Federal Register: PROPOSED RULES Endangered and threatened species: [50 CFR Part 17]

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

CFR Citation: 50 CFR Part 17

RIN ID: RIN 1018-AI78

NOTICE: PROPOSED RULES

ACTION: Endangered and threatened species:

DOCUMENT ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUBJECT CATEGORY: Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat for Astragalus jaegerianus (Lane Mountain milk-vetch)

DATES: We will accept comments until June 7, 2004. Public hearing requests must be received by May 21, 2004.

DOCUMENT SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, propose to designate critical habitat pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), for Astragalus jaegerianus (Lane Mountain milkvetch). Approximately 29,522 acres (ac) (11,947 (ha)) of land fall within the boundaries of the proposed critical habitat designation. Proposed critical habitat is located in the Mojave Desert in San Bernardino County, California.

Critical habitat identifies specific areas that are essential to the conservation of a listed species, and that may require special management considerations or protection. If this proposal is made final, section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires that Federal agencies ensure that actions they fund, authorize, or carry out are not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. The regulatory effect of the critical habitat designation does not extend beyond those activities funded, permitted, or carried out by Federal agencies. State or private actions, with no Federal involvement, are not affected.

Section 4 of the Act requires us to consider economic, national security, and other relevant impacts when specifying any particular area as critical habitat. We will conduct an analysis of the economic impacts of designating these areas, in a manner that is consistent with the ruling of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in N.M. Cattle Growers Assn v. USFWS. We hereby solicit data and comments from the public on all aspects of this proposal, including data on economic and other impacts of the designation. We may revise this proposal prior to final designation to incorporate or address new information received during the comment period.

SUMMARY: Critical habitat designations—; Lane Mountain milk-vetch,

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

[[Page 18019]]
Designation of Critical Habitat Provides Little Additional Protection to Species

In 30 years of implementing the Endangered Species Act, the Service has found that the designation of statutory critical habitat provides little additional protection to most listed species, while consuming significant amounts of available conservation resources. The Service's present system for designating critical habitat has evolved since its original statutory prescription into a process that provides little real conservation benefit, is driven by litigation and the courts rather than biology, limits our ability to fully evaluate the science involved, consumes enormous agency resources, and imposes huge social and economic costs. The Service believes that additional agency discretion would allow our focus to return to those actions that provide the greatest benefit to the species most in need of protection. Role of Critical Habitat in Actual Practice of Administering and Implementing the Act

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

We have been inundated with lawsuits for our failure to designate critical habitat, and we face a growing number of lawsuits challenging critical habitat determinations once they are made. These lawsuits have subjected the Service to an everincreasing series of court orders and courtapproved settlement agreements, compliance with which now consumes nearly the entire listing program budget. This leaves the Service with little ability to prioritize its activities to direct scarce listing resources to the listing program actions with the most biologically urgent species conservation needs.

The consequence of the critical habitat litigation activity is that limited listing funds are used to defend active lawsuits, to respond to Notices of Intent (NOIs) to sue relative to critical habitat, and to comply with the growing number of adverse court orders. As a result, listing petition responses, the Service's own proposals to list critically imperiled species, and final listing determinations on existing proposals are all significantly delayed.

The accelerated schedules of court ordered designations have left the Service with almost no ability to provide for adequate public participation or to ensure a defectfree rulemaking process before making decisions on listing and critical habitat proposals due to the risks associated with noncompliance with judiciallyimposed deadlines. This in turn fosters a second round of litigation in which those who fear adverse impacts from critical habitat designations challenge those designations. The cycle of litigation appears endless, is very expensive, and in the final analysis provides relatively little additional protection to listed species.

The costs resulting from the designation include legal costs, the cost of preparation and publication of the designation, the analysis of the economic effects and the cost of requesting and responding to public comment, and in some cases the costs of compliance with NEPA, all are part of the cost of critical habitat designation. None of these costs result in any benefit to the species that is not already afforded by the protections of the Act enumerated earlier, and they directly reduce the funds available for direct and tangible conservation actions.

Public Comments Solicited

We intend any final action resulting from this proposal to be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested party concerning this proposed rule are hereby solicited. Comments particularly are sought concerning:
(1) The reasons why any habitat should or should not be determined to be critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Act, including whether the benefit of designation will outweigh any threats to the species due to designation, specifically, any lands being considered under a conservation plan;
(2) With specific reference to the recent amendments to sections 4(b)(2) of the Act, we request information regarding impacts to national security associated with proposed designation of critical habitat;
(3) Specific information on the amount and distribution of Astragalus jaegerianus habitat, and what habitat is essential to the conservation of the species and why;
(4) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat; (5) Any foreseeable economic or other potential impacts resulting from the proposed designationin particular, any impacts on small entities; and
(6) Whether our approach to designating critical habitat could be improved or modified in any way to provide for greater public participation and understanding, or to assist us in accommodating public concerns and comments.

If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposal by any one of several methods (see ADDRESSES section). In the event that our internet connection is not functional, please submit your comments by the alternate methods mentioned above. Please submit Internet comments in ASCII file format and avoid the use of special characters or any form of encryption. Please also include ``Attn: [RIN 1018AI78]'' in your email subject header and your name and return address in the body of your message. If you do not receive a confirmation from the system that we have received your Internet message, contact us directly by calling our Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office at phone number 8056441766. Please note that the Internet address ``FW1Lanemv@r1.fws.gov'' will be closed out at the termination of the public comment period.

Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home addresses from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which we would withhold from the rulemaking record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or [[Page 18020]]
address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety. Comments and materials received will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above address.

Background

We listed Astragalus jaegerianus (Lane Mountain milkvetch) as threatened on October 6, 1998 (63 FR 53596) due to threats of increasing habitat loss and degradation. It is our intent, in this proposed rule, to reiterate and discuss only those topics directly relevant to the development and designation of critical habitat or relevant information obtained since the final listing. Please refer to our final listing rule for a more detailed discussion of the plant's taxonomic history and physical description.

