• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
6998
Federal Register
/Vol. 72, No. 30/Wednesday, February 14, 2007/Proposed Rules
(65 FR 97249, November 9, 2000). Thisproposed action also does not haveFederalism implications because it doesnot have substantial direct effects on theStates, on the relationship between thenational government and the States, oron the distribution of power andresponsibilities among the variouslevels of government, as specified inExecutive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,August 10, 1999). This action merelyproposes to approve a State ruleimplementing a Federal standard and toredesignate the area to attainment for airquality planning purposes, and does notalter the relationship or the distributionof power and responsibilitiesestablished in the CAA. This proposedrule also is not subject to ExecutiveOrder 13045
‘‘
Protection of Childrenfrom Environmental Health Risks andSafety Risks
’’
(62 FR 19885, April 23,1997), because it proposes to approve astate plan implementing a FederalStandard and to redesignate the area toattainment for air quality planningpurposes. EPA interprets EO 13045 asapplying only to those regulatoryactions that concern health or safetyrisks, such that the analysis requiredunder section 5
–
501 of the EO has thepotential to influence the regulation.This proposed rule is not subject to EO13045 because it proposes to approve aState plan and to redesignate the area toattainment for air quality planningpurposes.In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA
’
srole is to approve state choices,provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in theabsence of a prior existing requirementfor the state to use voluntary consensusstandards (VCS), EPA has no authorityto disapprove a SIP submission forfailure to use VCS. It would thus beinconsistent with applicable law forEPA, when it reviews a SIP submissionor redesignation request, to use VCS inplace of a SIP submission that otherwisesatisfies the provisions of the Clean AirAct. Thus, the requirements of section12(d) of the National TechnologyTransfer and Advancement Act of 1995(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. Thisproposed rule does not impose aninformation collection burden under theprovisions of the Paperwork ReductionAct of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Airpollution control, Intergovernmentalrelations, Carbon monoxide, Reportingand recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Airpollution control, National parks,Wilderness areas.
Dated: February 6, 2007.
Laura Yoshii,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 9.
[FR Doc. E7
–
2538 Filed 2
–
13
–
07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560
–
50
–
P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIORFish and Wildlife Service50 CFR Part 17Endangered and Threatened Wildlifeand Plants; 90-Day Finding on APetition to List Astragalus debequaeus(DeBeque milkvetch) as Threatened orEndangered
AGENCY
:
Fish and Wildlife Service,Interior.
ACTION
:
Notice of 90-day petitionfinding.
SUMMARY
:
We, the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service (Service), announce a90-day finding on a petition to list
Astragalus debequaeus
(DeBequemilkvetch) as threatened or endangeredunder the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We find thatthe petition does not present substantialscientific or commercial informationindicating that listing
A. debequaeus
may be warranted. Therefore, we willnot be initiating a further status reviewin response to this petition. We ask thepublic to submit to us any newinformation that becomes availableconcerning the status of 
A. debequaeus
or threats to its habitat at any time. Thisinformation will help us monitor andencourage the conservation of thespecies.
DATES
:
The finding announced in thisdocument was made on February 14,2007. You may submit new informationconcerning this species for ourconsideration at any time.
