[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 30 (Wednesday, February 14, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6998-7005]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-2445]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on 
A Petition to List Astragalus debequaeus (DeBeque milkvetch) as 
Threatened or Endangered

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition finding.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 
90-day finding on a petition to list Astragalus debequaeus (DeBeque 
milkvetch) as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act 
of 1973, as amended (Act). We find that the petition does not present 
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that 
listing A. debequaeus may be warranted. Therefore, we will not be 
initiating a further status review in response to this petition. We ask 
the public to submit to us any new information that becomes available 
concerning the status of A. debequaeus or threats to its habitat at any 
time. This information will help us monitor and encourage the 
conservation of the species.

DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on February 14, 
2007. You may submit new information concerning this species for our 
consideration at any time.

ADDRESSES: The complete supporting file for this finding is available 
for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at 
the Western Colorado Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 764 
Horizon Drive, Building B, Grand Junction, CO 81506. Submit new 
information, materials, comments, or questions concerning this species 
to us at the address above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Allan R. Pfister, Field Supervisor, 
Western Colorado Field Office (see ADDRESSES section) (telephone 970-
243-2778, extension 29; facsimile 970-245-6933). Persons who use a 
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal 
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act 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. We are to base this finding on 
information provided in the petition, supporting information submitted 
with the petition, and information otherwise available in our files at 
the time we make the determination. To the maximum extent practicable, 
we are to make this finding within 90 days of our receipt of the 
petition and publish our notice of this finding promptly in the Federal 
Register.
    Our standard for substantial information within the Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90-day petition finding is ``that 
amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe 
that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted'' (50 CFR 
424.14(b)). If we find that substantial information was presented, we 
are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the 
species.
    In making this finding, we rely on information provided by the 
petitioner and evaluate that information in accordance with 50 CFR 
424.14(b). Our 90-day finding process under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the 
Act and section 424.14(b) of our regulations is limited to a 
determination of whether the information in the petition meets the 
``substantial information'' threshold. A substantial finding should be 
made when the Service deems that adequate and reliable information has 
been presented that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the 
petitioned action may be warranted.
    On October 26, 2004, we received a formal petition, dated October 
25, 2004, submitted by the Center for Native Ecosystems and the 
Colorado Native Plant Society (2004), requesting that we list 
Astragalus debequaeus as threatened or endangered, and designate 
critical habitat concurrently. The petition identified itself as such 
and included the requisite identification information for the 
petitioners, as required in 50 CFR 424.14(a). We acknowledged receipt 
of the petition in a January 20, 2005, letter to Mr. Joshua Pollock. In 
that letter, we advised the

[[Page 6999]]

petitioners that due to prior listing allocations in Fiscal Year 2005, 
we would not be able to begin processing the petition, and that 
emergency listing of A. debequaeus was not warranted. Delays in 
responding to the petition continued due to the high priority of 
responding to court orders and settlement agreements.
    On October 20, 2005, petitioners sent a 60-day notice of intent to 
sue for failure to grant emergency listing status to Astragalus 
debequaeus, to make a 90-day finding, and to make a 12-month finding. 
On June 8, 2006, petitioners filed suit to force the Service to make 
the ``overdue'' finding. On July 17, 2006, a settlement agreement was 
proposed by the Service with dates for the 90-day finding submittal 
being February 9, 2007, and, if the petition was found to be 
substantial, we would send a 12-month finding to the Federal Register 
by October 12, 2007. These dates were agreed upon in a settlement filed 
on August 10, 2006, and approved on August 15, 2006.

General Biology and Listable Entity Evaluation

    Astragalus debequaeus is a member of the Fabaceae (Pea) family. 
Plants are clump-forming perennials 2 to 10 decimeters (8 to 39 inches 
(in.)) in diameter with a woody taproot; stems 14 to 30 centimeters 
(cm) (5.5 to 12 in.) long, curving upward; compound leaves 2 to 10 cm 
(0.8 to 4 in.) long with 13 to 21 glabrous, flat or somewhat folded 
leaflets. Flowers are white, upright, and 17 to 21 millimeters (mm) 
(0.6 to 0.8 in.) long. Pods are ascending, 15 to 23 mm (0.5 to 1 in.) 
long, 6 to 11 mm (0.2 to 0.4 in.) thick, and inflated with minute rough 
hairs that become smooth with age (Welsh 1985, p. 31).
    Astragalus debequaeus has only been identified as a separate 
taxonomic entity for about 20 years, which represents about two 
generations (Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) 2005, p. 60). The 
species was discovered and described as a new species in 1984 by Dr. 
Stanley Welsh of Brigham Young University. Astragalus debequaeus is 
recognized as a species in the Colorado Rare Plant Field Guide 
(Spackman et al. 1997b, p. 7); Integrated Taxonomic Information System 
(2007); NatureServe (2006); and Weber and Wittmann (1992, pp. 3, 42; 
2001, p. 181).
    Astragalus debequaeus plants are found on the fine-textured, sandy 
clay soils of the Atwell Gulch Member of the Wasatch Formation that are 
relatively barren, varicolored, seleniferous, and saline (Welsh 1985, 
p. 31). The habitat is found between 1,508 and 1,981 meters (4,970 and 
6,500 feet) elevation in Mesa and Garfield Counties, Colorado. The 
species is known from 17 occurrences that occupy about 573 hectares 
(1,417 acres) (CNHP 2006, pp. 1-2). Fourteen of the occurrences are 
near the town of DeBeque, Colorado, in Mesa County. The Bureau of Land 
Management (BLM) Grand Junction Field Office (GJFO) manages 12 of these 
occurrences, 2 of which include small portions of private land. The 
other two occurrences near DeBeque, Colorado are located on private 
lands. There are three occurrences of A. debequaeus located in Garfield 
County at the base of the Roan Plateau near the town of Rifle. Two of 
these occurrences are primarily on BLM lands but include small portions 
of private land, while the other one is privately owned. The total 
estimated number of plants at all seventeen occurrences is at least 
64,617 (CNHP 2006, p. 2; Lincoln and Bridgman 2006, p. 1). Table 1 
outlines the known populations, estimated number of plants and area 
occupied, land ownership, and overall habitat quality as ranked by 
CNHP.