Astragalus jaegerianus (Lane Mountain milkvetch) is a member of the pea family (Fabaceae) that is restricted in its range to a portion of the west Mojave Desert that is north of Barstow, in San Bernardino County, California. The plant overwinters as a taproot. The stems often grow in a zigzag pattern, usually up through low bushes, referred to in this proposed rule as host shrubs.

This species can be considered a hemicryptophyte (partially hidden), because it is usually often found growing within the canopy of a host shrub. Like other species of Astragalus, the roots of A. jaegerianus contain nodules that fix nitrogen. Gibson et al. (1998) postulate that A. jaegerianus may have a mutually beneficial relationship with the host shrub, wherein the host shrub provides trellislike support for A. jaegerianus, and benefits from higher levels of soil nitrogen derived from the litter and roots of A. jaegerianus.

Presumably, as with other perennial species in the Mojave Desert, the plant begins regrowth in the late fall or winter, once sufficient soil moisture is available. Individuals go dormant in the late spring or summer when soil moisture has been depleted (Bagley 1999). Blooming typically occurs in April and May. However, if climatic conditions are unfavorable, the plants may dessicate prior to flowering or setting seed. Therefore, substantial contributions to the seedbank may occur primarily in climatically favorable years.

Production of pods and the number of seeds per pod can be highly variable, both in the field and in greenhouse conditions. Seed pods can contain as many as 18 seeds, but more typically 4 to 14 seeds (Sharifi et al. 2003). In the field, seeds that do not germinate during the subsequent year become part of the seed bank. Seed germination rates in the field may resemble the low germination rate of 5 percent that is observed in germination trials of unscarified (outer cover is broken) seed (Sharifi in litt. 2004).

Seeds collected from Astragalus jaegerianus range in size from 1.5 to over 5.0 milligrams in weight (Sharifi in litt. 2003). The relatively large size of these seed compared to many desert annual species would make them an attractive food source to ants and other large insects, small mammals, and birds (Brown et al. 1979). These animal species would also be the most likely vectors to disperse A. jaegerianus seeds within and between populations. Sharifi (pers. comm. 2004) confirmed the presence of A. jaegerianus seeds within native ant coppices.

Limited observations on Astragalus jaegerianus pollinators were carried out in 2003 (Kearns 2003). Observations were made on two plants in one population for seven days. Although 30 different insect species were observed visiting flowers in the area, only 4 visited A. jaegerianus flowers. The most frequent pollinator was Anthidium dammersi, a solitary bee in the megachilid family (Megachilidae). Anthidium dammersi occurs in the Mojave and Colorado deserts of California, Nevada, and Arizona (Kearns 2003), and will fly up to 0.6 mi (1 km) away from their nest; although if floral resources are abundant, they will decrease their flight distances accordingly (Doug Yanega, University of California Riverside, pers. comm. 2003). Kearns (2003) found that the Anthidium individuals he inspected carried pollen primarily from phacelia (Phacelia distans) (82 percent of individuals) and Astragalus jaegerianus (64 percent). The three occasional visitors to A. jaegerianus were a hover fly (Eupeodes volucris), a large anthophrid bee (Anthophora sp.), and the whitelined sphinx moth (Hyles lineata). The extent to which Astragalus jaegerianus relies on these and other pollinators to achieve seed set is not yet known. However, in a greenhouse experiment, 25 percent of pollinated A. jaegerianus flowers set seed, while only 5 percent of nonpollinated flowers set seed (Sharifi pers. comm. 2004).

Although the aboveground portion of the plant dies back each year, individuals of Astragalus jaegerianus persist as a perennial rootstock through the dry season. The perennial rootstock may also allow Astragalus jaegerianus to survive occasional dry years, while longer periods of drought might be endured by remaining dormant (Beatley in Bagley 1999). In another federally listed species, Osterhout milkvetch (Astragalus osterhoutii), which occurs in sagebrush steppe habitat in Colorado, individuals have remained dormant for up to 4 years (Dawson in litt. 1999).

Although a substantial Astragalus jaegerianus seedbank most likely exists, establishment of new individuals may not occur with great frequency, and may pose a large bottleneck for the continued persistence of the species. In addition to the low seed germination rates discussed earlier, several other observations contribute to this theory. First, we have some indication that individuals may have a long life span; in one longterm plot, individuals have been tracked for a period of 13 years. Out of a total of 9 individuals, 1 has persisted over a period of 13 years, 1 has persisted 12 years, 1 has persisted 10 years, 1 has persisted 6 years, 1 has persisted 5 years, and 2 have persisted 3 years (Rutherford in litt. 2004). Secondly, very few seedlings have been observed. During the extensive surveys of 2001, approximately 2 percent of the 4,964 individuals observed were thought to be seedlings (Charis 2002). However, the actual number of seedlings may have been even lower, because resprouts from established individuals were most likely mistaken for seedlings (Sharifi pers. comm. 2004). Because the population of Astragalus jaegerianus in any given year is comprised primarily of established individuals, maintaining the seed bank ensures that the populations are replenished with new individuals.

After the early collections in 1939 and 1941, the plant was not collected again until it was rediscovered in 1985 at the sites referred to as Brinkman Wash, Montana Mine, and Paradise Wash. Throughout the 1990s, hundreds more plants were located in these areas (Lee and Ro Consulting Engineers 1986, Brandt et al. 1993, Prigge 2000a) in surveys sponsored by the Department of the Army's (Army) National Training Center at Fort Irwin (NTC). Surveys in 1999 established that the Brinkman WashMontana Mine site supports one large continuous population (Prigge et al. 2000a). In 1992, the third and southernmost population was found 9 mi (14 km) to the south, on Coolgardie Mesa, a few miles west of Lane
[[Page 18021]]
Mountain; this site closely approximates the type locality.

Extensive surveys funded by the Army were conducted in 2001 (Charis 2002). The 2001 surveys contributed greatly to our knowledge of the overall distribution and abundance of Astragalus jaegerianus in the three populations. In addition, a fourth population was located during these surveys on NTC lands in an area referred to as Goldstone. Approximately 20 percent of this population is on lands leased by the Army to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for tracking facilities. Much of the most recent information included in this proposed rule is taken from the Army survey report (Charis 2002).

