Crowdog
09-05-2003, 12:43 PM
Efforts by San Diego Off-Road Coalition, American Sand Association,
and Off Road Business Association were key factors in moving this
delisting petition along. It is NOT delisted yet. It is one step
closer.
Please support the organizations that are fighting for your right to dune!
***************************************
Fish and Wildlife Service
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on
Petition To Delist Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii (Peirson's
milk-vetch)
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, make a 90-day
finding for a petition to remove Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii
(Peirson's milk-vetch) from the Federal List of Threatened and
Endangered Wildlife and Plants pursuant to the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). We find that the petition presents
substantial information indicating that delisting this plant may be
warranted. We are initiating a status review to determine if
delisting this species is warranted.
DATES: This finding was made on August 29, 2003. To be considered in
the 12-month finding on this petition, comments and information
should be submitted to us by November 4, 2003.
ADDRESSES: Comments, material, information, or questions concerning
this petition and finding should be sent to the Field Supervisor,
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
6010 Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, CA 92009. The petition and
supporting information are available for public inspection by
appointment during normal business hours at the above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Bartel, Field Supervisor,
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, at the above address (telephone:
760-431-9440).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA)
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that we make a finding on whether a
petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted. To the maximum extent
practicable, this finding is to be made within 90 days of receipt of
the petition, and the finding is to be published promptly in the
Federal Register. If we find substantial information present, we are
required to promptly commence a review of the status of the species
(50 CFR 424.14). ``Substantial information'' is defined in 50 CFR
424.14(b) as ``that amount of information that would lead a
reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the
petition may be warranted.'' Petitioners need not prove that the
petitioned action is warranted to support a ``substantial'' finding;
instead, the key consideration in evaluating a petition for
substantiality involves demonstration of the reliability and adequacy
of the information supporting the action advocated by the petition.
On October 25, 2001, we received a petition to delist Astragalus
magdalenae var. peirsonii (Peirson's milk-vetch) dated October 24,
2001, from David P. Hubbard, Ted J. Griswold, and Philip J. Giacinti,
Jr. of Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch, LLP, that was prepared
for the American Sand Association (ASA), the San Diego Off-Road
Coalition, and the Off-Road Business Association (ASA et al. 2001).
Various supporting documents were submitted with the petition. The
petition (ASA et al. 2001) asserts that the original decision to list
A. magdalenae var. peirsonii was in error, and claims that: (1) The
original listing decision was made without an actual plant count; (2)
the original listing relied on data developed prior to the
implementation of the California Desert Protection Act (CDPA); (3)
the original listing decision relied on field studies that the Bureau
of Land Management (BLM) has since determined were biased and
scientifically unsound; (4) monitoring studies indicate that A.
magdalenae var. peirsonii is abundant and thriving; and (5) plant
counts confirm that the Imperial Sand Dunes support more than 100,000
A. magdalenae var. peirsonii individuals and a healthy seed bank.
On November 6, 2002 we received a 60-day notice of intent to sue
from David P. Hubbard et al., representing the ASA et al, citing our
alleged failure to make the findings on this petition as required by
the ESA. A complaint was executed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California on February 25, 2003. The
plaintiffs (ASA et al.) challenge the Service's failure to make both
the 90-day finding and 12-month finding on petition to delist the
Peirsons's milk-vetch. In August 2003, the Department of Justice
entered into a settlement agreement with ASA et al., requiring us to
make a 90-day finding on this petition by August 29, 2003, and, if
the 90-day finding is that the petition contains substantial
information that delisting Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii may
be warranted, a 12-month finding by May 31, 2004. As part of this
settlement agreement, the petitioners asked that we also accept and
consider the information provided in Phillips and Kennedy (2002) when
making our findings.
The factors for listing, delisting, or reclassifying species are
described at 50 CFR 424.11. We may delist a species only if the best
scientific and commercial data available substantiate that it is
neither endangered nor threatened. Delisting may be warranted as a
result of: (1) Extinction, (2) recovery, or (3) a determination that
the original data used for classification of the species as
endangered or threatened were in error.
Finding
We have reviewed the petition and literature cited in and
provided with the petition and considered it with other information
in our files. We have found that the petition presents substantial
information indicating that delisting Astragalus magdalenae var.
peirsonii may be warranted. The petitioners have suggested that A.
magdalenae var. peirsonii is a species that exists, in many years,
largely as a seed bank, with relatively few standing individuals
above ground. At the time we listed A. magdalenae var. peirsonii as a
threatened species (63 FR 53596), we did not have--and so could not
consider--information about the extent of the seed bank of this
species. Petitioners have provided information suggesting the species
may have a healthy seed bank (Phillips and Kennedy 2002), even though
standing plants are frequently rare. Surveys conducted since we
listed this species in 1998 indicate that, in some years, probably in
response to increased precipitation, the number of standing plants
considerably increases (TOA 2001; Willoughby 2000, 2001). While
significant questions remain about the extent and viability of the
seed bank, and the contribution of the increased numbers of standing
plants in 1998 (Willoughby 2000) and 2001 (TOA 2001) to the seed bank
and the persistence of this species into the future, we consider
these to be issues relevant to the listing determination and
warranting further investigation. Accordingly, we believe it is
appropriate to consider this information, and any other new
information available about this species and the threats it may face,
in a status review.
and Off Road Business Association were key factors in moving this
delisting petition along. It is NOT delisted yet. It is one step
closer.