      Table 1.--Astragalus debequaeus Population Information (CNHP 2005; Lincoln and Bridgman 2006, p. 1).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Acres  (hectares) *                       Quality  * *
        Occurence location           Number of plants*             *              Land ownership          *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shire Gulch......................  8 to 10.............  1 (0.4).............  Private............            D
Pyramid Rock.....................  thousands...........  300 to 392 (121 to    BLM GJFO...........            A
                                                          158).
Pyramid View.....................  > 1,000.............  8 (3.2).............  BLM GJFO...........            A
Coon Hollow......................  > 50,000............  352 (142)...........  BLM GJFO...........            A
Sulphur Gulch....................  300 to thousands....  1 to 55 (0.4 to 22).  BLM GJFO...........            A
Sulphur Gulch Bottomland * * * *.  >50.................  >30 (12)............  BLM GSFO...........             C
Corcoran Wash....................  500.................  8 to 80 (3.2 to 32).  BLM GJFO...........            A
Anvil Points.....................  >700................  97 (39).............  BLM GSFO/Private...           AB
Little Horsethief Creek..........  20..................  1 (0.4).............  BLM GJFO...........             C
DeBeque Cutoff...................  710 to thousands....  36 to 317 (14.5 to    BLM GJFO/Private...            A
                                                          128).
Plateau Valley...................  12 to 50............  1 to 15 (0.4 to 6)..  BLM GJFO/Private...             C
Atwell Gulch.....................  4,478 * * * * *.....  >16 (6.5) * * * * *.  BLM GJFO...........           AB
South Dry Fork...................  1,000...............  15 (6)..............  BLM GJFO/Private...            A
Horsethief Creek.................  100.................  3 to 11 (1.2 to 4.4)  BLM GJFO/Private...            B
King Creek * * * *...............  3...................  1 (0.4).............  Private............            D
Lockhart Draw * * * *............  1 to 5..............  1 (0.4).............  BLM GJFO...........            D
JQS Trail * * * *................  70 to 100...........  1 to 15 (0.4 to 6)..  BLM GSFO/Private...             C
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Numbers of plants are estimates.
* * Acres and hectares are estimates. When a range of acres or hectares is presented, the first number
  represents the observed occupied area and the second number represents the mapped area of continuous habitat.
* * * Quality is an overall quality ranking assigned by CNHP where an ``A'' represents ``excellent'' quality,
  ``B'' represents ``good'' quality, ``C'' represents ``fair'' quality overall, and a ``D'' represents ``poor''
  quality. Intermediates are represented with multiple letters.
* * * * New occurrence added to the CNHP database in 2005.
* * * * * Lincoln and Bridgman (2006, p. 1) provided population estimate and area estimates for new additions to
  Atwell Gulch.

    NatureServe and the CNHP rank the species as G2/S2, indicating that 
it is imperiled both globally and within Colorado due to extreme rarity 
(6 to 20 occurrences) and/or because of other factors demonstrably 
making it vulnerable to extinction throughout its range.

Previous Federal Actions

    Astragalus debequaeus was listed as a Category 2 (C2) candidate for 
listing in 1993 (58 FR 51144, September 30,

[[Page 7000]]

1993). In the February 28, 1996, Notice of Review (61 FR 7595), we 
discontinued the use of multiple candidate categories and considered 
only the former Category 1 candidates for listing purposes. Because the 
species did not meet the threshold of the definition of a C1 species, 
A. debequaeus was removed from the candidate list at that time. The 
species is managed as a Sensitive Species by BLM, as designated by the 
BLM State Director, with special management consideration. The BLM 
Manual 6840 provides policy direction that BLM sensitive plant species 
are to be managed as if they were candidate species for Federal listing 
so that they do not become listed, while also fulfilling other Federal 
law mandates.

Threats Analysis

    Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 424) 
set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal List of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. 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) of the Act: (A) 
present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its 
habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, 
scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) 
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or 
manmade factors affecting its continued existence. In making this 
finding, we evaluated whether threats to the Astragalus debequaeus 
presented in the petition and other information available in our files 
at the time of the petition review may pose a concern with respect to 
the A. debequaeus survival. Our evaluation of these threats is 
presented below under the most appropriate listing factor.

A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment 
of its Habitat or Range

    The petitioners state that substantial threats to the species' 
habitat are presented by--(1) traditional oil and gas development, (2) 
oil-shale mining, (3) coalbed methane development and/or coal mining, 
(4) noxious weeds and seeding, (5) existing and projected roads, (6) 
livestock trampling, (7) off-road vehicle (ORV) use, and (8) increased 
housing development. We address each of these topics individually 
below.
    Information Provided in the Petition Regarding Traditional Oil and 
Gas Development--Oil and gas resources and development are extensive 
within the range of Astragalus debequaeus. The species is endemic to 
the Atwell Gulch Member of the Wasatch Formation substrate, which 
overlays deposits of oil and gas in the Piceance Basin that BLM has 
leased for energy development. The following table summarizes 
information provided in the petition regarding activities within the 
leases and the sections where plants occur. Occurrences listed in this 
table are not necessarily the same as those shown in the previous table 
due to different occurrence criteria protocols used by CNHP in 2004 
versus 2006.