Individuals of Astragalus jaegerianus are concentrated in four geographically distinct areas. In this rule, a population refers to a concentration of Astragalus individuals, a population site refers to the land that supports the population, and a unit refers to specific sites that are being considered for critical habitat designation. The four populations of A. jaegerianus are arrayed more or less linearly along a 20milelong axis that trends in a northeasterlyto
southwesterly direction. The names of the four populations, from northeast to southwest, and land ownership are as followsthe Goldstone population occurs on NTC, lands including a portion leased to NASA; the Brinkman WashMontana Mine population occurs entirely on NTC lands; the Paradise Wash population occurs primarily on Army lands, with a small portion of the remaining population occurring on Bureau lands intermixed with private lands along the southwestern fringe of the population; the Coolgardie population occurs primarily on Bureau managed lands, with a number of small privately owned parcels scattered within.

Based on the information available, including historic records and current location information, there is nothing to suggest that Astragalus jaegerianus was ever more widespread than currently known. The Army surveys in 2001 (Charis 2002) included reconnaissance surveys on habitat that appeared suitable but outside the known range of A. jaegerianus, including the Mount General area near Barstow and in the Alvord Mountains 20 mi (32 km) to the east. In addition, since 1996, rare plant surveys have been conducted on the Naval Air Weapons Station at China Lake 6 miles (4.8 km) to the northwest of the known distribution (Charis 2002; Silverman in litt. 2003). None of these other surveys have resulted in the location of any other populations.

Astragalus jaegerianus is most frequently found on shallow soils derived from Jurassic or Cretaceous granitic bedrock. A small portion of the individuals located to date occur on soils derived from diorite or gabbroid bedrock (Charis 2002). In one location on the west side of the Coolgardie site, plants were found on granitic soils overlain by scattered rhyolitic cobble, gravel, and sand. Soils tend to be shallower immediately adjacent to milkvetch plants than in the surrounding landscape; at the Montana Mine site, rotten, highly weathered granite bedrock was reached within 2 in (6 cm) of the soil surface near A. jaegerianus plants (Fahnestock 1999). The topography where A. jaegerianus most frequently occurs is on low ridges and rocky low hills where bedrock is exposed at or near the surface and the soils are coarse or sandy (Prigge 2000b; Charis 2002). Most of the individuals found to date occur between 3,100 and 4,200 feet (ft) (945 to 1,280 meters (m)) in elevation (Charis 2002). At lowerlying elevations, the alluvial soils appear to be too fine to support A. jaegerianus, and at higher elevations the soils may not be developed enough to support A. jaegerianus (Prigge 2000b; Charis 2002).

Prigge (pers. comm. 2003) examined and found no relationship between the abundance and distribution of Astragalus jaegerianus and levels of micronutrients or heavy metals, such as selenium, in the soil. Another focus of pending research will be on measuring transpiration rates and gas exchange rates for A. jaegerianus; these rates would be an indicator as to whether the taproots of A. jaegerianus are tapping into a water source stored within fractured granite bedrock, thus allowing it to utilize water not available to other plants within the community (Prigge et al. 2002).

At the landscape level, the plant community within which Astragalus jaegerianus occurs can be described as Mojave mixed woody scrub (Holland 1998), Mojave creosote bush scrub (Holland 1988; Cheatham and Haller 1975; Thorne 1976), or creosote bush series (Sawyer and Keeler Wolf 1995). These broad descriptions, however, are lacking in detail that is useful in describing the communities where A. jaegerianus is found. While creosote bush (Larrea tridentata) is present in the landscape, its presence and abundance is not as extensive in the specific areas where A. jaegerianus occurs, presumably because these soils are shallower than optimal depth for creosote bush.

Data gathered from the four sites that support Astragalus jaegerianus populations have been more useful in describing the plant community that A. jaegerianus grows in. Common to all four sites is the remarkably high diversity of desert shrub species, while the relative frequency of these species varies slightly from site to site. The shrub species that occur in the highest densities at A. jaegerianus sites include turpentine bush (Thamnosma montana), white bursage (Ambrosia dumosa), Mormon tea (Ephedra nevadensis), Cooper goldenbush (Ericameria cooperi var. cooperi), California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum var. polifolium), brittlebush (Encelia farinosa or E. actoni), desert aster (Xylorrhiza tortifolia), goldenheads (Acamptopappus
spherocephalus), spiny hopsage (Grayia spinosa), cheesebush (Hymenoclea salsola), winter fat (Kraschenninikovia lanata), and paper bag bush (Salazaria mexicana).

Astragalus jaegerianus utilizes a variety of species as host shrubs. Individuals of A. jaegerianus are rarely observed on bare ground, and more frequently within dead shrubs, leading to speculation that the milkvetch may have outlived its host shrub. Host shrubs may also be important in providing appropriate microhabitat conditions for A. jaegerianus seed germination and seedling establishment (Charis 2003).

At the BrinkmanMontana Mine site, Prigge et al. (2000b) showed that the difference between host shrub preference by Astragalus jaegerianus and the frequency with which these shrubs occurred in the plant community was statistically significant, indicating that some shrubs are more suitable as hosts than others. During Army surveys in 2001, host shrubs were noted for 4,899 individuals of A. jaegerianus. Six shrub species (Thamnosma montana, Ambrosia dumosa, Eriogonum fasciculatum var. polifolium, Ericameria cooperi var. cooperi, Ephedra nevadensis) and dead shrubs accounted for 75 percent of the host shrub records.

The cumulative total number of Astragalus jaegerianus individuals found from all surveys to date is approximately 5,800 (Charis 2002). Charis (2002) attempted to extrapolate the total number of individuals by factoring in the amount of intervening suitable habitat between transects in confirmed occupied habitat, along with an
``observability'' factor ranging from 30 percent to 70 percent; this results in estimations of the total number of individuals ranging from 20,524 to 47,890. The actual number of individuals observed during the surveys
[[Page 18022]]
at the four population sites during the climatically favorable year of 2001 are as followsGoldstone, 555; Brinkman WashMontana Mine, 1,487; Paradise Wash, 1,667; Coolgardie, 2,014 (Charis 2002). Low numbers of individuals observed in prior and subsequent years (2000, 2002, and 2003) suggest that this species may well follow the pattern of other perennial desert species that rely on favorable climatic conditions that do not occur with any predictable frequency (Beatley 1974, Kearns 2003; B. Prigge, pers. comm. 2003).

