2009 Federal Register, 74 FR 46521; Centralized Library: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

[Federal Register: September 10, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 174)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 46521-46542]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr10se09-12]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2009-0006]
[MO 922105 0082-B2]

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding
on a Petition to List Astragalus anserinus (Goose Creek milkvetch) as
Threatened or Endangered

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of a 12-month petition finding.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce our
12-month finding on a petition to list Astragalus anserinus (Goose
Creek milkvetch) as a threatened or endangered species under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). After a thorough
review of all available scientific and commercial information, we find
that listing A. anserinus under the Act is warranted. However, listing
is currently precluded by higher priority actions to amend the Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. We have assigned a
listing priority number (LPN) of 5 to this species, because the threats
affecting it have a high magnitude, but are non-imminent. Upon
publication of this 12-month petition finding, A. anserinus will be
added to our candidate species list. We will develop a proposed rule to
list A. anserinus as our priorities allow. Any determinations on
critical habitat will be made during development of the proposed rule.

DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on September 10,
2009.

ADDRESSES: This finding is available on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R1-ES-2009-0006. Supporting
documentation we used to prepare this finding is available for public
inspection, by appointment during normal business hours at the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah Field Office, 2369 West Orton Circle
Suite 50, West Valley City, Utah 84119. Please submit any new
information, materials, comments, or questions concerning this finding
to the above address or via electronic mail (e-mail) at http://
www.fw1srbocomments@fws.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Crist, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah Field Office (see ADDRESSES)); by
telephone at 801-975-3330; or by facsimile at 801-975-3331. If you use
a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires
that, for any petition containing substantial scientific and commercial
information that listing may be warranted, we make a finding within 12
months of the date of receipt of the petition on whether the petitioned
action is: (a) Not warranted, (b) warranted, or (c) warranted, but
immediate proposal of a regulation implementing the petitioned action
is precluded by other pending proposals to determine whether species
are threatened or endangered, and expeditious progress is being made to
add or remove qualified species from

[[Page 46522]]

the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Section
4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that we treat a petition for which the
requested action is found to be warranted but precluded as though
resubmitted on the date of such finding; that is, requiring a
subsequent finding to be made within 12 months. We must publish these
12-month findings in the Federal Register.

Previous Federal Actions

On February 3, 2004, we received a petition dated January 30, 2004,
from Red Willow Research, Inc., and 25 other concerned parties (the
Prairie Falcon Audubon Society Chapter Board, Western Watersheds
Project, Utah Environmental Congress, Sawtooth Group of the Sierra
Club, and 21 private citizens) requesting that we list Astragalus
anserinus as threatened or endangered, emergency list the species, and
designate critical habitat concurrently with the listing (Red Willow
Research Inc, in litt. 2004). We acknowledged the receipt of the
petition in a letter to the petitioners in a letter dated February 19,
2004. In that letter, we advised the petitioners that our initial
review of the petition determined that emergency listing was not
warranted, and that if conditions change we would reevaluate the need
for emergency listing. We informed the petitioner that in light of
resource constraints, we anticipated making our initial finding in
Fiscal Year 2005 as to whether the petition contained substantial
information indicating that the action may be warranted.
On August 16, 2007, we published a notice of 90-day finding (72 FR
46023) that the petition presented substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that listing A. anserinus may be warranted, and
that we were initiating a status review of the species. For more
information, refer to the 90-day finding that was published in the
Federal Register on August 16, 2007 (72 FR 46023). We received
information from the Bureau of Land Management, Idaho Department of
Fish and Game, Red Willow Research Inc. (the petitioner), and the
Cassia County Weed Control office in response to the 90-day finding.
All information received has been fully considered in this finding.
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994,
Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, and the Department of
the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights,
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act),
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with the
Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge
that Tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make
information available to Tribes. In fulfilling our trust
responsibilities for government-to-government consultation with Tribes,
we met with the Shoshone Paiute Tribes regarding the process taken to
conduct a 12-month status review of Astragalus anserinus. As an outcome
of our government-to-government consultation, we recognize the strong
cultural significance of A. anserinus to the Shoshone Paiute Tribes and
acknowledge that in this 12-month finding. This notice constitutes the
12-month finding on the January 30, 2004, petition to list A. anserinus
as threatened or endangered.

Species Information

Astragalus anserinus was first collected in 1982 by Duane Atwood
from a location in Box Elder County, Utah, and subsequently described
in 1984 (Atwood et al. 1984, p. 263). The species is known only from
tuffaceous (ashy) soils found near Goose Creek on the Idaho, Nevada,
and Utah border, an area approximately 20 miles (mi)(32.5 kilometers
(km)) long and 4 mi (6.4 km) wide. A. anserinus is a low-growing,
matted, perennial forb (flowering herb) in the pea or legume family
(Fabaceae), with grey hairy leaves, pink-purple flowers, and brownish-
red curved seed pods (Mancuso and Moseley 1991, p. 4). This species is
distinguished from A. calycosus (Torrey's milkvetch), A. purshii
(woollypod milkvetch), and A. newberryi (Newberry's milkvetch), the
three other mat-forming Astragalus species found in the Goose Creek
drainage, primarily by its smaller leaflets and flowers, as well as the
color and shape of the seed pods (Baird and Tuhy 1991, p. 1; Mancuso
and Moseley 1991, pp. 4-5). In our August 16, 2007, 90-day finding (72
FR 46023), we used the common name for the species, ``Goose Creek milk-
vetch.'' Here we use ``Astragalus anserinus'' for accuracy, and ``Goose
Creek milkvetch'' (un-hyphenated) to make the taxonomy more consistent
with today's botanical nomenclature.

Biology, Distribution, and Abundance

Astragalus anserinus typically flowers from late May to early June.
The species is assumed to be insect-pollinated, but the specific
pollinators are unknown (Baird and Tuhy 1991, p. 3). Fruit set begins
in early June with fruits remaining on the plants for several months.
Mechanisms of seed dispersal are also unknown, but may include wind
dispersion of seed pods and insect or bird agents (Baird and Tuhy 1991,
p. 3). Because A. anserinus often grows on slopes and because the seed
pods are found close to the ground below the vegetative portions of the
plant, water or gravity dispersal may also be a dispersal mechanism. In
2004 and 2005, clusters of seedlings were occasionally observed on
abandoned ant hills, which could suggest some ant dispersal. Little
scientific research specific to A. anserinus has been conducted beyond
a basic species description and various survey efforts.
Limited information is available regarding Astragalus anserinus
longevity. In September 2004, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
Field Office in Burley, Idaho (BLM-Idaho), permanently marked 10
seedlings in a wash at the base of a tuffaceous outcrop (soils
comprised of volcanic ash and particulates) at one site (Site 1), 8
seedlings and 7 adults at the base of a slope at a second site (Site
2), and 12 seedlings and 10 adults at a third site (Site 3) (A.
Feldhausen, Burley BLM, in litt. 2007a, pp. 8-9). The results of this
effort are summarized in Table 1 below. In a separate monitoring
effort, BLM-Idaho conducted annual counting of A. anserinus individuals
at two sites (Big Site 1 and Big Site 7) from 2004 to 2007. These
results are depicted in Table 2 below. In combination, these two
studies demonstrate large fluctuations in the number of individuals
between years, with Table 2 reflecting almost a doubling or halving in
magnitude between the numbers of individuals observed in successive
years.