 Table 2.--Summary Information Provided in the Petition Regarding Activities Within the Leases and the Sections Where Astragalus debequaeus Plants Occur
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Number of leases \1\    Applications  Applications
                              --------------------------  for permit    for permit
     Occurence location *                                 to drill in   to drill in      Pipelines          Roads             ORV            Grazing
                                 Old \2\      New \3\      the lease    the section
                                                           area \4\         \5\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pyramid Rock.................            4           11            20            10  multiple........  multiple.......  90% open.......  open
Corcoran Wash................  ...........            1  ............  ............  ................  ...............  open...........  open
South Dry Fork...............            3            2  ............  ............  1                 1                open...........  open
Sulphur Gulch................            2  ...........             2  ............  1                 1                open...........  open
DeBeque South................            2            3             2             3  3                 1                open...........  open
Atwell Gulch.................  ...........            1             2  ............  ................  multiple.......  open...........  open
Jerry Gulch..................            1            2  ............  ............  ................  ...............  open...........  open
Anvil Points.................            3            1            27            31  ................  ...............  open...........  open
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Occurrences listed in this table are not the same as those shown in the previous table due to different occurrence criteria protocols used by CNHP
  in 2004 versus 2006. Another discrepancy originates from the fact that four additional occurrences were documented in 2005 after this information was
  obtained by the petitioners from the CNHP.
\2\ Leases granted prior to standard stipulations being included in lease notices.
\3\ Leases with, at least, standard stipulations allowing avoidance up to 200 meters. Some of these stipulations also control surface use.
\4\ Applications for permit to drill in the lease area as of 2004.
\5\ Applications for permit to drill in the section (approximately 640 acres (2.6 km2)) where plants occur as of 2004.

    Analysis of Information Provided in the Petition and Information 
Available to Us at the Time of Petition Review--We cannot find support 
for the petitioners' claim that the high density of oil and gas 
infrastructure causes direct and indirect impacts to Astragalus 
debequaeus. The petitioners cite two instances in which ``a sizable 
number'' and ``a dozen or so'' sensitive plants (no species named) were 
destroyed during construction of two well pads (BLM GSFO 1999a, pp. 4-
33, 34). The BLM GSFO is aware of only one instance where A. debequaeus 
was directly impacted. The BLM permitted the loss of three plants 
within a proposed disturbance area for an access road (Scheck 2006a). 
The Service has information on only one additional instance, in the BLM 
GJFO management area, where four plants were lost during construction 
of a pipeline and 12 plants were transplanted (Alward 2006).
    The petition provides general information regarding the extent of 
oil and gas leasing and potential development in the BLM GSFO and GJFO 
management areas within the range of Astragalus debequaeus. It does not 
present specific information that this development has resulted in 
losses or threatens to result in losses of plants or habitat. Much of 
the information in the petition identifies potential threats and 
hypothetical impacts rather than actual impacts.
    On the basis of our evaluation of the information presented in the 
petition, it is our determination that the petition does not present 
substantial information to indicate that listing of Astragalus 
debequaeus may be warranted due to the present or threatened 
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range due 
to oil and gas development.

[[Page 7001]]