The longterm viability of Astragalus jaegerianus depends on numerous variables, including life history characteristics (e.g., longevity), population characteristics (e.g., rates of recruitment and mortality), and carrying capacity of the habitat. The need to maintain highquality habitat for A. jaegerianus is important to its longterm persistence. Aside from the sandy granidiorite soils and the mixed desert scrub community which have been described in the previous sections, we believe that the other characteristics important to ensure the maintenance of the ecologic processes within A. jaegerianus habitat include habitat of sufficient size and quality to maintain pollinators; and habitat of sufficient size and quality to maintain seed dispersal mechanisms.

At the time Astragalus jaegerianus was listed as endangered in 1998, threats to the species included dry wash mining, recreational offhighway vehicle use, military maneuvers on Army lands at NTC and NTC expansion lands, and the lack of regulatory mechanisms that would offer formal protection for the species or its habitat. Stochastic extinction (extinction from random natural events) is also a concern, and could result from such events as flooding (that could wash substantial amounts of the seedbank into unsuitable habitat), prolonged drought (that could reduce the abundance of viable seed in the seed bank), or unforeseen events including wildfire, wildfire suppression activities, or pipeline breaks or repairs.

Since the final rule was published, new information concerning the status of Astragalus jaegerianus and the nature of its threats is available. The 2001 surveys have provided better information on the distribution of the species. The extent of the three populations that were previously known has been greatly expanded, and the fourth population (Goldstone) was discovered during these surveys. Also, the size of the populations as represented by the number of individuals that can be observed in a favorable climatic year is now known to be larger than was thought at the time of listing. In addition, a substantial change occurred in land managementon January 11, 2002, President George W. Bush signed the Fort Irwin Military Lands Withdrawal Act of 2001 (Pub. L. 107107) into law. This legislation withdrew approximately 110,000 ac (44,516 ha) of land, formerly managed by the Bureau, for military use. Subsequent surveys and geographic information system (GIS) analysis indicated that the proposed expansion area covers 118,674 ac (48,026 ha). Military use of the withdrawn lands will not begin until compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and a consultation pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the Act with the Service have been completed.

Two of the four populations of Astragalus jaegerianus (Brinkman WashMontana Mine, Paradise Wash populations) occur almost entirely on withdrawn lands within the NTC expansion. The Army is proposing to establish two conservation areas for A. jaegerianus. The first conservation area will comprise 2,470 ac (1,000 ha) at the Goldstone site. The second conservation area, referred to as Paradise Valley Conservation Area, will comprise 4,302 ac (1,741 ha) along the southwestern boundary of NTC. Therefore, all of one and a portion of a second population of the three populations on NTC lands are in areas that will be placed in conservation areas.

Finally, since the early 1990s, the Bureau has acted as the lead agency in developing the West Mojave Plan (WMP); the planning area for this multiagency effort covers 9,360,000 ac (3,787,900 ha) of the western Mojave Desert. These lands include approximately 3,300,000 ac (1,335,477 ha) of lands administered by the Bureau, 3,000,000 ac (1,214,070 ha) of private lands, and 102,000 ac (41,278 ha) of State lands. The remaining lands lie within areas administered by the Department of Defense and National Park Service; these agencies are not formally part of the WMP. The draft environmental impact report/ statement (EIR/S) for the WMP was published in May 2003. As part of the Bureau's preferred alternative, they propose to establish two conservation areas for Astragalus jaegerianus. The first conservation area, referred to as the West Paradise Conservation Area, will comprise 1,243 ac (503 ha), and will be contiguous with the Army's Paradise Valley Conservation Area along the southwestern boundary of NTC. This area is currently designated as landuse class L by the Bureau, which denotes limited use. The second is the Coolgardie Mesa Conservation Area (CMCA); it will comprise approximately 13,354 ac (5,404 ha) at the Coolgardie site. This area is currently designated as landuse class M by the Bureau, which denotes moderate use. Both conservation areas would be managed to maintain habitat for A. jaegerianus with the following proposed management prescriptions: Implement a minerals withdrawal, require a 5 to 1 mitigation ratio for landdisturbing projects, and limit total ground disturbance to 1 percent. Once the WMP is finalized, the County of San Bernardino will be the lead entity in preparing a draft Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) that will address conservation measures that will be proposed for private lands within the area covered by the WMP.

The Bureau has also recently completed a consultation with the Service for a route designation project in the western Mojave Desert area. The project includes a proposal to reduce the number of roads within the proposed CMCA that are designated as open to travel; other roads will be proposed for closure and restoration (Service 2003a).

The impacts from military activities within the boundaries of NTC on Astragalus jaegerianus and its habitat will vary, depending on the type of terrain and the level and frequency of use. The Army (Charis 2003) anticipates the following types of impactsindividuals of A. jaegerianus could be killed or damaged through direct contact with wheeled and tracked vehicles, construction, digging and earthmoving activities, temporary bivouacs, helicopter landings, the movement of soldiers on foot, and other activities in the project area. Habitat for A. jaegerianus could be affected by substantially reducing or eliminating host plants within the project area, soil erosion and compaction, and the loss of cryptobiotic soil crusts that help stabilize the soil surface and assist with water transport to plant roots. Army (Charis 2003) anticipates that in ``highintensity'' use areas, up to 100 percent of individuals and habitat could be lost; in ``moderateintensity'' use areas, up to 60 percent of individuals could be lost; in ``lowintensity'' use areas, up to 20 percent of individuals and habitat could be lost; and in proposed conservation areas, the only loss of individuals or habitat expected to occur is from straying military vehicles or personnel. Windblown dust that has been loosened from the soil surface due to military activities may also affect A. jaegerianus by inhibiting photosynthesis and transpiration in individuals, altering suitable germination sites, and altering [[Page 18023]]
the effectiveness of pollinator visits and of seed dispersal by wildlife species.