[[Page 46523]]

Table 1. Short-term tracking of Astragalus anserinus individuals (2004-2006) (A. Feldhausen, in litt. 2007a, pp. 8-9).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3
Year --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seedlings Seedlings Adults Seedlings Adults
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004 10 seedlings 8 seedlings 7 adults 12 seedlings 10 adults
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005 4 dead, 2 small 6 dead, 1 small 1 dead, 6 alive 1 stake missing, 5 1 dead, 9 with
seedlings (15 leaves seedling (12 leaves), dead, 6 small adults desiccated leaves
each), 4 small adult 1 young adult (3 with pods) and numerous pods
plants with pods
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006 All 6 remaining plants Of the 7 remaining Of the 6 remaining 7 dead, 3 stakes
swept away by water adult plants, 2 dead stakes: 1 stake missing
in a wash and 5 alive missing, 4 dead, 1
adult
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 2. Monitoring of Astragalus anserinus at two sites in Idaho (A.
Feldhausen, in litt. 2007a, pp. 8-9; Idaho Conservation Data Center
(IDCDC) 2007a, Element Occurrence (EO) 003).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Big Site 1 Big Site 7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004 123 total (2 dead, 138 total (42
73 seedlings, 48 seedlings, 96
adults) adults)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005 136 total (8 dead, 67 total (3 dead,
13 seedlings, 115 6 seedlings, 58
adults) adults)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006 88 total 135 total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007 73 total 69 total
------------------------------------------------------------------------

These wide-ranging fluctuations in the number of Astragalus
anserinus individuals observed suggests that the species is either
short-lived or that adult plants may remain dormant during some growing
seasons. If the species is short-lived, corresponding augmentation of
seedlings to replace lost individuals would be expected; however, this
has not been observed. During spring census efforts, seedlings (defined
as young developing plants having 3 or fewer leaves) made up 1,433 of
the 30,281 individuals that were counted in 2005 (4.7 percent), and 167
of the 4,087 individuals counted in 2008 (4.1 percent) (Service 2008a,
p. 1). The definition of seedlings used for purposes of Table 2 is
different than that used in the 2004, 2005, and 2008 census efforts;
with seedlings in Table 2 being defined by young developing plants with
cotyledons (the first leaves to emerge from the ground) present.
Seedlings made up 59.3 percent of the total individuals at Big Site 1
in 2004, and 9.6 percent of the total individuals in 2005. Seedlings
also made up 30.4 percent of the total individuals at Big Site 2 in
2004, and 8.9 percent of the total individuals in 2005 (J. Tharp,
Burley BLM, in litt., 2008a, p. 1). Although we have no direct
information on A. anserinus seedling germination, it would likely be
more or less abundant depending on the time of year sampled. We expect
spring would be the most likely time to observe A. anserinus seedlings,
like many other plants, and the seedlings could be more numerous in
years when climatic conditions are more amenable to their germination
and establishment. One such climatic factor could be annual
precipitation; the amount and timing of this precipitation over the
course of a year could influence seed germination and seedling
recruitment.
During field surveys, several smaller Astragalus anserinus plants
were partially excavated and observed to be attached to large woody
roots. Parts of some individual plants frequently appeared to be dead,
with only a small green portion remaining. This suggests that
vegetative growth may vary during successive years, and that plant size
may not necessarily correspond to the age of the individual. This also
suggests that some A. anserinus individuals may remain dormant for an
entire growing season. In at least one other species of Astragalus (A.
ampullarioides), adult plants can exhibit dormancy (an inactive state)
during a growing season, and the perennial rootstock allows the plant
to survive dry years (Van Buren and Harper 2003b in Service 2006a, p.
8). However, monitoring studies to determine whether A. anserinus also
has this ability have not been conducted.
Table 2 also demonstrates that fluctuations in the number of
Astragalus anserinus individuals can vary across sites during a given
year. For example, the number of individuals counted at Big Site 1
decreased from 136 to 88 between 2005 and 2006, whereas the number of
individuals counted at Big Site 7 increased from 67 to 135 during the
same time period. However, between 2006 and 2007, the number of
individuals counted at Big Site 1 decreased from 88 to 73 and the
number of individuals counted at Big Site 7 decreased 135 to 69. Since
these sites are approximately 0.5 mi (0.8 km) apart on similar aspects,
this suggests that local weather patterns may not be a predominant
factor influencing plant abundance and annual survival.
Although we acknowledge there are some uncertainties with regard to
longevity, plant dormancy, and the effect of climatic factors on A.
anserinus, the observed population trend has been a decrease in the
number of observed individuals.
Astragalus anserinus is endemic to the Goose Creek drainage in
Cassia County, Idaho; Elko County, Nevada; and Box Elder County, Utah.
The Goose Creek drainage occurs within the Great Basin ecosystem; this
drainage receives an annual rainfall average of less than 12 inches (30
centimeters). Element Occurrences (EOs) are areas where a species was
or is recorded to be present. The known EOs of A. anserinus occur at
elevations ranging between 4,900 to 5,885 feet (ft) (1,494 to 1,790
meters (m)) (Idaho Conservation Data Center (IDCDC) 2007b, p. 2; Smith
2007, Table 1). Most A. anserinus EOs are within an approximate 20-mi
(32-km) long by 4-mi (6.4-km) wide area, oriented in a southwest to
northeasterly direction along Goose Creek. However one A. anserinus EO
has been documented outside of the Goose Creek watershed approximately
2 mi (3.2 km) south of any other EOs. The geographic range of the
species has not been extended from that presented in the 90-day finding
(72 FR 46023; August 16, 2007). Based on new information from surveys