    Information Provided in the Petition Regarding Oil Shale 
Development--Petitioners state that oil-shale mining continues to 
become a more concrete threat that would devastate Astragalus 
debequaeus. They cite the previous mining activity that could resume 
given sufficient economic incentive, and the conditional oil-shale 
water rights permits that are still held by three oil companies in 
Garfield and Mesa Counties, Colorado.
    Analysis of Information Provided in the Petition and Information 
Available to Us at the Time of Petition Review--New oil-shale research 
leases currently being considered by the BLM in Colorado would be 
located in the Piceance Basin in Rio Blanco County, outside of the 
range for Astragalus debequaeus (BLM 2006, p. 1). Potential future 
expansion of the research leases to commercial production would occur 
in the same area, also outside of the species' range. Oil-shale 
reserves are found in the Green River Shale formation. A. debequaeus is 
found in the Wasatch formation. The two formations are exposed in close 
proximity to each other in some areas in Garfield County, Colorado, but 
we have no information in our files to indicate that historical oil-
shale mining in this area is likely to resume in the foreseeable 
future. Petitioners do not provide evidence that incentives are likely 
to increase.
    Renewal of water rights associated with oil-shale development does 
not suggest imminent or foreseeable destruction of habitat. In February 
2006, Mesa County granted an oil company an extension of a conceptual 
conditional use permit for a water diversion system in the DeBeque 
area, but no proposed plan of development was submitted (Mesa County 
2006, p. 1-2). While indirect or cumulative impacts may result if large 
water storage projects or other facilities are constructed in the 
DeBeque area (Scheck 2006a), the petitioners did not provide specific 
information, nor does the Service have information to indicate that 
water projects are likely to be developed within the range of this 
species in the foreseeable future.
    Due to the lack of overlap between the range of Astragalus 
debequaeus and areas considered for new oil-shale development, we have 
determined that the information in the petition is incorrect and 
therefore is not substantial with respect to a threat to the species 
from oil shale development or associated indirect impacts. On the basis 
of our evaluation of the information presented in the petition, it is 
our determination that the petition does not present substantial 
information to indicate that listing of A. debequaeus may be warranted 
due to the present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range due to oil-shale development.
    Information Provided in the Petition Regarding Coalbed Methane 
Development--The petitioners assert that coalbed methane development 
and coal mining may constitute threats to Astragalus debequaeus due to 
the resources present and the processes for extraction. Petitioners 
state that 30 coalbed methane wells have been drilled on South Shale 
Ridge in the vicinity of an A. debequaeus site, and 10 more have been 
permitted but not drilled.
    Analysis of Information Provided in the Petition and Information 
Available to Us at the Time of Petition Review--Petitioners provide no 
information to substantiate the claim that coalbed methane development 
or coal mining are impacting, or are likely to impact, Astragalus 
debequaeus occurrences. On site surveys by the BLM GJFO have not 
documented any A. debequaeus plants within active or permitted coalbed 
methane development areas and have not identified any potential threats 
to the species from these activities (Trappett 2005). On the basis of 
our evaluation of the information presented in the petition, it is our 
determination that the petition does not present substantial 
information to indicate that listing of A. debequaeus may be warranted 
due to the present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range due to coalbed methane or coal 
development.
    Information Provided in the Petition Regarding Noxious Weeds--
Petitioners state that noxious weeds and seeding pose threats to 
Astragalus debequaeus. The petition gives three examples of cheatgrass 
(Bromus tectorum) invasions documented at A. debequaeus occurrences.
    Analysis of Information Provided in the Petition and Information 
Available to Us at the Time of Petition Review--The petitioners' 
description of weed and introduced seed interactions with rare plants 
in general is accurate and applicable to Astragalus debequaeus habitat 
after disturbance. Three examples are given of cheatgrass invasions 
documented at A. debequaeus occurrences. Two of the sites, Pyramid View 
and Pyramid Rock/Pyramid Ridge, are ranked by CNHP as ``A'' (excellent) 
for ``quality'' even though the cheatgrass downgraded the ``condition'' 
of the habitat to a ``B'' (good). At the third occurrence at Horsethief 
Creek the ``quality'' is ranked ``B'' although the site is given a 
``C'' (fair) for ``condition'' due to cheatgrass and the roadside 
location. A. debequaeus plants at this site are large (114 cm/45 in.) 
and seedlings are present (CNHP 2005, pp. 36-37). While cheatgrass is 
nearly ubiquitous in the western United States, it does not necessarily 
dominate perennial plants or prevent seedling establishment.
    In the BLM GSFO management area, cheatgrass has been noted as a 
component of the vegetative community at all Anvil Points occurrences 
that have been visited in the past 4 years. Based on observations 
during these surveys, it does not appear that the Anvil Points 
occurrences are dominated by cheatgrass or other noxious weeds, and the 
Astragalus debequaeus populations do not appear to be suppressed by the 
presence of cheatgrass at the current levels (Scheck 2006a).
    On the basis of a review of the information in the petition, it is 
our determination that the petition does not contain substantial 
information to indicate that cheatgrass and other noxious weeds or 
seeds are a threat to Astragalus debequaeous. Despite the presence of 
cheatgrass in some locations where A. debequaeous occurs, cheatgrass 
does not appear to suppress A. debequaeus (Scheck 2006a). We have 
concluded that a slight downgrade in habitat quality at a few locations 
does not constitute a threat to the species. Neither the petitioners, 
nor our files, provide information on the extent or magnitude of 
noxious weed invasion to indicate that listing A. debequaeus may be 
warranted due to the present or threatened destruction, modification, 
or curtailment of A. debequaeus' habitat or range.
    Information Provided in the Petition Regarding Roads--The 
petitioners state that existing and projected roads pose significant 
threats to Astragalus debequaeus. They cite the general proximity of 
roads to existing populations and the predicted increase in road 
networks that accompany oil and gas development as significant threats. 
They base this claim upon assertions of soil compaction, fine particle 
deposition on the plants, alterations in hydrologic flow above the 
plants, spread of invasive plants, increased ORV access and use, 
destabilization of the slopes where the plants are found, the limiting 
of plant dispersal, and damage to the plants during road maintenance 
and repairs.
    Analysis of Information Provided in the Petition and Information 
Available to Us at the Time of Petition Review--In the BLM GSFO 
management area, several of the Anvil Points

[[Page 7002]]