Other nonmilitary activities may also occur within NTC. Recently, a fiberoptic cable was installed through the Goldstone population. Although the installation consisted of trenching through Astragalus jaegerianus habitat, no individuals were affected (Service 2003b). Other activities not related to military training, such as road construction or maintenance activities, may be also be proposed in the future by the Army.

Previous Federal Action

The final rule listing A. jaegerianus as an endangered species was published on October 6, 1998 (63 FR 53596).

On November 15, 2001, our decision not to designate critical habitat for Astragalus jaegerianus and seven other plant and wildlife species was challenged in Southwest Center for Biological Diversity and California Native Plant Society v. Norton (Case No. 01CV2101IEG (S.D.Cal.). On July 1, 2002, the court ordered the Service to reconsider its not prudent determination, and propose critical habitat, if prudent, for the species by September 15, 2003, and a final critical habitat designation, if prudent, no later than September 15, 2004. However, the Service exhausted the funding appropriated by Congress to work on critical habitat designations in 2003 prior to completing the proposed rule. On September 8, 2003, the court issued an order extending the publication date of the proposed critical habitat designation for A. jaegerianus to April 1, 2004, and the final designation to April 1, 2005. In light of Natural Resources Defense Council v. U.S. Department of the Interior, 113 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 1997), and the diminished threat of overcollection, the Service has reconsidered its decision and has determined that it is prudent to designate critical habitat for the species.

Critical Habitat

Section 3(5)(A) of the Act defines critical habitat as(i) the specific areas within the geographic area occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species and (II) that may require special management considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the geographic area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. ``Conservation'' means the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring an endangered or a threatened species to the point at which listing under the Act is no longer necessary.

The designation of critical habitat does not affect land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other conservation area. It does not allow government or public access to private lands. Under section 7 of the Act, Federal agencies must consult with us on activities they undertake, fund, or permit that may affect critical habitat and lead to its destruction or adverse modification. However, the Act prohibits unauthorized take of listed species and requires consultation for activities that may affect them, including habitat alterations, regardless of whether critical habitat has been designated. We have found that the designation of critical habitat provides little additional protection to most listed species.

To be included in a critical habitat designation, habitat must be either a specific area within the geographic area occupied by the species on which are found those physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species (primary constituent elements, as defined at 50 CFR 424.12(b)) and which may require special management considerations or protections, or be specific areas outside of the geographic area occupied by the species which are determined to be essential to the conservation of the species. Section 3(5)(C) of the Act states that not all areas that can be occupied by a species should be designated as critical habitat unless the Secretary determines that all such areas are essential to the conservation of the species. Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(e)) also state that, ``The Secretary shall designate as critical habitat areas outside the geographic area presently occupied by the species only when a designation limited to its present range would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species.''

Regulations at 50 CFR 424.02(j) define special management considerations or protection to mean any methods or procedures useful in protecting the physical and biological features of the environment for the conservation of listed species. When we designate critical habitat, we may not have the information necessary to identify all areas that are essential for the conservation of the species. Nevertheless, we are required to designate those areas we consider to be essential, using the best information available to us. Accordingly, we do not designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographic area occupied by the species unless the best available scientific and commercial data demonstrate that those areas are essential for the conservation needs of the species.

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we take into consideration the economic impact, the impact on national security, and any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. We may exclude areas from critical habitat designation when the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of including the areas within critical habitat, provided the exclusion will not result in extinction of the species.

Our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act, published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271), provides criteria, establishes procedures, and provides guidance to ensure that our decisions represent the best scientific and commercial data available. It requires our biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of the best scientific and commercial data available, to use primary and original sources of information as the basis for recommendations to designate critical habitat. When determining which areas are critical habitat, a primary source of information should be the listing package for the species. Additional information may be obtained from a recovery plan, articles in peer reviewed journals, conservation plans developed by States and counties or other entities that develop HCPs, scientific status surveys and studies, biological assessments, or other unpublished materials and expert opinion or personal knowledge.

Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on the basis of what we know at the time of designation. Habitat is often dynamic, and species may move from one area to another over time. Furthermore, we recognize that designation of critical habitat may not include all of the habitat areas that may eventually be determined to be necessary for the recovery of the species. For these reasons, critical habitat designations do not signal that habitat outside the designation is unimportant or may not be required for recovery.

Areas that support populations, but are outside the critical habitat designation, will continue to be subject to conservation actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act and to the regulatory protections afforded by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy standard, as determined on the basis of the best available information at the time of the action. Federally funded or permitted
[[Page 18024]]
projects affecting listed species outside their designated critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some cases. Similarly, critical habitat designations made on the basis of the best available information at the time of designation will not control the direction and substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans, or other species conservation planning efforts if new information available to these planning efforts calls for a different outcome.

Relationships to Sections 3(5)(A) and 4(b)(2) of the Act

Section 3(5)(A) of the Act defines critical habitat as the specific areas within the geographic area occupied by the species on which are found those physical and biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may require special management considerations or protection. As such, for an area to be designated as critical habitat for a species it must meet both provisions of the definition. In those cases where an area does not provide those physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the species, it has been our policy not to include them in designated critical habitat. Likewise, if we believe that an area determined to be biologically essential has an adequate conservation management plan that covers the species and provides for adaptive management sufficient to conserve the species, then special management and protection are not needed. Therefore, these areas do not meet the second provision of the definition and are also not proposed as critical habitat. Examples of conservation management plans that we consider when designating critical habitat include Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) for nonmilitary areas.

Further, section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that critical habitat shall be designated, and revised on the basis of the best scientific data available after taking into consideration the economic impact, the impact on national security, and any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. An area may be excluded from critical habitat if it is determined, following an analysis, that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying a particular area as critical habitat, unless the failure to designate such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the species. Consequently, we may exclude an area from designated critical habitat based on economic impacts, or other relevant impacts such as preservation of conservation partnerships and national security.

