Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 229 / Wednesday, November 30, 2005 / Proposed Rules 71795 

prefers receiving comments through this 

electronic public docket and comment 

system. Follow the on-line instructions 

to submit comments. 

2. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

3. E-mail: tiktinsky.toby@epa.gov. 

4. Mail or deliver: Toby Tiktinsky 

(Air-2), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available online at http://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through the 

agency Web site, eRulemaking portal or 

e-mail. The agency Web site and 

eRulemaking portal are ‘‘anonymous 

access’’ systems, and EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send e-mail 

directly to EPA, your e-mail address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the public comment. 

If EPA cannot read your comment due 

to technical difficulties and cannot 

contact you for clarification, EPA may 

not be able to consider your comment. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

http://docket.epa.gov/rmepub and in 

hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California. While all documents in the 

docket are listed in the index, some 

information may be publicly available 

only at the hard copy location (e.g., 

copyrighted material), and some may 

not be publicly available in either 

location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard 

copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Toby Tiktinsky, EPA Region IX, (415) 

947–4223, tiktinsky.toby@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

Rules and Regulations section of this 

Federal Register, we are approving the 

State Implementation Plan revision, 

submitted by the California Air 

Resources Board on November 8, 2004, 

that includes the 2004 Revision to the 

California State Implementation Plan 

for Carbon Monoxide, Updated 

Maintenance Plan for Ten Federal 

Planning Areas. 

In addition, EPA is notifying the 

public that we have found that the 

carbon monoxide motor vehicle 

emissions budgets contained in the 

submitted maintenance plan are 

adequate for transportation conformity 

purposes. Related to the motor vehicle 

emissions budgets, however, we are 

denying a request by ARB for EPA to 

limit the duration of our approval of the 

budgets. Our denial of ARB’s request, 

however, does not affect our approval of 

the plan itself or the budgets contained 

therein. Lastly, we are also correcting, 

pursuant to section 110(k)(6) of the Act, 

certain errors that we made in our 1998 

final rule approving California’s 

redesignation request for these ten 

planning areas. 

We are taking these actions without 

prior proposal because we believe that 

the revision and request are not 

controversial. If we receive adverse 

comments, however, we will publish a 

timely withdrawal of the direct final 

rule and address the comments in 

subsequent action based on this 

proposed rule. We do not plan to open 

a second comment period, so anyone 

interested in commenting should do so 

at this time. If we do not receive adverse 

comments, no further activity is 

planned. For further information, please 

see the direct final action. 

Dated: November 15, 2005. 

Jane Diamond, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 05–23503 Filed 11–29–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

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 Delist the Astragalus 

magdalenae var. peirsonii (Peirson’s 

milk-vetch) 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition 

finding and initiation of status review. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce our 

90-day finding on a petition to delist 

Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii 

(Peirson’s milk-vetch) as a threatened 

species pursuant to the Endangered 

Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended 

(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). We find that the 

petition presents substantial scientific 

or commercial information indicating 

that delisting Astragalus magdalenae 

var. peirsonii may be warranted. 

Therefore, we are initiating a status 

review of Astragalus magdalenae var. 

peirsonii to determine if delisting the 

species is warranted. To ensure that the 

review is comprehensive, we are 

soliciting scientific and commercial 

information regarding this species. 

DATES: The finding announced in this 

document was made on November 30, 

2005. To be considered in the 12-month 

finding for this petition, comments and 

information must be submitted to the 

Service by January 30, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: Submit new information, 

materials, comments, or questions 

concerning this species to Field 

Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife 

Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

6010 Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, 

California 92011; by facsimile to 760/ 

431–9618; or by electronic mail to 

‘‘FW1PMV@fws.gov’’. Please submit 

electronic comments in ASCII file 

format and avoid the use of special 

characters or any form of encryption. 

Please also include ‘‘Attn: 90-Day 

Finding on Peirson’s Milk-Vetch 

Delisting Petition’’ in your e-mail 

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 

Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office at 

phone number 760–431–9440. Please 

note that the e-mail address 

‘‘FW1PMV@fws.gov’’ will be closed out 

at the termination of the public 

comment period. See also the ‘‘Public 

Information Solicited’’’ section for more 

information on submitting comments. 