[[Page 46524]]

conducted in Nevada in 2006, during which several new EOs were
discovered, gaps in the range have been filled with the 6 new EOs
extending toward the 1 EO outside of the Goose Creek drainage.
Astragalus anserinus occurs in a variety of habitats, but is
typically associated with dry tuffaceous soils from the Salt Lake
Formation that have a silty to sandy texture (Mancuso and Moseley 1991,
p. 12). In Utah, soil series where A. anserinus has been located
include Bluehill fine sandy loam, Codquin gravelly sandy loam,
Cottonthomas fine sandy loam, and Tomsherry fine sandy loam (Hardy
2005, p. 4). The species has been observed growing on steep or flat
sites, with soil textures ranging from silty to sandy to somewhat
gravelly. These habitats can vary from stable areas with little erosion
to washes or steep slopes where erosion is common. It appears that the
species tolerates, and may proliferate with, some level of disturbance,
based on its occurrence on steep slopes where downhill movement of soil
is common, within eroded washes, and along road margins and edges of
cattle trails. However, individuals have not been observed where
vehicle or livestock travel is frequent or where water flows through
washes on a regular basis.
Astragalus anserinus is generally not found on north-facing slopes,
but is found on most other slope aspects within sparsely vegetated
areas in sagebrush and juniper habitats. The estimated total plant
cover (of all species) at sites where A. anserinus occurs is between 10
and 35 percent (Hardy 2005, p. 4; Smith 2007, p. 2). The dominant
native species within the general surrounding plant community include
Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis (Wyoming big sagebrush),
Juniperus osteosperma (Utah juniper), Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus
(green or yellow rabbitbrush), Poa secunda (Sandberg's bluegrass), and
Hesperostipa comata (needle and thread grass). A. anserinus is
frequently associated with a suite of native species that reside on the
tuffaceous sand (Baird and Tuhy 1991, pp. 2-3) including: Achnatherum
hymenoides (Indian ricegrass), Chaenactis douglasii (Douglas'
dustymaiden), Cryptantha humilis (roundspike cryptantha), Eriogonum
microthecum (slender buckwheat), Eriogonum ovalifolium (cushion
buckwheat), Ipomopsis congesta (= Gilia congesta; ballhead gilia),
Mentzelia albicaulis (whitestem blazingstar), and Phacelia hastata
(silverleaf phacelia). Several nonnative species also co-occur with A.
anserinus (see Nonnative Introduced Species under Summary of Factors
Affecting the Species Rangewide: Factor A, below). Another Goose Creek
drainage endemic, Penstemon idahoensis (Idaho penstemon), is found near
A. anserinus, but these species are seldom found immediately adjacent
to one another. Other sensitive species in the area include Arabis
falcatoria (= Boechera falcatoria; falcate rockcress), and Potentilla
cottamii (Cottam's cinquefoil) (Franklin 2005, pp. 9-10, 159-160).
The Heritage/Conservation Data Center programs in Idaho, Nevada,
and Utah rank Astragalus anserinus as a G2 species, indicating the
species is ``imperiled throughout its range because of rarity or other
factors that make it vulnerable to extinction,'' and S1 (critically
imperiled) in the three states (IDCDC 2007b, p. 2). Heritage/
Conservation Data rankings do not offer any sort of protection, but are
often used to guide other agencies and entities in designating
sensitive species. The BLM has assigned different status designations
to the species in the three states where it occurs. In Idaho, A.
anserinus is designated as a type 2 species, which reflects a rangewide
or globally imperiled species with a high endangerment status. In Utah,
the species is designated as a sensitive plant species (Fortner 2003 in
Franklin 2005, p. 17), and in Nevada the species is designated as a
special status species (Morefield 2001, p. 1). BLM policy provides that
species which are designated as a ``sensitive species'' shall be
protected as candidate species for listing under the Act (BLM 2001, p.
06C1).
Astragalus anserinus is currently known from 19 EO records (5 in
Idaho, 10 in Nevada, and 4 in Utah) (IDCDC 2007b, p.4; Smith 2007, p.
1; Utah Conservation Data Center (UCDC) in litt. 2007, map; Service
2008b, 17 pp.). The number of currently known EOs (19) differs from the
24 EOs identified in the 90-day finding published on August 16, 2007
(72 FR 46023). Recently published NatureServe guidelines for
designating EOs in Idaho and Utah (IDCDC 2007b, p. 1; R. Fitts, Utah
Conservation Data Center, in litt. 2008, p. 1) state that sites
(occupied points, lines, or polygons) that occur within 0.6 mi (1 km)
of each other are within the same EO. Accordingly, several occupied
sites that were designated as individual EOs in our August 16, 2007,
90-day finding were combined. In addition, six new EOs were discovered
in Nevada as a result of survey efforts in 2006. We developed a naming
convention to help us manage and compare EO data for recently
consolidated sites before and after implementation of the NatureServe
guidelines. For example, the designation U001-4-17 identifies Utah EO
001, which was previously identified as Utah EO 004. The suffix 17
reflects a site number that has been assigned according to the sequence
the site was counted in 2004 or 2005. We use our naming convention as
described, as well as EO number in various places throughout this
finding, depending on the context of the particular site being
referenced.
The majority of Astragalus anserinus sites in Idaho, Utah, and
Nevada occur on Federal lands managed by the BLM (Service 2008, 17
pp.). In 2004 and 2005, we conducted a multiagency census and survey
effort for A. anserinus with the BLM, USFS, and natural resource
agencies from the States of Idaho, Nevada, and Utah. Our objective was
to count (census) known sites, survey additional areas, and document
any new populations. In 2004, we examined 33 sites in 5 EOs in Idaho
(3,467 individuals were counted); 6 sites in 3 EOs in Nevada (2,252
individuals were counted); and 11 sites in 2 EOs in Utah (7,558
individuals were counted) (Service 2008, 17 pp.). In 2005, we examined
5 sites at 1 EO in Nevada (3,074 individuals were counted), and 64
sites in 1 EO in Utah (27,207 individuals were counted) (Service 2008,
17 pp). During the 2004 and 2005 census efforts, 40,858 individual
plants of the estimated 60,000 individual plants range-wide (68
percent) were counted at 119 sites in 12 EOs.
Estimating the total Astragalus anserinus population size is
complicated because of the variability in the species annual abundance,
and the different census and survey methods that have been employed.
For example, plant abundance at one site in Idaho over a 4-year period
varied significantly: 138 plants were counted in 2004; 67 plants in
2005; 135 plants in 2006; and 69 plants in 2007 (Service 2008, 17 pp.).
Census efforts in 2008 at 3 sites that were not affected by a
significant wildfire in 2007 demonstrated a general decrease from plant
counts when compared to the 2004 or 2005 data; 1 site increased by 5.4
percent (652 to 687), 1 site decreased by 76.3 percent (1,458 to 346),
and 1 site decreased by 79.0 percent (3,081 to 647) (Service 2008c,
Table 2). Using the best available data for each A. anserinus site, we
estimate that there were approximately 60,000 individuals distributed
across the three states prior to the 2007 wildfires (Service 2008, 17
pp.). However, we recognize the inherent variability associated with