In our critical habitat designations we have used both the provisions outlined in sections 3(5)(A) and 4(b)(2) of the Act to evaluate those specific areas proposed for designation as critical habitat and those areas which are subsequently finalized (i.e., designated). We have applied the provisions of these sections of the Act to lands essential to the conservation of the subject species to evaluate and either exclude from final critical habitat or not include in proposed critical habitat. Lands in which we have either excluded from or not included in critical habitat based on those provisions include those covered by: (1) Legally operative HCPs that cover the species, and provide assurances that the conservation measures for the species will be implemented and effective; (2) draft HCPs that cover the species, have undergone public review and comment, and provide assurances that the conservation measures for the species will be implemented and effective (i.e., pending HCPs); (3) Tribal conservation plans that cover the species and provide assurances that the conservation measures for the species will be implemented and effective; (4) State conservation plans that provide assurances that the conservation measures for the species will be implemented and effective; and (5) Fish and Wildlife Service Comprehensive Conservation Plans that provide assurances that the conservation measures for the species will be implemented and effective.

As discussed above, the Bureau is leading the development of the WMP; the WMP includes the federal action of amending the Bureau's California Desert Conservation Area Plan and the development of a habitat conservation plan for nonfederal lands within the planning area. Conservation of A. jaegerianus is a key factor that is being considered in the development of the WMP. We have been providing technical assistance to the Bureau to ensure that the WMP provides for protection and management of habitat essential for the conservation of this species. In addition, the Bureau's proposed amendments to the California Desert Conservation Area Plan will be subject to consultation under section 7 of the Act. As part of the WMP, the Bureau is proposing to establish the Coolgardie Mesa and West Paradise Conservation Areas, to implement management actions that will contribute toward the conservation of the species, and to modify current activities within these areas so that such activities will not impair the conservation of the species. The County of San Bernardino is the lead agency for preparing the specific portion of the habitat conservation plan that would be in effect for this portion of the planning area. The habitat conservation plan may not contain specific measures to conserve A. jaegerianus on private lands; however, both components of the WMP target these lands for acquisition and subsequent management for the conservation of the species. We will conduct an economic analysis that includes potential economic effects of the actions proposed in the WMP, and we will consider the results of the economic analysis and the adequacy of the WMP in the conservation of A. jaegerianus in our final critical habitat determination.

The Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (Sikes Act) requires each military installation that includes land and water suitable for the conservation and management of natural resources to complete, by November 17, 2001, an Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP). An INRMP integrates implementation of the military mission of the installation with stewardship of the natural resources found there. Each INRMP includes an assessment of the ecological needs on the installation, including the need to provide for the conservation of listed species; a statement of goals and priorities; a detailed description of management actions to be implemented to provide for these ecological needs; and a monitoring and adaptive management plan. We consult with the military on the development and implementation of INRMPs for installations with listed species.

Section 318 of the fiscal year 2004 National Defense Authorization Act (Pub. L. 108136) amended the Act to address the relationship of INRMPs to critical habitat. We are proposing to designate Army lands on NTC as critical habitat for Astragalus jaegerianus. Although NTC has an INRMP in place, it does not address A. jaegerianus and it does not include the withdrawn lands where much of the critical habitat for A. jaegerianus is located. The Army is amending its existing INRMP to address the conservation of A. jaegerianus throughout its lands, including the expansion area. However, we cannot exclude Army lands from this proposed critical habitat designation under this amendment to the Act because the amended INRMP has not been completed and we have not had the opportunity to determine if the INRMP provides a benefit to A. jaegerianus. We will consider the INRMP if it is completed prior to our final designation
[[Page 18025]]
of critical habitat, or at a later date, if the Service has sufficient funding to undertake a proposed withdrawal of critical habitat.

Military lands may also be excluded from critical habitat designation based on section 4(b)(2) of the Act. As discussed above, an area may be excluded from critical habitat if it is determined, following an analysis of relevant impacts including the impact to national security, that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying a particular area as critical habitat, unless the failure to designate such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the species. Currently, the Army had proposed a combination of conservation measures and military training over A. jaegerianus sites. When we conduct the 4(b)(2) analysis prior to finalizing this designation, we will fully consider the final plans for the expansion areas, the economic analysis, and any comments received from the Army on this proposal.

Methods

As required by the Act and regulations (section 4(b)(2) and 50 CFR 424.12) we used the best scientific information available to determine areas that contain the physical and biological features that are essential for the survival and recovery of Astragalus jaegerianus. This information included data from our files that we used for listing the species; geologic maps (California Geologic Survey 1953), recent biological surveys and reports, particularly from the Army surveys of 2001 (Charis 2002); additional information provided by the Army, the Bureau of Land Management, and other interested parties; and discussions with botanical experts. We also conducted multiple site visits to all three units that are being proposed for designation.

The longterm probability of the survival and recovery of Astragalus jaegerianus is dependent upon the protection of existing population sites, and the maintenance of ecologic functions within these sites, including connectivity within and between populations within close geographic proximity to facilitate pollinator activity and seed dispersal mechanisms, and the ability to maintain these areas free of major grounddisturbing activities. The areas we are proposing to designate as critical habitat provide some or all of the habitat components essential for the conservation of A. jaegerianus.

In our delineation of the critical habitat units, we selected areas to provide for the conservation of Astragalus jaegerianus at the four sites where it is known to occur. All four sites are essential because, as cited earlier, Astragalus jaegerianus exhibits life history attributes, including variable seed production, low germination rates, and habitat specificity in the form of a dependence on a cooccurring organism (host shrubs), that make it particularly vulnerable to extinction (Keith 1998, Gilpin and Soule 1986). We believe the proposed designation is of sufficient size to maintain landscape scale processes and to minimize the secondary impacts resulting from human occupancy and human activities occurring in adjacent areas. We mapped the units with a degree of precision commensurate with the available information, the size of the unit, and the time allotted to complete this proposal. We anticipate that the boundaries of the three mapping units may be refined based on additional information received during the public comment period.