The complete file for this finding is 

available for public inspection, by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours at the above address. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim 

Bartel, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 

(see ADDRESSES), telephone 760–431–

9440; facsimile 760–431–9618. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Information Solicited 

When we make a finding that 

substantial information is presented to 

indicate that a delisting action may be 

warranted, we are required to promptly 

commence a review of the status of the 

species. Based on results of the status 

review, we will make a 12-month 

finding as required by section 4(b)(3)(B) 

of the Act. To ensure that the status 

review is complete and based on the 

best available scientific and commercial 

data, we are soliciting information on 

71796 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 229 / Wednesday, November 30, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

the Peirson’s milk-vetch. We request 

any additional data, references, 

comments, and suggestions from the 

public, other concerned governmental 

agencies, Native American Tribes, the 

scientific community, industry, or any 

other interested parties concerning the 

status of Peirson’s milk-vetch. Of 

particular interest is information 

pertaining to the factors the Service uses 

to determine if a species is threatened 

or endangered: (1) Present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; (2) 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) 

inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; and (5) other natural or 

human-caused factors affecting its 

continued existence. In addition, we 

request data and information regarding 

the items identified in the ‘‘Summary of 

Threats Analysis’’ section. 

If you wish to comment, you may 

submit your comments and materials 

concerning this finding to the Field 

Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife 

Office (see ADDRESSES section). Our 

practice is to make comments, including 

names and home addresses of 

respondents, available for public review 

during regular business hours. 

Respondents may request that we 

withhold their home address, which we 

will honor to the extent allowable by 

law. There also may be circumstances in 

which we would withhold a 

respondent’s identity, as allowable by 

law. If you wish us to withhold your 

name and/or address, you must state 

this request prominently at the 

beginning of your comment. We will not 

consider anonymous comments. To the 

extent consistent with applicable law, 

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 

Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires 

that the Service 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. This finding is based 

on information contained in the 

petition, supporting information 

submitted with the petition, and 

information otherwise available in our 

files at the time we make the finding. 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 the finding promptly in the 

Federal Register. 

Our standard for substantial scientific 

or commercial 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 scientific or 

commercial information was presented, 

we are required to promptly commence 

a review of the status of the species. 

In making this finding, we relied on 

information provided by the petitioners 

and otherwise available in our files at 

the time of the petition review, and 

evaluated that information in 

accordance with 50 CFR 424.14(b). Our 

process of coming to a 90-day finding 

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 scientific or commercial 

information’’ threshold. 

Our 90-day finding considers whether 

the petitioners have stated a reasonable 

case that delisting may be warranted. 

Thus, our finding expresses no view as 

to the ultimate issue of whether the 

species should be delisted. We reach a 

conclusion on that issue only after a 

thorough review of the taxon’s status. In 

that review, which will take 

approximately 9 more months, we will 

perform a rigorous, critical analysis of 

the best available commercial and 

scientific information. We will ensure 

that the data used to make our 

determination as to the status of the 

species (i.e., our 12-month finding) is 

consistent with the Act and the 

Information Quality Act (44 U.S.C. 

3504(d)(1) and 3516). Upon completion, 

our 12-month finding will be published 

promptly in the Federal Register. 

Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii 

(Peirson’s milk-vetch) was listed as 

threatened on October 6, 1998 (63 FR 

53596). At the time of listing, the 

primary threat to the milk-vetch was the 

destruction of individuals and dune 

habitat from off-highway vehicle (OHV) 

use and associated recreational 

development. On October 25, 2001, we 

received a petition to delist Astragalus 

magdalenae var. peirsonii 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 2001). On 

September 5, 2003, we announced an 

initial petition finding in the Federal 

Register that the petition presented 

substantial information to indicate the 

petitioned action may be warranted (68 

FR 52784). In accordance with section 

4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we completed a 

status review of the best available 

scientific and commercial information 

on the species, and published our 12- 

month finding on June 4, 2004 (69 FR 

31523). We determined that the 

petitioned action was not warranted at 

that time. This determination met 

deadline requirements established by a 

court-approved settlement agreement 

(ASA et. al. v. USFWS and Gale Norton, 

Stipulated Settlement Agreement, Civ. 