[[Page 46525]]

estimating population size, because of large fluctuations observed
between successive monitoring years and the differing census and survey
methods that have been employed. Generally, the 2004 and 2005 census
counts yielded higher numbers than had been estimated by previous
surveys (Service 2008, pp. 1-6), however, monitoring efforts have not
occurred regularly enough or over a long enough period to allow us to
statistically analyze population trends.
Based on pre-2007 (pre-wildfire) individual plant count data,
approximately 10 percent of all known Astragalus anserinus individuals
occur in Idaho (5,500 plants), 25 percent occur in Nevada (15,500
plants), and 65 percent occur in Utah (39,000 plants) (Service 2008c,
Table 1). State-specific information on the population status of A.
anserinus is described below.

Idaho

Prior to 2004, seven EOs (which are now combined into four EOs
under the NatureServe guidelines) were monitored by the IDCDC, who
reported the number of Astragalus anserinus individuals at most sites
as estimations. The first A. anserinus EO was documented in 1985 (1
year after the species was described (Atwood et al. 1984, p. 263)), but
systematic or comprehensive surveys were not conducted in Idaho until
1991 (Mancuso and Moseley 1991, p. iii). In 1991, the A. anserinus
population in Idaho was estimated at over 914 individuals (Mancuso and
Moseley 1991, pp. 2, 13-14).
During the 2004 census effort, the four known Astragalus anserinus
EOs in Idaho were revisited and three new sites were located (two sites
were within an existing EO and one new site was considered to be a new
EO). In total, 5,052 A. anserinus individuals were counted, with 2,460
of these individuals observed within the original 4 Idaho EOs (Service
2006b, Table 1). Based on pre-2007 EO revisions, census data from 2004
indicated: (a) stable plant numbers at four EOs; (b) an increase in
plant numbers at one EO (compared to pre-2004 survey numbers); and (c)
an unknown change at two EOs (participants were unable to conduct a
complete census because part of the EOs are on private property)
(Service 2006b, Table 1). However, because of the different survey
methodologies employed before 2004, it is difficult to conclusively
compare survey and census results or estimate long-term population
trends for A. anserinus in Idaho (Service 2006b, Table 1).
In 2007, the IDCDC standardized its methodology for designating
Astragalus anserinus EOs to conform to the above referenced NatureServe
guidelines. Under the new methodology, the four existing EOs and the
three new sites found in 2004 were combined into five EOs (EOs 1, 6 and
7 were deleted and added to EO 3; EO 9 was added as a new EO (IDCDC
2007b, p. 4)). The IDCDC methodology also ranks the health of the EOs
based on a weighted formula made up of three elements: EO size (33
percent); EO condition (based on the abundance of native plants,
introduced plants, and anthropogenic disturbance) (33 percent); and EO
landscape context (based on the degree of habitat fragmentation) (33
percent). Rankings are categorized from A through D, with ``A'' ranked
EOs generally representing higher numbers of individuals and higher
quality habitat, and ``D'' ranked EOs generally representing lower
numbers of individuals and lower quality (or degraded) habitat. Under
this ranking system, the IDCDC assigned an ``A'' ranking to one EO,
``B'' rankings to two EOs, and ``C'' rankings to two EOs (IDCDC 2007b,
p. 4).
Monitoring efforts and results in Idaho that have been used to
inform this status assessment for Astragalus anserinus include: (a) the
collection of plant community data and establishment of photo-points in
2000 and 2001 at 3 sites (Mancuso 2001a, pp. 8-9; Mancuso 2001b, p. 2);
(b) census efforts at all Idaho EOs on public land in 2004 (Service
2008b, 17 pp.); (c) conducting annual census efforts at 2 sites in
Idaho since 2004, as summarized in Table 2 above (A. Feldhausen, in
litt. 2007a, pp. 8-9; IDCDC 2007a, EO 003); (d) the permanent marking
and monitoring of A. anserinus individuals at 3 sites from 2004 to 2006
as summarized in Table 1 (A. Feldhausen, in litt. 2007a, pp. 8-9); and
(e), establishing A. anserinus - Penstemon idahoensis - Euphorbia esula
(leafy spurge) control study plots at 11 sites in 2007 by BLM-Idaho (A.
Feldhausen in. litt. 2007a, p. 3).

Nevada

Astragalus anserinus surveys in Nevada were first conducted in 1991
and 1992, resulting in the documentation of 4 EOs, with an estimated
plant abundance of 827 individuals (Morefield 2001, p. 1). Subsequent
census efforts in 2004 and 2005 failed to locate any new sites until
2006, when 6 new EOs with approximately 11,000 individuals were
discovered. The 6 new EOs represent 18.3 percent of the estimated
range-wide population total of 60,000 individuals (Service 2008b, 17
pp.). There are presently ten known EOs in Nevada, as documented by the
Nevada Natural Heritage Program (NNHP) (Smith 2007, p. 1). Site visits
to 4 EOs were conducted during the 2004 and 2005 census efforts, and
4,930 A. anserinus individuals were counted. However, because of the
different survey methodologies employed prior to 2004, it is difficult
to conclusively compare survey and census results or estimate long-term
population trends for the species in Nevada (Service 2006b, Table 1).
In 2008, we counted individuals at two sites during our post-2007
wildfire assessment study, including EO 001 (which partially burned),
and site 1 of EO 004 (which did not burn). We observed that the number
of individuals in EO 001 decreased by 68 percent, while the number of
individuals in EO 004 increased by 5.4 percent (Service 2008c, Table 2)
(see the discussion under Wildfire below for further details on the
2008 study).
Monitoring efforts and results in Nevada that have been used to
inform this status assessment include census efforts conducted in 2004
and 2005 at four EOs (Service 2008b, 17 pp.), and post-wildfire census
efforts in 2008 at two EOs (one that partially burned, and one that did
not burn) (Service 2008c, Table 2, Map 2).