Of principle importance in the process of delineating the proposed critical habitat units are data in a geographic information system (GIS) format provided by the Army depicting the results of field surveys for Astragalus jaegerianus conducted in 2001 by the Army (Charis 2002). These data consisted of three files depicting the locations of transects that were surveyed for A. jaegerianus, the locations of A. jaegerianus individuals found during the surveys, and minimum convex polygons (MCP) calculated to represent the outer bounds of A. jaegerianus populations (Charis 2002).

For mapping proposed critical habitat units, we proceeded through a multistep process. First, we started with the MCPs that had been calculated by the Army (Charis 2002). We then expanded these boundaries outward from the edge of each of the 4 populations by a distance of 0.25 mi (0.4 km). We did this to include Astragalus jaergerianus individuals that are part of these essential populations, but were not noted during surveys. The basis for determining that these additional land areas are occupied are as follows: (1) This habitat has the appropriate elevational range, and includes the Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) (See Primary Constituent Elements section below), i.e. granitic soils, and plant communities that support host plants that A. jagerianus requires; (2) Botanists involved in the Army surveys stated that ``the estimate of [A. jagerianus] distribution is a minimum'' (SAIC 2003); and that additional individuals of A. jaegerianus most likely occurred on the fringes of the MCPs. (Wertenberger in litt. 2003); (3) mapping errors during the 2001 surveys indicated that the location of individuals did not match up precisely with the location of the transect boundaries (Charis 2002); (4) limited surveys were conducted in 2003, and despite the unfavorable climatic conditions for A. jaegerianus, 13 additional individuals were located outside the MCPs (SAIC 2003). Three of the four areas where new plants were found were within the 0.25 mi (0.4 km) boundary; and (5) this 0.25 mi (0.4 km) distance is commensurate in scale with the distance between transects where individuals were found and the distance between individuals along one transect, and it is well within the distance that can be traversed by pollinators and seed dispersers.

We next removed areas on the margins of the critical habitat units where we determined, by referring to digital raster graphic maps, the topography is either too steep or the elevation too high to support additional Astragalus jaegerianus individuals. This boundary modification involved editing the eastern and southeastern edge of the Coolgardie Unit and a cirqueshaped sliver from the central portion of the southern boundary of the GoldstoneBrinkman Unit.

For the Goldstone and BrinkmanMontana populations, expansion of the MCP boundaries by 0.25 mi (0.4 km) left a narrow corridor (about 0.125 mi (0.2 km)) between the revised population boundaries. We chose to bridge the gap between the two populations by incorporating the intervening habitat that is within the geographic area occupied by the species between the Goldstone and BrinkmanMontana populations and occupied as seed banks into a single critical habitat unit. We did this for several reasons: the intervening habitat between the two MCPs contains the PCEs with the appropriate elevational range, granitic soils, and plant communities (based on topographic maps, geologic maps, and aerial photos) that Astragalus jaegerianus requires, there were no obvious geographic barriers between the two MCPs; the distance between the two closest A. jaegerianus individuals across the gap of the two MCPs was smaller than the distance between individuals within the MCPs; and the distance between the two MCPs was small enough that it could be easily traversed by a pollinator with a potential flight distance of 0.6 mi (1 km), or a seed disperser such as certain small mammals and birds. These granitic soils and plant community also provide habitat for the pollinators that visit A. jaegerianus flowers that results in the production of seed, habitat for seed
[[Page 18026]]
dispersers (birds, small mammals, and large insects) that carry seed between the coppices of suitable host shrubs, and as longterm storage for the soil seedbank of A. jaegerianus.

For the Paradise population, we removed a small portion of habitat (47 ac (19 ha)) from the eastern edge of the MCP (5,497 ac (2,225 ha)), thereby eliminating a small cluster of three individuals and the surrounding suitable habitat from the proposed critical habitat unit. We did this for two reasons: the distance between this small cluster of three individuals and the other 1,487 individuals mapped within the MCP was greater than the distance between other clusters of individuals within the MCP, and this cluster of individuals was not adjacent to, or providing connectivity to, any other known population of A. jaegerianus.

Finally, the boundaries of the critical habitat units were modified slightly in the process of creating the legal descriptions of the critical habitat units. This process consisted of overlaying the critical habitat units with grid lines spaced at 100m intervals; the grid lines following the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinate system ties to the North American Datum of 1927. Vertices defining the critical habitat boundary polygon were then moved to the closest vertex on the 100m UTM grid lying inside of the critical habitat boundary. Vertices not necessary to define the shape of the boundary polygon were deleted. Changing the boundaries in this fashion serves two purposes: (1) It creates a list of coordinates that is easier for the public to use when looking at USGS 7.5 minute topographic maps and, (2) it minimizes the number of coordinates necessary to define the shapes of the critical habitat units.

In selecting areas of proposed critical habitat, we typically make an effort to avoid developed areas, such as roads and buildings at NASA's Goldstone facilities, and that are unlikely to contribute to the conservation of Astragalus jaegerianus. However, we did not map critical habitat in sufficient detail to exclude patches of habitat within the larger areas being mapped that are unlikely to contain the primary constituent elements essential for the conservation of A. jaegerianus. Land within the boundaries of the mapped units upon which are located facilities, such as buildings, roads, parking lots, communication tower pads, and other paved areas, does not and will not contain any of the primary constituent elements. In addition, old mining sites where the soil profile and topography have been so altered that no native vegetation can grow also do not and will not contain any of the primary constituent elements. Federal actions limited to these areas, therefore, would not trigger a section 7 consultation, unless they affect the species and/or primary constituent elements in adjacent critical habitat.

Primary Constituent Elements

In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas to propose as critical habitat, we consider those physical and biological features (primary constituent elements) that are essential to the conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations or protection. These include, but are not limited to space for individual and population growth, and for normal behavior; food, water, air, light, minerals or other nutritional or physiological requirements; cover or shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing of offspring, germination, or seed dispersal; and habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historic geographical and ecological distributions of a species.