No. 03–315L LAB). 

On July 8, 2005, we received a 

petition to delist Astragalus magdalenae 

var. peirsonii (Peirson’s milk-vetch) that 

was prepared for the American Sand 

Association, the Off-Road Business 

Association, the San Diego Off-Road 

Coalition, the California Off-Road 

Vehicle Association, and the American 

Motorcycle Association District 37 (ASA 

2005). The new petition claims that 

according to four years of additional 

data collection, ‘‘the Peirson’s milkvetch is even more abundant than was 

reported in ASA, et al.’s original 

petition, and that the plant’s population 

and reproductive capacity are so stable 

and strong as to warrant delisting.’’

This petition and its associated 

documents also include claims and 

information previously addressed in our 

90-day and 12-month findings on the 

previous petition to delist Peirson’s 

milk-vetch. Those claims that are not 

substantially different from those 

addressed in our previous findings or 

that are not supported by additional 

information will not be addressed in 

this 90-day finding. However, all 

available information, including 

information provided by the petitioners 

in supplements to the petition dated 

September 8, 2005 and October 4, 2005, 

will be considered in our status review 

and 12-month finding. 

Species Information 

Species Description 

Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii 

is an erect to spreading, herbaceous, 

short-lived perennial in the Fabaceae 

(Pea family) (Barneby 1959, 1964). 

Plants may reach 8 to 27 inches (in) (20 

to 70 centimeters (cm)) in height and 

develop taproots (Barneby 1964) that 

penetrate to the deeper, moister sand. 

According to Phillips and Kennedy 

(2003), plants largely die back to a root 

crown in the summer. The stems and 

leaves are covered with fine, silky 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 229 / Wednesday, November 30, 2005 / Proposed Rules 71797 

appressed hairs. The leaflets, which 

may fall off in response to drought, are 

small and widely spaced, giving the 

plants a brushy appearance. This taxon 

is unusual in that the terminal leaflet is 

continuous with the rachis rather than 

articulated with it. The purple flowers 

are arranged in 10- to 17-flowered 

axillary racemes. 

Taxonomy 

The taxonomic status of Peirson’s 

milk-vetch was discussed in the final 

listing rule (63 FR 53596). Although 

Peirson’s milk-vetch was originally 

described at the species rank, it is 

currently recognized as a variety as 

Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii. 

There are two other currently 

recognized varieties of this species, but 

these are restricted to Mexico. 

Two other Astragalus taxa occur in 

the Algodones Dunes region. They are 

Astragalus lentiginosus var. borreganus, 

which is easily distinguished by its 

conspicuously broad leaflets, and 

Astragalus insularis var. harwoodii, 

which is easily distinguished by its 

smaller stature and shorter banner 

petals. 

Range and Distribution 

Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii 

is reported from northeastern Baja 

California, Mexico (Barneby 1959, 1964; 

WESTEC 1977; Spellenberg 1993), and 

has been verified in the Gran Desierto of 

Sonora, Mexico (Felger 2000). In the 

United States, this plant is restricted to 

about 53,000 acres (ac) (21,500 hectares 

(ha)) in a narrow band of the central 

portion of the Algodones Dunes of 

eastern Imperial County, California, 

which are among the largest sand dune 

fields in North America. The Algodones 

Dunes are often referred to as the 

Imperial Sand Dunes. Nearly all of the 

lands in the Algodones Dunes are 

managed by the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) as the Imperial 

Sand Dunes Recreation Area (ISDRA). 

However, the State of California and 

private parties own small inholdings in 

the dune area. Approximately 21,836 ac 

(8,837 ha) of the 185,000-ac (74,867-ha) 

ISDRA have been designated as critical 

habitat for A. m. var. peirsonii (69 FR 

47330). 

Life History 

Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii 

has variously been considered an 

annual or perennial (Munz 1932, 1974; 

Barneby 1959, 1964; Spellenberg 1993; 

Willoughby 2001). Willoughby (2001) 

states that A. m. var. peirsonii is 

apparently a short-lived perennial, so its 

response to the amount of rainfall in the 

growing seasons is predictable. 