suboccurrences are within 0.40 kilometer (0.25 mile) of a road. Scheck 
(2006a) indicates that road disturbance in the form of destabilization 
of slopes, dust deposition and corridors for weed dispersal likely 
results in impacts to Astragalus debequaeus. However, there is no 
substantial information to suggest the magnitude of these impacts and 
whether they pose a threat to the species. None of the known 
occurrences are located on slopes below the roads, so there have been 
no impacts from sedimentation or changes in runoff patterns. Road 
maintenance and repair has contributed to the loss of a few individuals 
that are sloughing off the cut banks above the road (Scheck 2006a). 
However, sloughing at this site seems to be an isolated impact 
involving only a few plants. Although oil and gas development on BLM 
lands would include access roads, the BLM would evaluate proposed roads 
during project planning and they would be subject to applicable 
stipulations, including possible road relocation (BLM GSFO 1999a, p. 
13). These measures should help to ensure that no substantial impacts 
result from road construction.
    It appears that the information provided in the petition addressed 
impacts to the species in only a few localized areas and does not speak 
to the magnitude or severity of impacts to the species. Further, the 
petitioners do not provide information on the extent or magnitude of 
existing and future roads and how road use, maintenance, or development 
may affect the species. On the basis of our evaluation of the 
information presented in the petition, it is our determination that the 
petition does not present substantial information to indicate that 
listing Astragalus debequaeus may be warranted due to the present or 
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of A. debequaeus' 
habitat or range due to road development.
    Information Provided in the Petition Regarding Livestock--
Petitioners state that livestock pose a threat to Astragalus 
debequaeus, primarily through trampling, but also discuss secondary 
issues including the introduction of noxious weeds and other invasive 
plants as well as direct grazing. According to the petition, livestock 
pose a threat to the species because all known A. debequaeus 
occurrences are within BLM grazing allotments. They cite the Atwell 
Gulch occurrence in the Heely allotment, BLM GJFO management area, 
where over 20 percent of the total number of plants was heavily 
trampled in 1997. The petitioners found this compelling in that only 50 
percent of plants were located in areas accessible to cattle. At the 
Pyramid Rock occurrence in the BLM GJFO management area, one occurrence 
was reported by CNHP to be somewhat overgrazed, with much cheatgrass, 
which petitioners cite as an indication that cattle were introducing 
noxious weeds. Petitioners state that as of 2004 there were no other 
available reports on the grazing status within any allotments.
    Analysis of Information Provided in the Petition and Information 
Available to Us at the Time of Petition Review--Based on a review of 
information in our files, we have determined the information contained 
in the petition regarding the threat to Astragalus debequaeus from 
livestock impacts may not be accurate.
    The GJFO BLM manages the Heely grazing allotment, which lies within 
the Atwell Gulch occurrence of Astragalus debequaeus. These occurrences 
were surveyed in 1996 and 2006. In both surveys, trampling of 
individual plants by cattle was observed; however, the total estimated 
number of plants appeared to have increased by 610 plants at previously 
known locations, and 6 newly recorded sites, with an estimated 3,361 
plants, were discovered. The BLM renewed the grazing lease in 2006 for 
only 3 years to allow for the collection of additional data before 
issuing a grazing decision, during which time it will continue to 
monitor the plants (Lincoln and Bridgman 2006, p. 5).
    In the BLM GJFO management area, the Pyramid Rock occurrence was 
ranked ``AB'' in 1996 (Spackman et al. 1997a, figure 11) and ``A'' in 
2000 (CNHP 2005, p. 46). Because the quality of the site has improved 
and its subsequent CNHP ranking, we do not agree with the petitioner's 
claim that overgrazing is a threat at this site.
    In the BLM GSFO management area, only one grazing allotment 
contains known populations of the species. The BLM GSFO completed a 
grazing permit renewal Environmental Assessment for Webster Park 
allotment in the Anvil Points occurrence of Astragalus debequaeus that 
included a discussion of grazing impacts (or lack thereof) on the 
plants. The BLM stated that ``there are several known populations of 
the BLM Sensitive plant, A. debequaeus, in the lower unit of the 
Webster Park allotment and in the adjacent Sharrard Park allotment. 
Monitoring of these populations in 2002 and 2003 found little evidence 
of livestock grazing or trampling. The reissuance of the grazing 
permit, as proposed, should have no effect on this plant species'' 
(Scheck 2006a).
    The resilience of these plants over 10 years at Atwell Gulch and 19 
years at Pyramid Rock indicates that the response of Astragalus 
debequaeus to grazing impacts under current management does not pose a 
significant threat to the species. The magnitude of grazing in known 
occupied A. debequaeus habitat is minor, and where it occurs, does not 
seem to be impacting the long-term viability of the species at the 
site.
    On the basis of our evaluation of the information on the extent or 
magnitude of livestock impacts contained in the petition, it is our 
determination that the petition does not present substantial 
information to indicate that listing Astragalus debequaeus may be 
warranted due to the present or threatened destruction, modification, 
or curtailment of A. debequaeus' habitat or range.
    Information Provided in the Petition Regarding Off-Road Vehicle 
(ORV) Use--The petitioners state that ORV use poses a significant 
threat and has been documented at an Astragalus debequaeus site. 
Petitioners state that ORV use is allowed in most areas where A. 
debequaeus is found, and that it is documented at the Area of Critical 
Environmental Concern (ACEC), which is closed to motorized vehicles. 
The petitioners also expect that increased ORV use will accompany 
increased access provided by new roads for oil and gas development.
    Analysis of Information Provided in the Petition and Information 
Available to Us at the Time of Petition Review--The petition does not 
contain reliable information concerning the threat to Astragalus 
debequaeus from ORV use. While ORV use is allowed in most areas of BLM 
land where A. debequaeus is found, ORV tracks are documented only at 
the Pyramid Rock ACEC, which is closed to motorized vehicles. The BLM 
GSFO reports no ORV impacts to the Anvil Points populations, because 
legal public access to these sites is blocked by private land.
    On the basis of our evaluation of information on the extent or 
magnitude of ORV use contained in the petition, it is our determination 
that the petition does not present substantial information to indicate 
that listing Astragalus debequaeus may be warranted due to the present 
or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of A. 
debequaeus' habitat or range. Our information indicates that the 
magnitude of ORV use in known occupied A. debequaeus areas is minor.
    Information Provided in the Petition Regarding Residential 
Development--The petitioners assert that increased

[[Page 7003]]

housing development threatens Astragalus debequaeus. Petitioners cite 
the 1997 CNHP report that listed increased housing development between 
Rifle and Grand Junction as a threat to the habitat for the species 
(Spackman et al. 1997a, pp. 5, 44).
    Analysis of Information Provided in the Petition and Information 
Available to Us at the Time of Petition Review--The petition provides 
no estimates of current or projected housing development within the 
habitat for Astragalus debequaeus to indicate that it represents a 
threat to the species. While housing development is known to be 
increasing within the range of this species, the potential direct 
impact of housing development on A. debequaeus is limited to the 
occurrences that are at least partly on private land. Information on 
the portion of occupied area and number of plants present on the 
private portion of these parcels is not available. However, private 
lands contribute only a small portion of the known occurrences of A. 
debequaeus. Even if all private lands were lost, the vast majority of 
occurrences and individuals would remain on BLM lands (see Table 1) not 
subject to residential development. On the basis of our evaluation of 
information on the extent or magnitude of residential development 
contained in the petition, it is our determination that the petition 
does not present substantial information to indicate that listing A. 
debequaeus may be warranted due to the present or threatened 
destruction, modification, or curtailment of A. debequaeus' habitat or 
range.