Much of what is known about the specific physical and biological requirements of Astragalus jaegerianus is described in the Background section of this proposal and in the final listing rule. The proposed critical habitat is designed to provide sufficient habitat to maintain selfsustaining populations of Astragalus jaegerianus throughout its range and to provide those habitat components essential for the conservation of the species. These habitat components provide for: (1) Individual and population growth, including sites for germination, pollination, reproduction, pollen and seed dispersal, and seed bank; (2) sites for the host plants that provide structural support for A. jaegerianus; (3) intervening areas that allow gene flow and provide connectivity or linkage within segments of the larger population; and (4) areas that provide basic requirements for growth, such as water, light, and minerals.

The conservation of Astragalus jaegerianus is dependent upon a number of factors, including the protection and management of existing population sites and habitat and the maintenance of normal ecological functions within these sites, including connectivity between groups of plants within close geographic proximity to facilitate gene flow among the sites by pollinator activity and dispersal of seeds. Some of the factors associated with the observed and potential distribution of this species include the following: A portion of seeds will likely germinate if germination requirements of scarification and moisture are met within a germination time frame for the species; germination patterns likely reflect the distribution of the seed bank in the soils; and distribution patterns of standing plants may, in large part, reflect the distribution pattern of requisite climatic conditions for a particular year, while in other areas, standing plants may not be visible but persist as dormant taproots for a number of years. Including habitat surrounding the known populations outward for a distance of 0.25 mi (0.4 km) would ensure inclusion of most of the population.

Based on our knowledge to date, the primary constituent elements of critical habitat for Astragalus jaegerianus consist of:
(1) Shallow soils (between 3,100 and 4,200 ft (945 to 1,280 m) in elevation) derived primarily from Jurassic or Cretaceous granitic bedrock, and less frequently on soils derived from diorite or gabbroid bedrock and at one location on granitic soils overlain by scattered rhyolitic cobble, gravel, and sand.
(2) The host shrubs (between 3,100 and 4,200 ft (945 to 1,280 m) in elevation) within which Astragalus jaegerianus grows, most notably Thamnosma montana, Ambrosia dumosa, Eriogonum fasciculatum ssp. polifolium, Ericameria cooperi var. cooperi, Ephedra nevadensis, and Salazaria mexicana that are usually found in mixed desert shrub communities.

We selected critical habitat areas to provide for the conservation of Astragalus jaegerianus at the only four sites where they are known to occur. We are not proposing any critical habitat units that do not contain plants.

Special Management Considerations

Within the geographic area occupied by the species, for an area to be designated as critical habitat it must contain those physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species that may require special management considerations or protection. The GoldstoneBrinkman unit may require special management considerations or protection due to the threats to the species and its habitat posed by invasions of nonnative plants such as Sahara mustard (Brassica tournefortii) that may take over habitat for the species; habitat fragmentation that detrimentally affects planthost plant (composition and structure of the desert scrub community) and plant
[[Page 18027]]
pollinator interactions, leading to a decline in species reproduction and increasing susceptibility to nonnative plant invasion; and vehicles that cause direct and indirect impacts, such as excessive dust, to the plant. Habitat for Astragalus jaegerianus in the GoldstoneBrinkman unit has been fragmented to a minor extent. We anticipate that in the future, habitat fragmentation will increase, that changes in composition and structure of the plant community may be altered by the spread of nonnative plants, and that the direct and indirect effects of dust may increase. All of these threats would render the habitat less suitable for A. jaegerianus, and special management may be needed to address them. At this time, special management considerations under 3(5)(a) of the Act do warrant proposing this unit as critical habitat, but if circumstances change these areas may be designated in the final rule.

The Paradise unit may require special management considerations or protection due to the threats to the species and its habitat posed by invasions of nonnative plants such as Sahara mustard (Brassica tournefortii) that may take over habitat for the species; habitat fragmentation that detrimentally affects planthost plant (composition and structure of the desert scrub community) and plantpollinator interactions, leading to a decline in species reproduction and increasing susceptibility to nonnative plant invasion; vehicles that cause direct and indirect impacts, such as excessive dust, to the plant. Habitat for Astragalus jaegerianus in the Paradise unit has been fragmented to a minor extent. We anticipate that in the future, habitat fragmentation may increase, that changes in composition and structure of the plant community may be altered by the spread of nonnative plants, and that the direct and indirect effects of dust may increase. All of these threats would render the habitat less suitable for A. jaegerianus, and special management may be needed to address them. At this time, special management considerations under 3(5)(a) of the Act do warrant proposing this unit as critical habitat, but if circumstances change these areas may be designated in the final rule.

The Coolgardie unit may require special management considerations or protection due to the threats to the species and its habitat posed by invasions of nonnative plants such as Sahara mustard (Brassica tournefortii) that may take over habitat for the species; habitat fragmentation that detrimentally affects planthost plant (composition and structure of the desert scrub community) and plantpollinator interactions, leading to a decline in species reproduction and increasing susceptibility to nonnative plant invasion; vehicles that cause direct and indirect impacts, such as excessive dust, to the plant; and limited mining activities that can lead to changes in essential habitat conditions (e.g., decreases in plant cover, and increases in nonnative species). Habitat for Astragalus jaegerianus in the Coolgardie unit has been fragmented to a moderate extent from current and historical mining and from offroad vehicle use, and non native species have been introduced into the area. We anticipate that in the future, habitat fragmentation may increase, and that changes in composition and structure of the plant community may be altered by the continued spread of nonnative plants. All of these threats would render the habitat less suitable for A. jaegerianus, and special management may be needed to address them. At this time, special management considerations under 3(5)(a) of the Act do warrant proposing this unit as critical habitat, but if circumstances change these areas may be designated in the final rule.

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation

The proposed critical habitat areas described below constitute our best assessment at this time of the areas needed for the species' conservation. The three areas being proposed as critical habitat are all within an area that is north of the town of Barstow in the Mojave Desert in San Bernardino County, California, are currently occupied, and contain the primary constituent elements that sustain the Astragalus jaegerianus.

The following general areas are propos

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Connie Rutherford, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2493 Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, CA 93003 (telephone (805) 6441766; facsimile (805) 6443958).