Documented persistence of individuals 

from one growing season to the next 

also attests to the perennial nature of A. 

m. var. peirsonii (Phillips and Kennedy 

2002, 2003, 2004). Although Romspert 

and Burk (1979) found inflorescences 

present from December through at least 

April, plants are reportedly in flower 

from as early as mid-November through 

May (Barneby 1964; Porter in litt. 2003; 

Phillips and Kennedy 2002). The plants 

are self-incompatible, requiring crosspollination. The primary pollinator is a 

digger bee (Habropoda pallida) (Porter 

2005). 

Based on current understanding of the 

species’ life history, sufficient rain in 

conjunction with cooler-than-average 

fall weather appears to trigger 

germination events. Seedlings may be 

present in suitable habitat throughout 

the dunes, especially during abovenormal precipitation years. In drier 

years, plant numbers decrease as 

individuals die and are not replaced by 

new seedlings. The long-term survival 

of the species likely depends on the 

production of viable seeds in the wetter 

years, the continual replenishment of 

the seed bank, and the persistence of the 

seed bank. The seed bank allows the 

species to persist until appropriate 

conditions for germination, growth, and 

reproduction occur. Large annual 

fluctuations in the numbers of plants 

present have been consistently found 

(Phillips and Kennedy 2005; 

Willoughby 2004, 2005). 

The relative contribution of first year 

plants of Peirson’s milk-vetch to the 

seed bank and survival of the taxon is 

not fully understood. Available data 

(Phillips and Kennedy 2002, 2004, 

2005) and previous research (Romspert 

and Burk 1979) suggest that older age 

classes produce substantially more 

seeds than first-year plants and that, 

therefore, the older persisting plants 

(i.e., those plants that survive for more 

than one growing season) may be 

individually important for depositing 

more seeds into the seed bank. 

In desert plants, the majority of 

seedlings may die at the onset of the 

drier season as noted by previous 

reports. Phillips and Kennedy (2002) 

reported that 26 percent of the plants 

recorded in Spring 2001 counts 

survived to late 2001. These authors 

(Phillips and Kennedy 2003) also report 

the nearly complete loss of the 2003 

seedling cohort of Peirson’s milk-vetch. 

Pavlik and Barbour (1988) studied the 

establishment and survivorship pattern 

of Astragalus lentiginosus var. micans, 

another dune endemic plant, and 

recorded a complete failure of the 1984–

1985 seedling cohort. These authors also 

reported that 54 percent of the 1985–

1986 cohort of seedlings survived. 

However, none of these plants reached 

reproductive maturity that year. 

Seed Biology 

The fruits of Peirson’s milk-vetch are 

0.8 to 1.4 in (2 to 3.5 cm) long, onechambered, hollow, and inflated. 

Peirson’s milk-vetch fruits contain 11 to 

16 large flattened black seeds. The 

seeds, among the largest seeds of any 

Astragalus in North America (Barneby 

1964), average less than 0.1 ounces (oz) 

(15 milligrams (mg)) each in weight and 

are up to 0.2 in (4.7 millimeters (mm)) 

in length (Bowers 1996). Seeds are 

either dispersed locally when they fall 

from partly opened fruits on the parent 

plant, or more widely when they are 

released from fruits blown across the 

sand after falling from the parent plant. 

Seeds require no pre-germination 

treatment to induce germination, but 

show increased germination success 

when scarified (outer cover is broken). 

Porter (2005) reported about 9.1 percent 

of scarified seeds germinated while only 

5.3 percent of unscarified seeds 

germinated. In germination trials 

conducted by Romspert and Burk 

(1979), 92 percent or more seeds 

germinated within 29 days at 

temperatures of 77 °F (25 °C) or less, 

and no seeds germinated at 

temperatures of 86 °F (30 °C) or higher. 

This indicates that seeds on the dunes 

may likely germinate in the cooler 

months of the year. Porter (in litt. 2002) 

identified that the primary dormancy 

mechanism in Peirson’s milk-vetch is 

the impermeability of the seed coat to 

water and demonstrated little loss of 

viability in seeds stored for three years. 