B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

    The petitioners did not provide information regarding the 
overutilization of this Astragalus debequaeus for commercial, 
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes. We also have no 
available information on the overutilization of this plant species for 
commercial, recreational, educational, or scientific purposes. 
Therefore, we have determined that the petition does not provide 
substantial information that listing A. debequaeus may be warranted due 
to overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes.

C. Disease or Predation

    Information Provided in the Petition--Petitioners state that the 
threat of herbivory (either natural or livestock related) could be 
significant given the small population sizes, scarcity of occurrences, 
and limited geographic range size of the species. They cite CNHP 
records from 2004 in which the plants were ``somewhat overgrazed'' at 
one occurrence in 1986, and two plants were browsed in another 
occurrence where there also was ``some evidence of seed predation by an 
unknown predator.'' Petitioners also state that cattle are believed to 
avoid grazing on Astragalus debequaeus, either because it is 
unpalatable or because the more palatable plants are found in other 
habitats.
    Analysis of Information Provided in the Petition and Information 
Available to Us at the Time of Petition Review--The petition does not 
contain substantial information concerning the threat of herbivory. The 
report on seed predation and browsing appears anecdotal, and no 
evidence suggests that herbivory threatens Astragalus debequaeus. As 
the petition states, cattle appear to avoid grazing on A. debequaeus. 
As such, we have determined that the petition does not provide 
substantial information that listing A. debequaeus may be warranted due 
to herbivory. Livestock impacts are also discussed under Factor A 
above.

D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    Petitioners state that Federal regulatory mechanisms are inadequate 
to protect the Astragalus debequaeus. The petition asserts that BLM 
fails to protect the species due to--(1) inadequate monitoring of 
occurrences; (2) inadequate avoidance of adverse impacts from oil and 
gas development, grazing, and ORV use; and (3) failure to designate or 
enforce ACECs. Finally, the petition asserts that there is a lack of 
State regulatory mechanisms protecting the species. As indicated in 
other portions of this finding, the petition failed to present 
substantial information indicating that oil and gas, grazing, and ORV 
use are a threat to A. debequaeus. Nevertheless, we evaluated the 
claims of the petition regarding each of these factors and the adequacy 
of the associated regulatory mechanisms below.
    Information Provided in the Petition Regarding Inadequate 
Monitoring--The Petitioners state that BLM fails to monitor the 
species, saying that several occurrences have not been revisited in 
over 18 years.
    Analysis of Information Provided in the Petition and Information 
Available to Us at the Time of Petition Review--The petition does not 
provide reliable information that the BLM fails to monitor the species. 
The petitioners claim that several occurrences have not been revisited 
in over 18 years. However, CNHP (2005, pp. 12, 17, 123) records 
indicate that, with the exception of one small occurrence and two 
suboccurrences, all known occurrences have been surveyed since 1995. 
Petitioners list eight subocurrences that have been revisited within 
the last 8 years and four newly discovered suboccurrences. In the BLM 
GSFO management area, two suboccurrences in the Anvil Points area have 
been monitored for the past 3 years, and surveys have relocated one of 
four ``missing'' subocurrences that may have been inaccurately mapped 
(Scheck 2006b). In the BLM GJFO management area, eight known 
subocurrences were resurveyed, seven new subocurrences were found, and 
a monitoring plot was established in the Atwell Gulch occurrence in 
2006 (Lincoln and Bridgman 2006, p. 5). Transplant research and 
monitoring (see Factor E below) were funded after BLM surveys located 
plants along the route for a new oil and gas pipeline. On the basis of 
our evaluation of the information presented in the petition, it is our 
determination that the petition does not present substantial 
information to indicate that listing Astragalus debequaeus may be 
warranted due to inadequate monitoring of occurrences.
    Information Provided in the Petition Regarding Inadequate 
Protection From Oil and Gas Development, Grazing, and ORV Use--The 
petitioners assert that the BLM fails to regulate oil and gas 
development, ORV use, and livestock grazing in a manner that would 
adequately protect Astragalus debequaeus. Petitioners assert that 
neither the 1987 Grand Junction Resource Management Plan nor the 1999 
Glenwood Springs Resource Management Plan amendment adequately controls 
energy development impacts on the plants. They state that the standard 
lease provisions found in 43 CFR 1301.1-2 cannot be applied to leases 
issued prior to the promulgation of these regulations. They also state 
that neither of these Resource Management Plans stipulate there will be 
no surface occupancy at BLM sensitive plant sites.
    Regarding regulation of ORV use, the petitioners state that more 
than half of the occurrences and total number of plants are exposed to 
ORV traffic, and that several of the occurrences are in designated open 
ORV areas on BLM land.
    Regarding regulation of livestock grazing, petitioners cite the 
example of five Environmental Assessments written for grazing permit 
renewals in the BLM GJFO management area, in which BLM