ADDRESSES
:
The complete supportingfile for this finding is available forpublic inspection, by appointment,during normal business hours at theWestern Colorado Field Office, U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service, 764 HorizonDrive, Building B, Grand Junction, CO81506. Submit new information,materials, comments, or questionsconcerning this species to us at theaddress 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 atelecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal InformationRelay Service (FIRS) at 800
–
877
–
8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
:
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requiresthat we make a finding on whether apetition to list, delist, or reclassify aspecies presents substantial scientific orcommercial information indicating thatthe petitioned action may be warranted.We are to base this finding oninformation provided in the petition,supporting information submitted withthe petition, and information otherwiseavailable in our files at the time wemake the determination. To themaximum extent practicable, we are tomake this finding within 90 days of ourreceipt of the petition and publish ournotice of this finding promptly in the
Federal Register
.Our standard for substantialinformation within the Code of FederalRegulations (CFR) with regard to a 90-day petition finding is
‘‘
that amount of information that would lead areasonable person to believe that themeasure proposed in the petition may be warranted
’’
(50 CFR 424.14(b)). If wefind that substantial information waspresented, we are required to promptlycommence a review of the status of thespecies.In making this finding, we rely oninformation provided by the petitionerand evaluate that information inaccordance with 50 CFR 424.14(b). Our90-day finding process under section4(b)(3)(A) of the Act and section424.14(b) of our regulations is limited toa determination of whether theinformation in the petition meets the
‘‘
substantial information
’’
threshold. Asubstantial finding should be madewhen the Service deems that adequateand reliable information has beenpresented that would lead a reasonableperson to believe that the petitionedaction may be warranted.On October 26, 2004, we received aformal petition, dated October 25, 2004,submitted by the Center for NativeEcosystems and the Colorado NativePlant Society (2004), requesting that welist
Astragalus debequaeus
asthreatened or endangered, and designatecritical habitat concurrently. Thepetition identified itself as such andincluded the requisite identificationinformation for the petitioners, asrequired in 50 CFR 424.14(a). Weacknowledged receipt of the petition ina January 20, 2005, letter to Mr. JoshuaPollock. In that letter, we advised the
VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:31 Feb 13, 2007Jkt 211001PO 00000Frm 00031Fmt 4702Sfmt 4702E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM14FEP1
  r  m  a   j  e   t   t  e  o  n   P   R   O   D   1   P   C   6   7  w   i   t   h   P   R   O   P   O   S   A   L   S
 
6999
Federal Register
/Vol. 72, No. 30/Wednesday, February 14, 2007/Proposed Rules
petitioners that due to prior listingallocations in Fiscal Year 2005, wewould not be able to begin processingthe petition, and that emergency listingof 
A. debequaeus
was not warranted.Delays in responding to the petitioncontinued due to the high priority of responding to court orders andsettlement agreements.On October 20, 2005, petitioners senta 60-day notice of intent to sue forfailure to grant emergency listing statusto
Astragalus debequaeus,
to make a 90-day finding, and to make a 12-monthfinding. On June 8, 2006, petitionersfiled suit to force the Service to makethe
‘‘
overdue
’’
finding. On July 17, 2006,a settlement agreement was proposed bythe Service with dates for the 90-dayfinding 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 wereagreed upon in a settlement filed onAugust 10, 2006, and approved onAugust 15, 2006.
General Biology and Listable EntityEvaluation
Astragalus debequaeus
is a member of the Fabaceae (Pea) family. Plants areclump-forming perennials 2 to 10decimeters (8 to 39 inches (in.)) indiameter with a woody taproot; stems14 to 30 centimeters (cm) (5.5 to 12 in.)long, curving upward; compound leaves2 to 10 cm (0.8 to 4 in.) long with 13to 21 glabrous, flat or somewhat foldedleaflets. Flowers are white, upright, and17 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 to0.4 in.) thick, and inflated with minuterough hairs that become smooth withage (Welsh 1985, p. 31).
Astragalus debequaeus
has only beenidentified as a separate taxonomic entityfor about 20 years, which representsabout two generations (Colorado NaturalHeritage Program (CNHP) 2005, p. 60).The species was discovered anddescribed as a new species in 1984 byDr. Stanley Welsh of Brigham YoungUniversity.
Astragalus debequaeus
isrecognized as a species in the
ColoradoRare Plant Field Guide
(Spackman
et al.
1997b, p. 7); Integrated TaxonomicInformation System (2007); NatureServe(2006); and Weber and Wittmann (1992,pp. 3, 42; 2001, p. 181).
Astragalus debequaeus
plants arefound on the fine-textured, sandy claysoils of the Atwell Gulch Member of theWasatch Formation that are relatively barren, varicolored, seleniferous, andsaline (Welsh 1985, p. 31). The habitatis found between 1,508 and 1,981meters (4,970 and 6,500 feet) elevationin Mesa and Garfield Counties,Colorado. The species is known from 17occurrences that occupy about 573hectares (1,417 acres) (CNHP 2006, pp.1
–
2). Fourteen of the occurrences arenear the town of DeBeque, Colorado, inMesa County. The Bureau of LandManagement (BLM) Grand JunctionField Office (GJFO) manages 12 of theseoccurrences, 2 of which include smallportions of private land. The other twooccurrences near DeBeque, Colorado arelocated on private lands. There are threeoccurrences of 
A. debequaeus
located inGarfield County at the base of the RoanPlateau near the town of Rifle. Two of these occurrences are primarily on BLMlands but include small portions of private land, while the other one isprivately owned. The total estimatednumber of plants at all seventeenoccurrences is at least 64,617 (CNHP2006, p. 2; Lincoln and Bridgman 2006,p. 1). Table 1 outlines the knownpopulations, estimated number of plantsand area occupied, land ownership, andoverall habitat quality as ranked byCNHP.