This mechanism is consistent with 

characteristics of other species that have 

seed banks (Given 1994). Dispersed 

seeds that do not germinate during the 

subsequent growing season become part 

of the seed bank (Given 1994). 

In a given year, an annual or shortlived species can fluctuate between 

large numbers of plants to few or even 

no plants. Many species, and Peirson’s 

milk-vetch may be one of them, have 

periodic ‘‘rescue’’ episodes from the 

seed bank where large flushes appear 

when germination conditions are 

suitable (Elzinga et al. 1998). To the 

extent that plants are precluded from 

adding seeds to the seed bank because 

the plants are eliminated entirely or 

their reproductive output is reduced by 

summer drought, herbivory, and OHV 

impacts, these individuals cannot be 

expected to contribute to the seed bank 

and/or long-term survival of Peirson’s 

milk-vetch. Development of a seed bank 

and associated dormancy allows plant 

species to grow, flower, and set seed in 

71798 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 229 / Wednesday, November 30, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

years with most favorable conditions 

(Given 1994). When measuring seed 

bank dynamics to determine the 

viability and productivity of a seed 

bank, among the factors necessary to 

consider are estimation of the rate of 

seed mortality and aging, the amount of 

seed removed by predators, and the 

variability in germination events 

(Elzinga et al. 1998). 

Threats Analysis 

When considering an action for 

listing, delisting, or reclassifying a 

species, we are required to determine 

whether a species is endangered or 

threatened based on one or more of the 

five listing factors as described at 50 

CFR 424.11. These factors are given as: 

(A) The 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) 

the inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; and (E) other natural or 

manmade factors affecting the 

continued existence of the species. 

Delisting a species must be supported 

by the best scientific and commercial 

data available and only considered if 

such data substantiates that the species 

is neither endangered nor threatened for 

one or more of the following reasons: (1) 

The species is considered extinct; (2) 

the species is considered to be 

recovered; and/or (3) the original data 

available when the species was listed, or 

the interpretation of such data, were in 

error. In making this finding, we 

evaluated whether or not the petition 

and associated documents and other 

information available to us present 

substantial information that delisting 

Peirson’s milk-vetch may be warranted. 

Our evaluation, based on information 

provided in the petition and available in 

our files, is presented below. 

The petitioners provided us with four 

reports completed since our 2004 12- 

month finding (69 FR 31523). These 

new reports include the work by BLM 

(Willoughby 2004, 2005) and reports by 

Phillips and Kennedy (2004, 2005). 

A. Present or Threatened Destruction, 

Modification, or Curtailment of the 

Species’ Habitat or Range 

Demography of Peirson’s Milk-Vetch 

The petition restates claims made in 

the October 2001 petition that (1) the 

original listing was made without a 

plant count and (2) the original listing 

relied on field studies that BLM has 

since indicated were biased. As noted 

above in the Background section, we 

will not be addressing in this 90-day 

finding those claims that are not 

substantially different from those 

addressed in our previous findings or 

are not supported by additional 

information. 

The petition states that its point is ‘‘to 

demonstrate, through four years of 

additional data collection, that the 

Peirson’s milk-vetch is even more 

abundant than was reported in ASA et 

al.’s original petition, and that the 

plant’s population and reproductive 

capacity are so stable and strong as to 

warrant delisting’’ (ASA 2005 p. 5). The 

petitioners suggest that (1) the addition 

of several years of monitoring data by 

BLM (Willoughby 2004, 2005) and 

Phillips and Kennedy (2004, 2005) 

indicate that Peirson’s milk-vetch has a 

‘‘large and stable population’’ (ASA 

2005 p. 46) and (2) new data gathered 

by Phillips and Kennedy (2004, 2005) 

on Peirson’s milk-vetch reproductive 

strategy indicate that the plant has the 

capacity to produce large numbers of 

seeds to restock the seed bank. 

