Department of the Interior
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office
Hidden Valley Road
Carlsbad, California 92009
Phone: 760/431-9440
Fax: 760/431-9624

(SC)

04-078

Contact: Jane Hendron, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office ? 760/431-9440 ext. 205

For Release: August 3, 2004

CRITICAL SAND DUNE HABITAT DESIGNATED FOR PEIRSON'S MILK-VETCH

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will publish a final rule in the Federal Register on August 4, 2004, identifying 21,863 acres of land in the Algodones Dunes as critical habitat for Peirson's milk-vetch (Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii). A final economic analysis of costs associated with conservation activities for the plant will be available on the Internet at http://carlsbad.fws.gov.

The economic analysis estimates the regional economies of Imperial and Yuma counties would see an upper bound reduction in output of $2.8 million in the year 2013 if the areas designated as critical habitat were closed to off-highway vehicle use.

Most of the Algodones Dunes is managed by the Bureau of Land Management as part of the Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area, and is heavily used by off-highway vehicle enthusiasts.

"The Service is continuing to work cooperatively with the BLM on implementation of their Recreation Area Management Plan," said Steve Thompson, Manager of the Service's California/Nevada Operations Office.

"Once our consultation is completed we anticipate the BLM will move forward with finalization of their management plan for the dunes."

Other impacts identified in the final analysis include an estimated $24.5 million in costs associated with conservation activities for the plant between 1998 ? the year the plant was listed under the ESA ? and 2004, and a projected $11.4 million in future consultation costs for the BLM and the Service from 2005 to 2024.

Impacts identified in an economic analysis may be considered when determining if the benefits of excluding an area from critical habitat outweigh the benefits of including it in such designation. Based on analysis of potential impacts, approximately 30,917 acres of land were excluded from the final designation. The exclusion of these areas from critical habitat will not result in the extinction of the species.

Peirson's milk-vetch, a perennial member of the legume family, has delicate purple flowers. Well adapted to the harsh desert environment, the plant has a long tap root that penetrates deep into the sand to reach moisture and functions as an anchor in shifting sands. The plant produces large fruits each containing 11 to 16 flattened black seeds. Plants may flower in their first year and produce between one and five fruits, but older plants produce significantly more fruits ? approximately 171 fruits per plant.

All of the areas designated as critical habitat contain intact, active sand dune systems; substrates of Rositas fine sands of sufficient depth to promote Peirson's milk-vetch and discourage the growth of creosote bush; wind-formed slopes of less than 30 degrees, but generally less than 20 degrees; and compatible sand-associated plants that support the white-faced dagger bee, the primary pollinator of Peirson's milk-vetch.

Critical habitat is a term in the Act that identifies geographic areas that contain features essential for the conservation of a threatened or endangered species and may require special management considerations. The designation of critical habitat does not affect land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other conservation area. It does not allow government or public access to private lands.

In 30 years of implementing the Endangered Species Act, the Service has found that the designation of critical habitat provides little additional protection to most listed species, while preventing the Service from using scarce conservation resources for activities with greater conservation benefits.

In almost all cases, recovery of listed species will come through voluntary cooperative partnerships, not regulatory measures such as critical habitat. Habitat is also protected through cooperative measures under the Endangered Species Act including Habitat Conservation Plans, Safe Harbor Agreements, Candidate Conservation Agreements and state programs. In addition, voluntary partnership programs such as the Service's Private Stewardship Grants and Partners for Fish and Wildlife program also restore habitat.

Habitat for endangered species is provided on many national wildlife refuges, managed by the Service and state wildlife management areas.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the principal Federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting and enhancing fish, wildlife and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. The Service manages the 95-million-acre National Wildlife Refuge System, which encompasses 544 national wildlife refuges, thousands of small wetlands and other special management areas. It also operates 69 national fish hatcheries, 63 Fish and Wildlife Management offices and 81 ecological services field stations. The agency enforces federal wildlife laws, administers the Endangered Species Act, manages migratory bird populations, restores nationally significant fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat such as wetlands, and helps foreign governments with their conservation efforts. It also oversees the Federal Assistance program, which distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment to state fish and wildlife agencies.

- FWS -

For more information visit our home page at www.fws.gov

so basically in lamens terms?..................

Doesn't sound like there is any reason to keep those 30,000+ acres hostage to the environazi's to me.

So what is the next slow, painful step twords opening this excess acreage that is protecting nothing now?

I just got off the phone with FWS and the map for the final rule won't be available until tomorrow.

Until then, here is the map from the proposed rule. The difference (30,917 acres less) come from excluding subsections C and D and most of B in the final ruling. Subsection A (includes the wilderness area and Mammoth Wash management area) and the Ogilby portion of subsection B will remain designated as critical habitat.