T
ABLE
1.
—
A
STRAGALUS DEBEQUAEUS
P
OPULATION
I
NFORMATION
(CNHP 2005; L
INCOLN AND
B
RIDGMAN
2006,
P
. 1).
Occurence location Number of plants*Acres(hectares) **Land ownershipQuality***Shire Gulch..............................................8 to 10....................1 (0.4).....................Private.....................................................DPyramid Rock..........................................thousands...............300 to 392 (121 to158).BLM GJFO..............................................APyramid View...........................................> 1,000...................8 (3.2).....................BLM GJFO..............................................ACoon Hollow............................................> 50,000.................352 (142)................BLM GJFO..............................................ASulphur Gulch..........................................300 to thousands....1 to 55 (0.4 to 22)..BLM GJFO..............................................ASulphur Gulch Bottomland ****..........>50.........................>30 (12)..................BLM GSFO..............................................CCorcoran Wash........................................500..........................8 to 80 (3.2 to 32)..BLM GJFO..............................................AAnvil Points..............................................>700.......................97 (39)....................BLM GSFO/Private..................................ABLittle Horsethief Creek.............................20............................1 (0.4).....................BLM GJFO..............................................CDeBeque Cutoff.......................................710 to thousands....36 to 317 (14.5 to128).BLM GJFO/Private..................................APlateau Valley..........................................12 to 50..................1 to 15 (0.4 to 6)....BLM GJFO/Private..................................CAtwell Gulch.............................................4,478 *****......>16 (6.5) *****BLM GJFO..............................................ABSouth Dry Fork........................................1,000.......................15 (6)......................BLM GJFO/Private..................................AHorsethief Creek......................................100..........................3 to 11 (1.2 to 4.4)BLM GJFO/Private..................................BKing Creek ****..................................3..............................1 (0.4).....................Private.....................................................DLockhart Draw ****.............................1 to 5......................1 (0.4).....................BLM GJFO..............................................DJQS 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 occupiedarea 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 thespecies as G2/S2, indicating that it isimperiled both globally and withinColorado due to extreme rarity (6 to 20occurrences) and/or because of otherfactors demonstrably making itvulnerable to extinction throughout itsrange.
Previous Federal Actions
Astragalus debequaeus
was listed as aCategory 2 (C2) candidate for listing in1993 (58 FR 51144, September 30,
VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:31 Feb 13, 2007Jkt 211001PO 00000Frm 00032Fmt 4702Sfmt 4702E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM14FEP1
  r  m  a   j  e   t   t  e  o  n   P   R   O   D   1   P   C   6   7  w   i   t   h   P   R   O   P   O   S   A   L   S
 
7000
Federal Register
/Vol. 72, No. 30/Wednesday, February 14, 2007/Proposed Rules
1993). In the February 28, 1996, Noticeof Review (61 FR 7595), wediscontinued the use of multiplecandidate categories and consideredonly the former Category 1 candidatesfor listing purposes. Because the speciesdid not meet the threshold of thedefinition of a C1 species,
A.debequaeus
was removed from thecandidate list at that time. The speciesis managed as a Sensitive Species byBLM, as designated by the BLM StateDirector, with special managementconsideration. The BLM Manual 6840provides policy direction that BLMsensitive plant species are to bemanaged as if they were candidatespecies for Federal listing so that theydo not become listed, while alsofulfilling other Federal law mandates.
Threats Analysis
Section 4 of the Act and itsimplementing regulations (50 CFR 424)set forth the procedures for addingspecies to the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlifeand Plants. A species may bedetermined to be an endangered orthreatened species due to one or moreof the five factors described in section4(a)(1) of the Act: (A) present orthreatened destruction, modification, orcurtailment of its habitat or range; (B)overutilization for commercial,recreational, scientific, or educationalpurposes; (C) disease or predation; (D)inadequacy of existing regulatorymechanisms; or (E) other natural ormanmade factors affecting its continuedexistence. In making this finding, weevaluated whether threats to the
Astragalus debequaeus
presented in thepetition and other information availablein our files at the time of the petitionreview may pose a concern with respectto the
A. debequaeus
survival. Ourevaluation of these threats is presented below under the most appropriatelisting factor.