Using, in particular, the results of the 

monitoring by BLM (Willoughby 2004, 

2005) and Phillips and Kennedy (2004, 

2005), the petitioners state that the 

‘‘anticipated threats to the Peirson’s 

milk-vetch and its habitat have not 

materialized’’ (ASA 2005 p. 47). Instead, 

they state that threats to its ‘‘continuous 

existence are negligible’’ (ASA 2005 p. 

48). 

Off Highway Vehicle (OHV) Use 

A primary threat that led to the listing 

of the Peirson’s milk-vetch in 1998 was 

the destruction of individuals and 

habitat from OHV use and associated 

recreational development (63 FR 53596). 

The current petition (ASA 2005) and 

associated new documents provide 

information that bears on the impact of 

OHV activity on Peirson’s milk-vetch. 

Monitoring studies conducted by BLM 

(Willoughby 2004, 2005) provide 

updated information on Peirson’s milkvetch abundance classes, use of a new 

monitoring protocol, estimates of 

density and population, and OHV 

impacts. Studies conducted by Phillips 

and Kennedy (2004, 2005) provide 

information on germination events and 

their timing, survivorship, seed bank, 

estimates of density and population 

size, OHV impacts, and additional 

surveys for Peirson’s milk-vetch. 

Evaluation of Information in the Petition 

and Other Information in Our Files 

Willoughby (2004) summarizes 

multiple years of monitoring of 

Peirson’s milk-vetch and Helianthus 

niveus ssp. tephrodes (Algodones Dunes 

Sunflower) in the Algodones Dunes. For 

each transect used in previous BLM 

surveys, Willoughby (2004) included 

number of plants tallied, sums of 

abundance class values, and number of 

cells occupied. Willoughby (2004) 

reports that there is essentially no 

difference in the number of cells per 

transect occupied by Peirson’s milkvetch in areas opened or closed to OHV 

use. Willoughby (2004) noted that part 

of the area surveyed and considered as 

‘‘open area’’ was, in fact, closed to OHV 

use during 2001 and 2002. The report 

concludes that the populations of 

Peirson’s milk-vetch fluctuate with 

rainfall but there was no difference 

between open and closed areas. 

Willoughby (2005) estimated that there 

were 286,374 Peirson’s milk-vetch 

plants with plant density estimated to 

be 13.5 plants per ha (33.3 ac). 

Willoughby (2005) included estimates of 

numbers of the total plants that were 

flowering adults in 2004 and seedling 

survival for seedlings found in spring 

2004 until September 2004. 

Phillips and Kennedy (2004, 2005) 

provide information on survivorship, 

germination, seed bank, and population 

estimates of Peirson’s milk-vetch based 

on counts at their study sites. They 

report actual plant counts of 77,922 

individuals in March 2005 and 66,931 

individuals in April 2005 at 25 sample 

sites. Within 56 ha (138 ac) of potential 

habitat, Phillips and Kennedy (2005) 

estimate an approximate minimum 

population of 173,328 plants in March 

2005 and 142,243 plants in April 2005. 

They describe finding approximately 30 

seedlings in Anza-Borrego Desert State 

Park (an area outside of Algodones 

Dunes). 

To summarize, the petitioners have 

presented new information on the 

demography of Peirson’s milk-vetch. 

Some of this information may be 

relevant to the potential impacts of OHV 

activities on the plant and its habitat. 

They support their arguments that 

Peirson’s milk-vetch is healthy and 

stable and that OHV impacts are 

minimal with information from four 

reports (Willoughby 2004, 2005 and 

Phillips and Kennedy 2004, 2005) that 

were not available at the time of the 

previous 12-month finding (69 FR 

31523). We find that these documents 

present substantial information that the 

petitioned action may be warranted and 

that they justify further detailed analysis 

in a 12-month finding. Additional 

information in our files includes a study 

on the biology of Peirson’s milk-vetch 

(Porter 2005) and a Service study on 

plant densities in the Algodones Dunes 

(Service 2005b). All of these materials 

will be included in the species status 

review as part of the 12-month finding. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 229 / Wednesday, November 30, 2005 / Proposed Rules 71799 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

This petition (ASA 2005) does not 

present any information regarding this 

factor as a threat to Peirson’s milk-vetch 

nor did we identify any threats relative 

to Factor B in our previous 12-month 

finding (69 FR 31523). If new 

information becomes available in public 

comments, we will analyze it in our 12- 

month finding. 