Proposed habitat map

Once the final ruling is posted in tomorrow's Federal Register we'll have a better map to go by.

Vicki

Here's a link to the FWS' questions and answers regarding the proposed critical habitat:

Critical habitat Q&A

wooooo hooooo thank you Brian!

I’ve gotten a couple emails on this and probably the biggest question on everyone’s mind is, does designating critical habitat mean the area is closed to OHV use?

According to the FWS “A critical habitat designation does not affect land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other conservation area.” But does that really answer the question? Well, no, not really.

Once critical habitat is designated, the federal agency in charge of the area must ensure that the activities they allow do not adversely effect the species’ critical habitat. As such, the BLM may request a “conference” with the FWS to seek an opinion as to whether continued OHV use within the designated areas affect the critical habitat. The FWS will render a “conference opinion” that will include recommendations to avoid adverse “modification” of critical habitat. Does that really answer the question? Well, no, not really. But that’s because there is no definite answer to that question yet.

Can we guess? Sure we could. One would hope that since a favorable biological opinion was granted prior to critical habitat being designated, which stated essentially that the preferred alternative to the management plan would not cause extinction of the PMV, designating critical habitat wouldn’t change that viewpoint. But really, we just won’t know for a while and guessing can be such a sad waste of energy.

Another question I’ve heard is, “Is the ‘white-faced dagger bee’ [referenced in the decision] one of the two bees that the CBD has petitioned for listing as endangered?” The answer is no, it is not one of the two bees on the petition.

Another question is, will this hold up the management plan that we’ve all be so patiently waiting for? I didn’t ask this specifically but in their press release the FWS wrote “Once our consultation is completed we anticipate the BLM will move forward with finalization of their management plan for the dunes.”

Sheesh, what a mess.

Vicki

So basicly were still in hurry up and wait mode

ahh..this is the long, slow, and painful part....at the very least this is some progress, and I'm sure it's a lot less than the eco-nazi's wanted to see, just as it's about 20 million times bigger than anyone with a brain larger than a pea would have expected.

U.S. move fuels fears over dune plant

HABITAT: A cut in proposed land threatens the Peirson's milk-vetch, environmentalists say.

01:10 AM PDT on Wednesday, August 4, 2004


By JENNIFER BOWLES / The Press-Enterprise

At the California desert's most popular off-roading area, the Bush administration on Tuesday reduced by 60 percent the amount of land considered critical for the survival of a threatened plant.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service dropped most off-roading areas from its final habitat designation, thus removing these areas from potential closures due to habitat impact. Instead, the agency placed most of the habitat in a wilderness area of the 160,000-acre Imperial Sand Dunes that already bans motorized vehicles.

Environmentalists said the reduction of critical habitat favored off-roaders and would lead to further destruction of the Peirson's milk-vetch, a flowering plant that grows on the wind-sculpted dunes.

"It's a political hack job," said Daniel Patterson, desert ecologist with the Center for Biological Diversity, which has sought protections for the plant.

Grant George, president of the American Sand Association, an off-roading group with 17,000 members, said he didn't know the details of the designation for the milk-vetch but thinks the plant doesn't deserve to be on the Endangered Species list, let alone any protection of its habitat.

"We don't feel there is any justification for any protections," said George, of Rancho Cucamonga, whose group had unsuccessfully fought to take the plant off the list.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said the decision to cut 30,000 acres of critical habitat from a proposal a year ago was based on the potential economic impacts to Imperial County and Yuma County in Arizona. The original proposal, if it led to off-roading closures, would have cost those economies between $55 million and $124 million through 2013, said Jane Hendron, a spokeswoman for the wildlife agency.

With the final designation, that figure is $2.8 million for the same time frame.

"The secretary does have the discretion to exclude areas if, after weighing the pros and cons, it's determined that the benefits of excluding an area are greater than the benefits of including critical habitat," she said.

In this case, the decision was signed by Craig Manson, assistant secretary for fish and wildlife and parks in the Interior Department.

Hendron said a critical habitat designation doesn't automatically lead to closures.

Doran Sanchez, a spokesman for the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, which oversees the dunes, said the agency had not seen the final decision. The BLM is awaiting further analysis from the wildlife agency before reopening about one-third of the dunes that were closed in 2000 under a legal settlement agreement with the Center and other environmental groups.

George said he feared the areas would still remain closed at the beginning of the riding season in October.

Reach Jennifer Bowles at 951-368-9548 or jbowles@pe.com

http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories...es04.5805f.html

The plot thickens..... . Based on this, perhaps we can now see why the CBD made that ludicrouis offer to the ASA. Danny Boy's panties are getting tighter!!!

so does this mean we might get part of our sandbox back, if so, when do you think it will reopen?