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of its Habitat or Range
The petitioners state that substantialthreats to the species
’
habitat arepresented by
—
(1) traditional oil and gasdevelopment, (2) oil-shale mining, (3)coalbed methane development and/orcoal mining, (4) noxious weeds andseeding, (5) existing and projectedroads, (6) livestock trampling, (7) off-road vehicle (ORV) use, and (8)increased housing development. Weaddress each of these topicsindividually below.
Information Provided in the PetitionRegarding Traditional Oil and GasDevelopment 
—
Oil and gas resourcesand development are extensive withinthe range of 
Astragalus debequaeus.
Thespecies is endemic to the Atwell GulchMember of the Wasatch Formationsubstrate, which overlays deposits of oiland gas in the Piceance Basin that BLMhas leased for energy development. Thefollowing table summarizes informationprovided in the petition regardingactivities within the leases and thesections where plants occur.Occurrences listed in this table are notnecessarily the same as those shown inthe previous table due to differentoccurrence criteria protocols used byCNHP in 2004 versus 2006.
T
ABLE
2.
—
S
UMMARY
I
NFORMATION
P
ROVIDED IN THE
P
ETITION
R
EGARDING
A
CTIVITIES
W
ITHIN THE
L
EASES AND THE
 S
ECTIONS
W
HERE
A
STRAGALUS DEBEQUAEUS
P
LANTS
O
CCUR
 
Occurence location *Number of leases
1
Applicationsfor permit todrill in thelease area
4
 Applicationsfor permit todrill in thesection
5
 Pipelines Roads ORV GrazingOld
2
New
3
 Pyramid Rock..................4 11 20 10 multiple......multiple......90% open..openCorcoran Wash...................................1 ................................................................................open...........openSouth Dry Fork................3 2 ........................................1 1 open...........openSulphur Gulch.................2 ....................2 ....................1 1 open...........openDeBeque South...............2 3 2 3 3 1 open...........openAtwell Gulch........................................1 2 ........................................multiple......open...........openJerry Gulch......................1 2 ................................................................................open...........openAnvil 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 byCNHP in 2004 versus 2006. Another discrepancy originates from the fact that four additional occurrences were documented in 2005 after this in-formation 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 km
2
)) where plants occur as of 2004.
Analysis of Information Provided inthe Petition and Information Availableto Us at the Time of Petition Review 
—
 We cannot find support for thepetitioners
’
claim that the high densityof oil and gas infrastructure causesdirect and indirect impacts to
Astragalus debequaeus.
The petitionerscite two instances in which
‘‘
a sizablenumber
’’
and
‘‘
a dozen or so
’’
sensitiveplants (no species named) weredestroyed during construction of twowell pads (BLM GSFO 1999a, pp. 4
–
33,34). The BLM GSFO is aware of onlyone instance where
A. debequaeus
wasdirectly impacted. The BLM permittedthe loss of three plants within aproposed disturbance area for an accessroad (Scheck 2006a). The Service hasinformation on only one additionalinstance, in the BLM GJFO managementarea, where four plants were lost duringconstruction of a pipeline and 12 plantswere transplanted (Alward 2006).The petition provides generalinformation regarding the extent of oiland gas leasing and potentialdevelopment in the BLM GSFO andGJFO management areas within therange of 
Astragalus debequaeus.
It doesnot present specific information thatthis development has resulted in lossesor threatens to result in losses of plantsor habitat. Much of the information inthe petition identifies potential threatsand hypothetical impacts rather thanactual impacts.On the basis of our evaluation of theinformation presented in the petition, itis our determination that the petitiondoes not present substantial informationto indicate that listing of 
Astragalusdebequaeus
may be warranted due tothe present or threatened destruction,modification, or curtailment of itshabitat or range due to oil and gasdevelopment.
VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:26 Feb 13, 2007Jkt 211001PO 00000Frm 00033Fmt 4702Sfmt 4702E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM14FEP1
  r  m  a   j  e   t   t  e  o  n   P   R   O   D   1   P   C   6   7  w   i   t   h   P   R   O   P   O   S   A   L   S
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...