Utah

There were 9 known Astragalus anserinus EOs in Utah with an
estimated 7,617 individuals, based on the results of initial surveys
conducted in 1990 and 1991 (Baird and Tuhy 1991, p. 2; Morefield 2001,
p. 1). Eight of these EOs were documented by the UCDC, and one EO was
documented in the Nevada Natural Heritage Program database, although it
was not reflected in the UCDC database (Mancuso and Moseley 1991, p.2).
There were additional Utah surveys in 1993 (Hardy 2005, p. 4), however
we do not know whether they were resurveys of known sites and do not
believe the results are included in the UCDC database. The BLM Salt
Lake City, Utah field office (BLM-Utah) staff indicates that they are
aware of data from at least one additional site that has not been
submitted to the UCDC (Hardy 2005, p. 4). In addition, surveys were
conducted in Utah by BLM in 2000, 2001, and 2004 to evaluate the
environmental effects of a waterline and livestock water tank
construction project to the species (Hardy 2005, p. 5); no sensitive
plants were discovered along the proposed water line.
Site visits conducted to what was then 6 known EOs, and 1 new site
during 2004 and 2005 census efforts recorded a total of 33,476
Astragalus

[[Page 46526]]

anserinus individuals, although only partial plant counts were
conducted at 3 of the 6 known EOs. Two other documented EOs that had
the greatest numbers of individuals weren't counted during the 2004 and
2005 census efforts because of limitations on access and time
constraints (Service 2006b, Table 1). The 2004 and 2005 census data
indicated higher A. anserinus count numbers than the previous estimates
at five of the known EOs. However, because of the different survey
methodologies that were used before 2004, we are unable to conclusively
compare survey and census results or estimate long-term population
trends for the species in Utah (Service 2006b, Table 1).
In early 2007, the UCDC reconfigured Astragalus anserinus EOs in
Utah to conform to the general EO standards guidebook, IDCDC
methodology, and NatureServe guidelines, resulting in the combining of
the nine previously documented EOs into four EOs (R. Fitts, in litt.
2008). Based on 2005 census estimates, the largest Utah EO (EO 001)
supported over 37,000 plants, making up over 60 percent the known
individuals range-wide (Service 2008b, 17 pp.).
In 2008, re-census efforts were conducted as part of a post-
wildfire assessment at ten sites in Utah where we had information on
the number of individuals from 2004 or 2005 surveys. We surveyed two
sites that did not burn, four sites that were partially burned, and
four sites that were completely burned. At the 2 sites that did not
burn, the individual numbers of plants decreased by 76.3 percent and 79
percent. At the 4 sites that partially burned, the individual numbers
of plants decreased by 34.9 percent, 89.7 percent, 91.1 percent, and
92.6 percent. The individual plant counts at the 4 sites that
completely burned decreased by 94.9 percent, 98.1 percent, 98.2
percent, and 100 percent (Service 2008c, Table 2) (see the Wildfire
discussion under factor A, below, for further information on the 2008
post-wildfire assessment efforts).
Monitoring efforts and results in Utah that have been used to
inform this status assessment include: (a) census efforts conducted in
2004 and 2005 at portions of 2 EOs (Service 2008b, 17 pp.); (b)
installation of 4 small chicken-wire exclosure cages over 5 individual
plants in 2004 to monitor effects of a waterline construction project
(all individuals were still present in 2007) (Hardy 2008, pp. 1-2); (c)
documentation of 2 individual plants within a 300-foot long belt
transect in 2006 (scheduled to be resurveyed in 2010 (Hardy 2008, p.
2)); (d) establishing a study plot in 2007 near a waterline constructed
in 2004 that includes 231 A. anserinus individuals, which may be fenced
in the future (Hardy 2008, p. 1); and (e) conducting field
inspectionsat 10 sites during the 2008 post-wildfire re-census effort
(Service 2008c, Table 2, Map 2).

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species Rangewide

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and implementing regulations
at 50 CFR 424, set forth procedures for adding species to the Federal
Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under section
(4) of the Act, we may determine a species to be endangered or
threatened based on any of the following five factors: (A) The present
or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or
range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreation, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence. In making this finding on a petition
to list Astragalus anserinus, information regarding the status of, and
threats to, A. anserinus in relation to the five factors provided in
section 4(a)(1) of the Act is discussed below.

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

Wildfire

Organisms adapt to disturbances such as historical wildfire regimes
(fire frequency, intensity, and seasonality) with which they have
evolved (Landres et al. 1999, p. 1180), and different rare species
respond differently to wildfire (Hessl and Spackman 1995, pp. 1-90). In
general, fire regimes within forest and steppe habitats in the western
United States have been highly disrupted from historical patterns
(Whisenant 1990, pp. 4-10; D'Antonio and Vitousek 1992, pp. 63-87;
Weddell 2001, pp. 1-24). In some instances, fire suppression has
allowed grasslands to be invaded by trees (Burkhardt and Tisdale 1976,
pp. 472-484; Lesica and Martin 2003, p. 516), and in many grassland and
shrub habitats, fire frequencies have increased due to the expansion
and invasion of annual nonnative grasses (Whisenant 1990, pp. 4-10;
D'Antonio and Vitousek 1992, pp. 63-87; Hilty et al. 2004, pp. 89-96).
These invasive annual nonnative grasses become established in
unvegetated areas that would normally separate native vegetation,
dramatically increasing the ability of wildfire to spread.
Our understanding of the historical wildfire regime in the Goose
Creek drainage, and specifically within Astragalus anserinus habitat,
is limited. In general, the average wildfire return interval within the
sagebrush-steppe ecosystem as a whole has been reduced from between 60
and 110 years, to often less than 5 years (Whisenant 1990, p. 4; Wright
and Bailey 1982, p. 158; Billings 1990, pp. 307-308; USGS 1999, pp. 1-
9; West and Young 2000, p. 262). Recent wildfires often tend to be
larger and burn more uniformly across the landscape, leaving fewer
unburned areas, which can affect the post-fire recovery of native
sagebrush-steppe vegetation (Whisenant 1990, p. 4; Knick and Rotenberry
1997, pp. 287, 297; Brooks et al. 2004, pp. 682-683). The result of
this altered wildfire regime has been the conversion of vast areas of
sagebrush-steppe ecosystem into nonnative annual grasslands (USGS 1999,
pp. 1-9). The proportion of annuals in the sagebrush-steppe ecosystem
increases dramatically at higher fire frequencies, while all other
vegetative life forms decrease. Sagebrush can reestablish from seed
following fire, however the seeds are short-lived and if a second fire
occurs before the new plants produce seed (4 to 6 years), the species
may face local extirpation. This would be less of a problem if the
fires occurred over relatively small areas, because seed from adjacent
unburned areas would be naturally transported back into burned areas.
As fires become larger, the opportunity for seed migration into burned
areas is dramatically decreased (Whisenant 1990, p. 8-9). Based on our
observations, Astragalus anserinus seedling germination does not appear
to be stimulated by wildfire. Accordingly, fewer individuals and fewer
seeds would be available for recruitment if wildfire were to return
before the species is able to recover from earlier wildfire impacts to
the population. As a result, there would be a corresponding decline in
the overall number of individuals.
Wildfire was not documented within Astragalus anserinus habitat
prior to 2000 (A. Feldhausen, in litt. 2007, p. 3; R. Hardy, Salt Lake
City BLM, in litt. 2008, p. 1), although undoubtedly they occasionally
occurred in the past. Astragalus anserinus habitat is normally sparsely
vegetated (e.g., typically 10 to 30 percent total vegetative cover),
which likely makes it less vulnerable to wildfire because of the lack
of fuels to sustain fire over large areas. We are aware of a wildfire
that occurred in A.