The final rule is 23 pages long so I'll just post the link here:

PMV critical habitat final ruling

I'll get the new map up in just a minute...

Thanks Brian!

Vicki

Oh yeah, they've re-done their FAQs about the critical habitat but it doesn't look like they really cover what everyone is probably asking most and that is, will critical habitat designation result in additional OHV restrictions?

Not so easy to answer and will take more than just a quick glance before even a guess can be made. Since I've only had time so far to take a quick glance maybe a slow read over lunch will help

Vicki

so it looks as if they are going to possibly open up all the dunes except for a small portion north of patton valley? maybe if things ever finalize?

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-ve...ines-california

Dunes Habitat for Milk Vetch Reduced
From Associated Press

August 5, 2004

GLAMIS, Calif. — The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on Wednesday reduced by nearly 60% the amount of land in California's Imperial Valley considered essential to a broom-like plant's survival.

Last year, Fish and Wildlife Service biologists in California proposed designating 52,780 acres of the Algodones Dunes as critical habitat for Peirson's milk vetch. In a final rule published Wednesday, the critical habitat was reduced to 21,863 acres.

The Center for Biological Diversity criticized the decision. The Tucson-based group, which has sued to protect numerous species, including the milk vetch, noted that much of the plant's critical habitat had previously been protected as wilderness.

Funny how they now remember the wilderness area and are trying to use it AGAINST us!

Good morning everyone. It sure is nice to see everyone concerned and working
to see what is truly going on in our dunes. Slap, you should be proud. Look at our
leaders go.

I think I'll just hangout over here in the Issues area from here on.

WOW !!!! Thanks Vicki, Brian and all the others keeping us informed.

"HAVE A GREAT DAY" to all.

OK, I have a different take on what this means....

Since the Critical Habitat Area defined within the ISDRA is different than the proposed AMA, I would expect the BLM to re-define the AMA to cover just the Critical Habitat. Maybe I'm making too much sense though...

I expect that both sides will file more lawsuits against the FWS that MAY further impede implementation of any RAMP.

The unknown:
Once the BLM makes any final minor changes to the RAMP to address the CH, do all parties need to go back to the judge of the orginal lawsuit and get an OK before any temp closures are lifted or is it BLM discreation?

CH is only for the PMV while the AMA takes other species into consideration.
I would guess that without very aggressive actions by Dune Orginizations the AMA is as it will be. I highly doubt that the BLM would backtrack from what they have already set. Any movement to reduce will only invite more lawsuites.

Rick, I may be able to help with that unknown...

The 2001 temporary closures are the result of a stipulated settlement in a lawsuit claiming the BLM did not follow proper procedures. Once those procedures have been properly followed, the stipulated settlement conditions are met. BLM discretion does not play a role.

It's like if you sue your neighbor because you've asked them to fix their fence a thousand times and they refuse. You guys stipulate that as long as your neighbor fixes the fence, you'll drop the lawsuit. If you later decide you want it to be a green fence instead of a brown one, unless it states that in the settlement you are SOL.

And your opinion that there will be more lawsuits no matter what is, unfortunately, dead-on.

The really sad part is, the lawsuit never really was about the species... the procedural deficiences were all the anti-access organizations needed to do what they did.

Vicki

First of all, I want to say a hearty "WELL DONE" to all who were involved and helped with evrything that has led to the FWS making their decision. Especially to you Vicki, and of course Slappy.

Like all of you have already said, the fight is not over yet.

Looks to me like we need to square our shoulders, and start the TRT and others in getting the current DRAMP modified with the FWS decision. Seems to me that CBD could switch gears, like the new draft RAMP because it includes the temporary closures, which would in essence, nullify somewhat what the FWS has stated.

It ain't over 'till Danny Boy is crying!!

Julie..doesn't the TRT advise the BLM with regards to management of the dunes? Wouldn't it make sense to start at the place where our collective voice is supposed to be heard? If that's not practical, then sounds like we need to be banging on the ASA BOD's to file another lawsuit to change decisions from the lawsuit that is being settled with bad science info, and obviously pre-maturely with regards to the un-threatened, but listed-as-threatened pmv.

I guess it's just frustrating to see that very small area designated as critical habitat, and then compare that to size of the proposed AMA..That AMA needs to be changed to reflect the significantly smaller area of imaginary concern.

Bob, one other thing to remember is that the AMA was supposedly not set aside only to "protect" the milkvetch. There were many reasons listed in the RAMP for the AMA being deemed a restricted area.

Ooops-sorry, didn't realize I made you look like you had nothing to say above

Re: the TRT.

Their actually even more limited than that. They can only advise regarding how fee demo money is spent. Here's their Mission statement taken directly from their website (http://www.isdratrt.org)

Thanks, Jason....very much.....