Please support the organizations that are fighting for your right to dune!
***************************************
Fish and Wildlife Service
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on
Petition To Delist Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii (Peirson's
milk-vetch)
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, make a 90-day
finding for a petition to remove Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii
(Peirson's milk-vetch) from the Federal List of Threatened and
Endangered Wildlife and Plants pursuant to the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). We find that the petition presents
substantial information indicating that delisting this plant may be
warranted. We are initiating a status review to determine if
delisting this species is warranted.
DATES: This finding was made on August 29, 2003. To be considered in
the 12-month finding on this petition, comments and information
should be submitted to us by November 4, 2003.
ADDRESSES: Comments, material, information, or questions concerning
this petition and finding should be sent to the Field Supervisor,
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
6010 Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, CA 92009. The petition and
supporting information are available for public inspection by
appointment during normal business hours at the above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Bartel, Field Supervisor,
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, at the above address (telephone:
760-431-9440).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA)
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that we make a finding on whether a
petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted. To the maximum extent
practicable, this finding is to be made within 90 days of receipt of
the petition, and the finding is to be published promptly in the
Federal Register. If we find substantial information present, we are
required to promptly commence a review of the status of the species
(50 CFR 424.14). ``Substantial information'' is defined in 50 CFR
424.14(b) as ``that amount of information that would lead a
reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the
petition may be warranted.'' Petitioners need not prove that the
petitioned action is warranted to support a ``substantial'' finding;
instead, the key consideration in evaluating a petition for
substantiality involves demonstration of the reliability and adequacy
of the information supporting the action advocated by the petition.
On October 25, 2001, we received a petition to delist Astragalus
magdalenae var. peirsonii (Peirson's milk-vetch) dated October 24,
2001, from David P. Hubbard, Ted J. Griswold, and Philip J. Giacinti,
Jr. of Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch, LLP, that was prepared
for the American Sand Association (ASA), the San Diego Off-Road
Coalition, and the Off-Road Business Association (ASA et al. 2001).
Various supporting documents were submitted with the petition. The
petition (ASA et al. 2001) asserts that the original decision to list
A. magdalenae var. peirsonii was in error, and claims that: (1) The
original listing decision was made without an actual plant count; (2)
the original listing relied on data developed prior to the
implementation of the California Desert Protection Act (CDPA); (3)
the original listing decision relied on field studies that the Bureau
of Land Management (BLM) has since determined were biased and
scientifically unsound; (4) monitoring studies indicate that A.
magdalenae var. peirsonii is abundant and thriving; and (5) plant
counts confirm that the Imperial Sand Dunes support more than 100,000
A. magdalenae var. peirsonii individuals and a healthy seed bank.
On November 6, 2002 we received a 60-day notice of intent to sue
from David P. Hubbard et al., representing the ASA et al, citing our
alleged failure to make the findings on this petition as required by
the ESA. A complaint was executed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California on February 25, 2003. The
plaintiffs (ASA et al.) challenge the Service's failure to make both
the 90-day finding and 12-month finding on petition to delist the
Peirsons's milk-vetch. In August 2003, the Department of Justice
entered into a settlement agreement with ASA et al., requiring us to
make a 90-day finding on this petition by August 29, 2003, and, if
the 90-day finding is that the petition contains substantial
information that delisting Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii may
be warranted, a 12-month finding by May 31, 2004. As part of this
settlement agreement, the petitioners asked that we also accept and
consider the information provided in Phillips and Kennedy (2002) when
making our findings.
The factors for listing, delisting, or reclassifying species are
described at 50 CFR 424.11. We may delist a species only if the best
scientific and commercial data available substantiate that it is
neither endangered nor threatened. Delisting may be warranted as a
result of: (1) Extinction, (2) recovery, or (3) a determination that
the original data used for classification of the species as
endangered or threatened were in error.
Finding
We have reviewed the petition and literature cited in and
provided with the petition and considered it with other information
in our files. We have found that the petition presents substantial
information indicating that delisting Astragalus magdalenae var.
peirsonii may be warranted. The petitioners have suggested that A.
magdalenae var. peirsonii is a species that exists, in many years,
largely as a seed bank, with relatively few standing individuals
above ground. At the time we listed A. magdalenae var. peirsonii as a
threatened species (63 FR 53596), we did not have--and so could not
consider--information about the extent of the seed bank of this
species. Petitioners have provided information suggesting the species
may have a healthy seed bank (Phillips and Kennedy 2002), even though
standing plants are frequently rare. Surveys conducted since we
listed this species in 1998 indicate that, in some years, probably in
response to increased precipitation, the number of standing plants
considerably increases (TOA 2001; Willoughby 2000, 2001). While
significant questions remain about the extent and viability of the
seed bank, and the contribution of the increased numbers of standing
plants in 1998 (Willoughby 2000) and 2001 (TOA 2001) to the seed bank
and the persistence of this species into the future, we consider
these to be issues relevant to the listing determination and
warranting further investigation. Accordingly, we believe it is
appropriate to consider this information, and any other new
information available about this species and the threats it may face,
in a status review.