[[Page 46527]]

anserinus habitat in Idaho in 2000, and another wildfire that occurred
in Nevada and Utah in 2007. The 2000 Idaho wildfire affected two EOs
(EO 007 and EO 009), however at the time, EO 009 had not been
documented and A. anserinus was not affected by the 2000 wildfire at EO
007 (A. Feldhausen, in litt. 2007a, p. 11). Accordingly, before 2008,
we had no pre-wildfire data with which to assess the impact of
wildfires on A. anserinus. Our knowledge of the effects from wildfire
was limited to observations at EO 009 from 2004. Based on the best
available information, EO 009 is made up of 3 separate occupied sites
that contain 10, 36, and 749 individuals based on 2004 surveys/census
efforts. The EO 009 site with 749 individuals is within a sparsely
vegetated slope with mature junipers and shrubs, and may not have
burned during the 2000 wildfire.
Based on pre-fire data, a single wildlfire in 2007 in Nevada and
Utah completely burned 3 EOs and portions of 5 other EOs containing
approximately 53 percent of all known Astragalus anserinus individuals
(31,500 of 60,000 individuals). The 2007 wildfire also burned 25
percent of the known occupied habitat (100 acres (ac) (41 hectares
(ha)) out of an estimated 400 ac (164 ha)) (Service 2008c, Table 1).
In Nevada, 3 EOs were completely within the burned area footprint
(1,512 total individuals), and three other EOs were partially burned,
but had an estimated loss of approximately 72 percent of the
individuals within those 3 EOs (5,394 of 7,508 individuals). In Utah,
portions of two EOs were burned in the wildfire (EOs 001 and 009). The
wildfire in EO 001, which contained more than 60 percent of the known
individuals (37,000 of 60,000 individuals), was estimated to have
burned approximately 40 percent of the known individuals (24,000), and
approximately 18 percent of the total occupied acreage (71 ac (29 ha))
(Service 2008b, 17 pp.). Please note that since six of the 10 currently
known EOs in Nevada were not discovered until 2006 (EOs 005 through
010), and only population estimates and point data have been collected,
the total number of individuals and the acreage affected by the 2007
wildfire are only estimates. Estimating the number of individuals and
acres with greater precision is difficult because of the various
methods that have been employed by prior survey and census efforts.
Based on initial field visits and reports following the 2007
wildfire (Howard 2007, pp. 1-2), we initially understood that the
wildfire burned intensely and almost continuously across the landscape.
However, our 2008 field inspection determined that the wildfire burned
as a mosaic rather than continuously, and did not affect some small
patches of Astragalus anserinus occupied habitat. We observed that 21.3
percent, 81.1 percent, and 94.6 percent of the total acreage was burned
at 3 A. anserinus sites, however estimates were not made for 2 other
sites within the burned area perimeter that were only partially burned
(Service 2008c, Table 2). Our inspection also documented the
bunchgrasses Hesperostipa comata (needle and thread), Poa secunda
(Sandberg's bluegrass), Pascopyron smithii (western wheatgrass),
Agropyron cristatum (crested wheatgrass), and Achnatherum hymenoides
(Indian ricegrass), as well as the shrub Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus
(green or yellow rabbitbrush) re-sprouting from roots that survived the
2007 wildfire. These species generally made up approximately 20 percent
of the total vegetative cover at the burned sites, and it was estimated
that 75 to 90 percent of the bunchgrasses had survived the wildfire (M.
Mancuso, Mancuso Botanical Services, in litt. 2008, p. 1).
In June, 2008, we conducted post-wildfire re-census efforts to
specifically evaluate the effects of the 2007 wildfire and determine
the response of Astragalus anserinus to this event. We counted
individual plants at 12 sites where we had count data from either 2004
or 2005, including Nevada EO 001, Nevada EO 004, and 10 sites within
Utah EO 001 (which represents the largest EO). Three of the sites that
were surveyed were not burned, 5 of the sites were partially burned
(including Utah EO 001-4-17 which supported 7,486 individuals prior to
the fire based on 2005 data), and 4 of the sites were completely
burned. Using pre-2007 information, we estimate that we resurveyed
habitat containing approximately half of the estimated 31,500
individuals burned in the 2007 wildfire (Service 2008c, Tables 1 and
2). Generally, individual plant counts in almost all burned and
unburned areas were less than those recorded in 2004 and 2005.
Table 3 provides pre- and post-fire survey data from the 12 sites.
For the 3 unburned sites, the number of individuals increased by 5.4
percent at the first site (652 in 2004 to 687 in 2008), decreased by
76.3 percent at the second site (1,458 in 2004 to 346 in 2008), and
decreased by 79.0 percent at the third site (3,081 in 2005 to 647 in
2008) (Service 2008c, Table 2). For the 4 sites that completely burned,
the number of individuals decreased by 94.9 percent at the first site
(3,695 in 2005 to 188 in 2008); 98.1 percent at the second site (314 in
2005 to 6 in 2008); 98.2 percent at the third site (1,115 in 2005 to 20
in 2008), and 100 percent at the fourth site (224 in 2005 to 0 in 2008)
(Service 2008c, Table 2).