[[Page 7004]]

failed to consider grazing impacts to the plant.
    Analysis of Information Provided in the Petition and Information 
Available to Us at the Time of Petition Review--The petition does not 
provide reliable information regarding the ability of the BLM to apply 
protections to already leased oil and gas areas. The provisions in 43 
CFR 1301.1-2 apply to leases issued prior to the adoption of the 
regulations, because these provisions are considered ``consistent with 
lease rights granted'' and, therefore, are not a violation of existing 
lease rights (Scheck 2006b). While relocation of activities by up to 
200 meters (656 feet) may not be adequate to avoid all impacts to large 
occurrences, it would protect the majority of individuals. Relocation 
of oil and gas activities also would suffice to avoid direct impacts to 
smaller occurrences, such as those at Anvil Points.
    Ten of the 13 suboccurrences in the Anvil Points occurrence are 
found on leases issued in May 1999, following the completion of the 
Glenwood Springs 1999 Oil and Gas Leasing and Development Record of 
Decision and Resource Management Plan Amendment (Scheck 2006b). These 
leases are covered by a Controlled Surface Use stipulation (CSU-3) to 
protect populations of sensitive plants (BLM GSFO 1999b, p. 12). Each 
time a new Application for Permit to Drill is received or a Geographic 
Area Plan is proposed, BLM GSFO requires surveys in areas of potential 
habitat for special status plants, including Astragalus debequaeus. If 
populations or individuals are found in the project area, the proposed 
action is modified, if deemed necessary, to mitigate impacts (Scheck 
2006b). When seismic activities were proposed for the Anvil Points area 
in 2001, surveys were conducted beforehand and all occurrences of A. 
debequaeus were avoided (Scheck 2006a).
    In the BLM GJFO management area where 13 of the 17 occurrences are 
located, the standard lease stipulation (43 CFR 1301.1-2) is included 
in 19 of the 30 leases in the area (see Table 1). The earlier leases 
also are subject to the same provisions, which are consistent with 
lease rights granted. Conditions of approval for new Applications for 
Permits to Drill include surveys of potential habitat for special 
status plants, including Astragalus debequaeus, and mitigation measures 
to avoid impacting occupied habitat.
    Regarding regulation of livestock grazing, four of the 
Environmental Assessments cited by petitioners that were available for 
review support the petitioner's claim that no specific measures were 
included for protection of the plant (BLM GJFO 2000, pp. 8-9; BLM GJFO 
2001, pp. 7-8; BLM GJFO 2003a, pp. 7-8, 13; BLM GJFO 2003b, p. 6). 
However, seasoned field biologists, with extensive knowledge of the 
species and years of site visits to these allotments, signed these 
assessments after determining that the species was not likely to be 
adversely affected by the grazing activities. In two of these 
Environmental Assessments (BLM GJFO 2000, p. 9; BLM GJFO 2001, p. 8), 
BLM recommended scheduled range monitoring for a subset of the relevant 
population.
    Regarding ORV use regulation, petitioners assert that few 
restrictions exist within the range of Astragalus debequaeus. They do 
not show, nor do we have additional information to indicate, that the 
level of ORV use in the area presents a need for a higher level of 
regulation.
    On the basis of our evaluation of the information presented in the 
petition, it is our determination that the petition does not present 
substantial information to indicate that listing Astragalus debequaeus 
may be warranted due to the lack of regulation by BLM on oil and gas 
development, livestock use, or ORV use. Our files show that the BLM 
routinely considers impacts of its actions on A. debequaeus, and avoids 
the majority of individual plants and occurrences.
    Information Provided in the Petition Regarding Failure to Designate 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern--Petitioners state that BLM has 
failed to designate additional ACECs to protect this species, and that 
the existing ACEC does not protect the plants from grazing and ORV 
activities and impacts, based on one illegal ORV track and permitted 
grazing.
    Analysis of Information Provided in the Petition and Information 
Available to Us at the Time of Petition Review--Through the Roan 
Plateau Resource Management Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement, 
the BLM has proposed an ACEC at Anvil Points that would increase 
protection for the species (BLM GSFO 2006, p. 3-111). This ACEC will be 
finalized after the Record of Decision is published. The ACEC would 
protect about 14 percent of the plants in the Anvil Points occurrence 
(Scheck 2006b; CNHP 2005, pp. 38, 73).
    The Pyramid Rock ACEC in the BLM GJFO management area is being 
evaluated for grazing and ORV impacts to Astragalus debequaeus and 
three other species because some habitat damage has occurred (Lincoln 
and Bridgman 2006, p. 9). This ACEC has been withheld from oil and gas 
lease offerings.
    On the basis of our evaluation of the information presented in the 
petition, it is our determination that the petition does not present 
substantial information to indicate that listing Astragalus debequaeus 
may be warranted due to the lack of protection by BLM through the 
designation and enforcement of ACECs. The BLM has created the Pyramid 
Rock ACEC that protects about 150 individuals (CNHP 2005, p. 2). 
Furthermore, the petition and our files do not contain any evidence 
that the species requires ACECs to sustain it.
    Information Contained in the Petition Regarding Lack of State 
Regulatory Mechanisms--Petitioners state that Colorado has no State 
regulatory mechanisms for protecting rare plant species, and that the 
Colorado Natural Areas Program is insufficient to protect and provide 
recovery for Astragalus debequaeus.
    Analysis of Information Provided in the Petition and Information 
Available to Us at the Time of Petition Review--The Colorado Natural 
Areas Program collects information on rare plant species, but does not 
have regulatory authority over habitat development. However, they are 
working with the BLM GJFO to determine whether fencing would be 
appropriate for the Pyramid Rock Natural Area (Kurzel 2006). Voluntary 
conservation agreements for a State Natural Area are most effective on 
private land, which is a very small percentage of the habitat for this 
species.
    While we agree that Colorado does not have State regulatory 
mechanisms for protecting rare plant species, the petitioners and 
currently available information do not provide information that the 
species requires any additional regulatory mechanisms to sustain it. On 
the basis of our evaluation of the information presented in the 
petition, it is our determination that the petition does not present 
substantial information to indicate that listing Astragalus debequaeus 
may be warranted due to the inadequacy of existing regulatory 
mechanisms.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Continued Existence 
of the Species

