a corporation,

partnership, and other collective entity

holding QS submit annual updates on

the status of the collective entity as such

at § 679.42 (j)(5).

Classification

Notwithstanding any other provision

of the law, no person is required to

respond to, nor shall any person be

subject to a penalty for failure to comply

with, a collection of information subject

to the requirements of the Paperwork

Reduction Act (PRA), unless that

collection displays a currently valid

OMB control number.

This final rule contains collection-ofinformation requirements subject to the

PRA and which have been approved by

OMB under OMB control number 0648–

0272. These requirements and their