Table 3. Census results from the 2008 post-wildfire surveys.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004 or 2005
EO Number and Site Number Burned or Unburned 2004 or 2005 2004/2005 Number 2008 Number of Individuals Percent Area
of Individuals Individuals Percent Change Burned
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N004-1 Unburned 2004 652 687 +5.4 ..................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U001-7-3 Part-Burned 2004 1,742 1,134 -34.9 21.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N001-1 Part-Burned 2004 541 173 -68.0 unknown
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U001-6-1 Unburned 2004 1,458 346 -76.3 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U001-4-35 Unburned 2005 3,081 647 -79.0 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U001-4-17 Part-Burned 2005 7,486 772 -89.7 94.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U001-4-33 Part-Burned 2005 349 31 -91.1 unknown
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 46528]]

U001-4-30 Part-Burned 2005 175 13 -92.6 81.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U001-NV-1 Burned 2005 3,695 188 -94.9 100
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U001-4-12 Burned 2005 314 6 -98.1 100
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U001-NV-2 Burned 2005 1,115 20 -98.2 100
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U001-4-34 Burned 2005 224 0 -100.0 100
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

During our field surveys at the 5 sites that were partially burned,
we observed a 34.9 percent to 92.6 percent decrease between the number
of Astragalus anserinus individuals counted in 2004 or 2005 and the
number counted in 2008. The sites that had the most burned area
generally reflected larger decreases in the number of individual plants
(Table 3) (Service 2008c, Table 2). Extant A. anserinus individuals
were also more frequently associated with unburned areas in the
partially burned sites. For example, approximately 94.6 percent of the
occupied area within site U001-4-17 was burned during the 2007 wildfire
(this site represented the site with the most individuals counted prior
to the 2007 wildfire (7,486)). We observed that 562 of the 772
individuals counted in U001-4-17 in 2008 (68.1 percent) occurred in the
5.4 percent of the site that did not burn. Prior to the 2007 wildfire,
A. anserinus densities were generally higher within the more sparsely
vegetated areas of occupied sites. It is likely that the number of
individuals detected within the burned and unburned areas was
influenced by their pre-wildfire distribution, particularly since
sparsely vegetated areas were less likely to burn. Because the density
of individuals at any particular site was not measured at a fine enough
resolution in the 2004, 2005, or 2007 surveys, it is difficult to
conclusively compare pre-2007 wildfire densities to post wildfire
densities.
We also compared the acreage occupied by Astragalus anserinus
between that recorded during the 2004 and 2005 census efforts and what
we observed in June 2008. The occupied acreage decreased at each of the
12 sites, which included both burned and unburned areas, with a range
of 37.9 to 100 percent (Service 2008c, Table 2). The occupied acreage
at the 3 sites that did not burn decreased 62.1 percent, 60.5 percent,
and 77.4 percent (average = 66.6 percent); the reason for the decrease
is unknown. The occupied acreage at the 5 partially burned sites
decreased 37.9 percent, 59.9 percent, 97.3 percent, 86.8 percent, and
99.4 percent (average = 73.3 percent). The occupied acreage at the 4
sites that completely burned decreased 90.2 percent, 77.0 percent, 96.0
percent, and 100 percent (average = 90.8 percent) (Service 2008c, Table
2). Since explicit data collection protocols were not established to
differentiate between map points at which an individual was recorded
and map polygons which indicate an area within which one or more
individuals were recorded, we considered plants to be within the same
polygon if they were within 33 to 66 ft (10 to 20 m) of one another.
For this reason, determining fire effects by comparing the burned,
unburned, and partially burned acreage is not as accurate as comparing
the numbers of individuals that were actually counted.
Despite the significant declines in the number of individuals and
occupied acreage detected in the 2008 surveys, some Astragalus
anserinus individuals did survive the effects of the fire. Plants can
survive wildfires in several ways. Adult plants can survive, plants may
re-sprout from the base, or plants can re-establish from seed (Brown
and Smith 2000, p. 33). Field surveys conducted in November 2007 (after
the 2007 wildfire), documented that most of the above-ground vegetation
had been removed at several A. anserinus sites. During the subsequent
2008 field surveys, we observed that some adult plants that survived
inside burned areas were attached to large woody roots that likely
survived the wildfire. This suggests that the A. anserinus individuals
that survived the 2007 wildfire likely re-sprouted after the wildfire.
If A. anserinus is able to remain dormant during a growing season, the
low plant numbers we observed in 2008 in unburned sites may indicate
that some plants were dormant at that time, although we do not have any
information regarding this capability.
We also compared the number of Astragalus anserinus seedlings
counted in 2008 between burned areas and areas that did not burn. We
observed that seedlings made up 11.4 percent of A. anserinus plants (76
of 665) in burned areas, 11.5 percent (23 of 200) in partially burned
areas, and 2.1 percent (68 of 3,222) in unburned areas (Service 2008a,
Table 1). Seedlings can become re-established from surviving plants,
seed dispersal from off-site plants, wildfire stimulated seed banks, or
plants that re-sprout after a wildfire (USFS 2000, p. 33). The
increased number of seedlings within burned and partially burned areas
may demonstrate that seed germination was stimulated by the 2007
wildfire. However, even if this is true, this response did not offset
the observed individual plant losses resulting from the 2007 wildfire.
We are unaware of any available information on A. anserinus seed bank
longevity, and do not fully understand the effect wildfire may have on
this species. Seed bank studies for other Astragalus species indicate
that the group generally possesses hard impermeable seed coats with a
strong physical germination barrier. As a result, the seeds are
generally long-lived in the soil and only a small percentage of seeds
germinate each year (summarized in Morris et al. 2002, p. 30). However,
we do not know if the seed germination strategy for other Astragalus
species is comparable to that employed by A. anserinus.
We observed an average 50 percent decline in the number of
Astragalus anserinus plants counted at the 3 sites that were not burned
in the 2007 wildfire, compared to pre-fire site data for those areas.
For sites that were completely burned by the 2007 wildfire, average
plant numbers declined 97.8 percent from the number of individuals
counted in 2004 or 2005. In some plant species, seed dormancy is broken
by wildfire (e.g., Pinus contorta, lodgepole pine), and after a
wildfire numerous seedlings sprout because this seed dormancy has been
broken. However, we did not see a significant number of new seedlings
within burned areas.