    Information Provided in the Petition Regarding Population Size and 
Range--Petitioners state that limited range, small number of plants, 
and small number of populations make Astragalus debequaeus vulnerable 
to anthropogenic impacts, environmental and genetic stochasticity, and 
climate change. They

[[Page 7005]]

cite 44 occurrences of the species at 8 sites over a range of 40 to 48 
kilometers (25 to 30 miles).
    Analysis of Information Provided in the Petition and Information 
Available to Us at the Time of Petition Review--We disagree with the 
assertion that population size, range, and number of populations are so 
limited that other natural or manmade factors would substantially 
impact the species. In a 2006 Global Ranking report from CNHP, the 
occurrence numbers have been revised to 32 documented occurrences, 15 
of which are suboccurrences; therefore, 17 (primary) occurrences are 
currently known to be extant (CNHP 2006, p. 2). The difference in the 
number of occurrences is based on an update of occurrence delineation 
protocols, plus the addition of four new occurrences that were added to 
the CNHP database in 2005 (see Table 1). The total number of plants 
estimated in 1996 was 68,000. Four new occurrences and a net of 1,205 
new plants have been documented by CNHP (2005, pp. 7, 36, 47, 80, 137). 
In 2006, which had a very dry spring, 6 new suboccurrences containing 
3,361 plants were recorded in Atwell Gulch (Lincoln and Bridgman 2006, 
p. 1). The total estimated number of plants has changed from 68,000 in 
1996 to 64,617 in 2006. The difference appears to be due to the method 
of summarizing the rough estimates from 1996 records. There are no 
recounts that can be used to precisely compare population sizes and 
determine whether there has been an actual downward trend in the number 
of plants. The area of currently known occupied habitat for the 17 
occurrences is an estimated 573 hectares (1,417 acres) (CNHP 2006, p. 
2). Spackman et al. (1997a, p. 8) concluded that the species occupies 
most of its available suitable habitat and historical range.
    On the basis of our evaluation of the information presented in the 
petition, it is our determination that the petition does not present 
substantial information to indicate that listing of Astragalus 
debequaeus may be warranted due to impacts from other natural or 
manmade factors.
    Information Provided in the Petition Regarding Transplanting 
Success--Petitioners state that Astragalus debequaeus does not respond 
well to transplanting. They cite one unsuccessful attempt to transplant 
three plants (Trappett 2005).
    Analysis of Information Provided in the Petition and Information 
Available to Us at the Time of Petition Review--The petition provides 
reliable information regarding the lack of success of transplantation 
as a mitigation measure in Trappett (2005). We also know of one 
additional attempt at transplantation. In 2005, 12 individuals were 
transplanted from a pipeline right-of-way. Two of the transplants died, 
some flowered in 2006, with none being as robust as undisturbed plants 
in the vicinity (Alward 2006). Because so few individuals were 
involved, information from these two transplant attempts does not 
provide substantial evidence to indicate whether transplanting can be 
successful in minimizing disturbance effects on the species.
    Although the two known attempts have been of limited or uncertain 
success, few individuals are subject to transplantation. The BLM 
prefers impact avoidance over transplantation as a conservation 
measure. Neither the petitioners nor our files provide substantial 
information that listing Astragalus debequaeus may be warranted due to 
the lack of success of transplantation attempts.

Finding

    We have reviewed the petition and literature cited in the petition 
and evaluated that information in relation to information available to 
us. After this review and evaluation, we find that the petition does 
not present substantial scientific information to indicate that listing 
Astragalus debequaeus (DeBeque milkvetch) may be warranted at this 
time.
    Petitioners state that nearly all occurrences are--within oil and 
gas leases, some with approved permits to drill; on active grazing 
allotments; open to ORVs; and often near roads and pipelines. However, 
there are only a very limited number of instances where impacts to the 
plants have resulted from any documented or potential threats. Further, 
there is insufficient information in the petition regarding the 
magnitude of these impacts and no information that suggests that these 
impacts may have population-level effects.
    The petition is based primarily on claims regarding Factors A and 
D, both of which are primarily tied to oil and gas development. Since 
the petition was submitted in 2004, the BLM has taken additional 
measures to conserve the species in areas within potential oil and gas 
development areas. They have withheld the Pyramid Rock ACEC from oil 
and gas leasing, conducted new surveys during the Application for 
Permit to Drill and grazing allotment renewal reviews, and added 
standard lease stipulations and controlled use stipulations to new oil 
and gas leases in the course of developing appropriate management 
strategies. Monitoring is being implemented to assess the effectiveness 
of these measures in minimizing impacts to the species as additional 
development occurs within its habitat.
    Our review of the available information indicated that the species 
appears to be maintaining its presence in known locations throughout 
its range. Despite several potential threat factors, the petition and 
the information in our files do not present substantial information 
indicating that any factor, nor a combination of factors, suggests the 
petitioned action, listing as threatened or endangered with critical 
habitat, may be warranted for Astragalus debequaeus.
    Although we will not commence a status review in response to this 
petition, we will continue to monitor the Astragalus debequaeus 
population status and trends, potential threats, and ongoing management 
actions that might be important with regard to the conservation of the 
A. debequaeus across its range. We encourage interested parties to 
continue to gather data that will assist with the conservation of the 
species. If you wish to provide information regarding A. debequaeus, 
you may submit your information or materials to the Field Supervisor, 
Western Colorado Ecological Services Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service (see ADDRESSES section).

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon 
request from the Western Colorado Ecological Services Field Office (see 
ADDRESSES section).

Author

    The primary author of this document is Ellen Mayo, U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Western Colorado Ecological Services Field Office 
(see ADDRESSES section).

Authority

    The authority for this action is section 4 of the Endangered 
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: February 6, 2007.
Kenneth Stansell,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. E7-2445 Filed 2-13-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P