C. Disease or Predation 

The petition (ASA 2005) states that 

Peirson’s milk-vetch is largely free of 

threats from disease or predation. This 

is the same statement made in the 

original (ASA 2001) petition. We 

addressed the impact of seed-eating 

beetles (Bruchidae) on the seeds and 

evidence of rodent and insect herbivory 

in our previous 12-month finding (69 FR 

31523). In 2004, BLM recorded numbers 

and distribution of plants with damage. 

Damage that was not from OHV impacts 

was attributed principally to insects 

(Willoughby 2005). 

We identified potential additive 

Factor C threats in our previous 12- 

month finding (69 FR 31523), but the 

current petition does not identify threats 

in this category. Therefore, the petition 

does not present substantial information 

related to Factor C. However, our new 

12-month finding will consider Factor C 

threats. 

D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

This petition (ASA 2005) and the 

previous petition (ASA 2001) both state 

that Peirson’s milk-vetch has received 

adequate protection from BLM since 

1977. The claim in the current petition 

that BLM has adequately protected 

Peirson’s milk-vetch does not appear to 

constitute substantial information in 

and of itself because the petitioners’

discussion of the issue was brief. 

However, the issue may be clarified by 

further analysis in a 12-month finding, 

which would also consider the Service’s 

biological opinion, signed January 25, 

2005, for the Imperial Sand Dunes 

Recreational Area Management Plan 

(Plan) (Service 2005a). We will analyze 

the Plan and the biological opinion as 

part of the 12-month finding. 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting the Species’ Continued 

Existence 

This petition (ASA 2005) and the 

earlier petition (ASA 2001) both state 

that there are no other natural or 

manmade threats to Peirson’s milkvetch. We discussed threats from 

purposeful impacts to Peirson’s milkvetch by OHVs, rangewide natural 

threats during years when the numbers 

of individuals is very low, and the role 

of pollinators in our previous 12-month 

finding (69 FR 31523). 

We identified Factor E threats in our 

previous 12-month finding (69 FR 

31523), but the current petition does not 

identify threats in this category. 

Therefore, the petition does not present 

substantial information related to Factor 

E. However, the information presented 

by the petition may affect our analysis 

of the existence and relative magnitude 

of the identified Factor E threats and our 

new 12-month finding will consider 

these threats in light of the new 

information. 

Summary of Threats Analysis 

The petitioners have presented new 

information regarding the ecology and 

demography of Peirson’s milk-vetch at 

the Algodones Dunes. Phillips and 

Kennedy (2004) include new 

information on seedling growth, 

documentation of a late winter 

germination in 2004, and a count of 

seedlings in 2004. Phillips and Kennedy 

(2005) provide new information on 

plant densities in three study areas, 

population estimates for those areas, 

results of a new survey area, and 

indicate that Peirson’s milk-vetch 

‘‘colonies’’ are increasing in three 

different areas open to OHV use. 

Willoughby (2004, 2005) includes new 

information regarding population trends 

of Peirson’s milk-vetch plants in the 

Algodones Dunes, abundance class 

differences for 2002, number of 

occupied cells per transect, seedling 

survival, OHV impacts, and the use of 

a new monitoring protocol for special 

status plants, including Peirson’s milkvetch, in the Algodones Dunes. These 

reports constitute substantial 

information that the petitioned action 

may be warranted and thus justify 

further detailed analysis in a status 

review and 12-month finding. 

Finding 

We have reviewed the petition and 

associated documents and other 

information available in our files. Based 

on this review, and the reasons 

discussed above, we find that the 

petition and information in our files 

present substantial information that 

delisting of Peirson’s milk-vetch may be 

warranted. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

herein is available, upon request, from 

the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 

(see ADDRESSES section). 

Author 

The primary author of this notice is 

the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office. 

Authority: The authority for this action is 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

Dated: November 17, 2005. 

Richard E. Sayers, Jr., 

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 05–23407 Filed 11–29–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P