[[Page 46529]]

Because of the low numbers of observed individuals and the lack of a
source for a large flush of seedlings, it is likely that A. anserinus
recovery will depend on the successful re-colonization of burned areas.
Because of the generally low number of seedlings counted, where data
are available, we suspect that this re-colonization may take several
years and be dependent upon suitable environmental conditions.
We believe that wildfire frequency will increase within Astragalus
anserinus habitat. Wildfire return intervals in the sagebrush-steppe
ecosystem, which includes the Goose Creek drainage, have been
significantly reduced from between 60 and 110 years to often less than
5 years. The fact that the 2007 wildfire was the second wildfire
recorded within a 7-year period in the Goose Creek drainage, with no
previously recorded wildfires in this area, appears to present
supporting evidence for increased fire frequency. Wildfire kills
Astragalus anserinus, and seedling germination does not appear to be
stimulated by wildfire. Accordingly, increased fire frequency will
result in fewer A. anserinus individuals, and less seed availability
for recruitment. The ongoing and cumulative effects of wildfire on A.
anserinus include a substantial reduction in the amount of available
habitat, and range-wide population-level effects caused by the loss of
approximately 98 percent of the individual plants in the burned areas
(which were roughly 53 percent of the pre-2007 wildfire total known
individuals). Future wildfires in the area will likely result in
similar detrimental effects on the remaining population.
It is likely that Astragalus anserinus recovery will depend on the
successful re-colonization of burned areas, which will probably occur
slowly over time. However, because wildfire frequency has increased in
this area, recovery may be constrained by additional wildfires in the
relatively near future. Therefore, we find the magnitude of this threat
to be high.

Wildfire Management

Wildfire management can include prescribed burning, and activities
associated with fighting wildfires such as the construction of fire
lines and staging areas, retardant application, and post-wildfire
restoration efforts such as disking and seeding. In 2008, disking and
seeding associated with soil stabilization activities occurred over
portions of 11 Astragalus anserinus sites in Utah in response to the
2007 wildfire (Service 2008c, Tables 2-4, Map 4; Service, in litt.
2008, photos 1-3). It is likely that numerous individual plants were
lost to site re-seeding efforts and road construction activities. We
also observed in some cases that A. anserinus root systems had been
exposed, and believe that it is likely that individual plants were
turned over and buried during the disking operations. These actions
likely killed individual plants, thereby compounding the ongoing
detrimental effects of the wildfire itself on the A. anserinus
population.
Firefighting Activities
Firefighting activities such as prescribed burning, road and fire
line construction and retardant application can destroy habitat and
kill or injure individual Astragalus anserinus plants. Such activities
occurred during the response to the wildfire in 2007. Advance A.
anserinus surveys were not conducted because of the immediate need to
respond to the 2007 wildfire (M. Gates, Salt Lake City BLM, in litt.
2008a). During a brief field inspection of the area affected by
firefighting activities prior to our 2008 post-fire surveys, we
observed that at least one new road had been constructed along a ridge,
and that several fire lines had been excavated by hand adjacent to A.
anserinus habitat. We also observed that a wide fire line had been
constructed between 2 known EOs. During our 2008 post-wildfire surveys
over 18 A. anserinus occupied sites, we observed that fire retardant
had been applied at 1 site over an area approximately 10 ft (3 m) in
radius (U001-4-35). We also observed that a new access road had been
constructed through site U001-7-3, and evidence of tire tracks in
occupied areas at site U001-4-33.
One study of the effects of fire retardant chemical (Phos-Chek G75-
F) and fire suppressant foam (Silv-Ex) application, alone and in
combination with fire, on Great Basin shrub steppe vegetation found
that growth, resprouting, flowering, and incidence of galling insects
on Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus (yellow rabbitbrush) and Artemisia
tridenta (Big sagebrush) were not affected by any chemical treatment.
In general, the study found that species richness declined, especially
after Phos-Check application, but by the end of the growing season,
species richness did not differ between treated and control plots
(Larson et al. 1999, p. 115). We are unaware of the specific retardant
used in the 2007 fire response, or whether A. anserinus would be
similarly unaffected. However, based on the limited extent of the area
that was treated with retardant, we do not anticipate any significant
long-term impacts to the overall A. anserinus population. In addition,
since advance A. anserinus surveys were not conducted because of an
immediate need to respond to the wildfire, we do not know if the other
activities adversely affected the species. Some fire fighting
activities could present a future threat to A. anserinus, depending on
their specific location and scale; however, we are unable to assess the
magnitude of those potential threats at this time.
Post Wildfire Emergency Stabilization and Restoration
Post-wildfire restoration activities can also destroy habitat, kill
or harm individuals, and introduce nonnative species, which may
outcompete Astragalus anserinus for resources. The following is a
discussion of restoration activities that occurred after the 2008
fires.
2007 Wildfire Emergency Stabilization and Restoration in Nevada:
Following the 2007 wildfire season, the BLM Elko Nevada Field Office
(BLM-Nevada) developed a soil stabilization plan for implementation in
2008 that included reseeding several areas affected by the fire. A
native grass restoration seeding effort was planned near EO 005, but
was not conducted (Howard 2007, p 3). Post-fire aerial seeding of
Artemisia tridentata var. wyomingensis (Wyoming sagebrush), which is
native to Goose Creek, was undertaken within drainages at or near the
site instead of the native grass restoration seeding effort (K. Fuell,
Elko BLM, in litt. 2008, p. 1). This action may be beneficial to
Astragalus anserinus, however we are unaware of the specific treatment
locations, whether the efforts were successful, or whether they
affected A. anserinus in EO 005.
2007 Wildfire Emergency Stabilization and Restoration in Utah:
Restoration seeding activities in Utah were conducted in late May and
early June, 2008, as part of an Emergency Stabilization Plan (ESP) that
was developed by BLM to treat areas affected by the 2007 wildfire. A
fencing project and juniper removal chaining efforts (using a chain
connected between two tractors) were included as elements of this plan.
Under the ESP, disk seeding with a mix of native and nonnative species
(see ``Nonnative Invasive Species--seeded'' below) was conducted within
Astragalus anserinus habitat in an area west of Grouse Creek Road to
stabilize the soils, prevent erosion, and minimize competition by
Bromus tectorum (cheatgrass) in the burned area. Areas to be avoided
were identified in advance with flagging to

[[Page 46530]]

prevent impacts to A. anserinus from planned juniper removal chaining
operations and seeding efforts (M. Gates, in litt. 2008b, p. 1).
However, not all A. anserinus sites were avoided.
The rangeland drills employed in the Utah seeding effort were
fitted with metal cutting discs measuring at least 1.0 ft (0.30 m) to
1.5 ft (0.46 m) in diameter, that were spaced on approximate 8 inch (20
centimeter) centers. The tractors used in the restoration activities
would generally pull two rangeland drills at once, breaking the soil
horizon to a depth of approximately 5 inches (13 centimeters) and a
width of roughly 20 ft (6.1 m) (Service, in litt. 2008, p. 4, 5).
Although living Astragalus anserinus individuals were observed between
disk furrows during our site inspections (Service, in litt. 2008, p.
11-14), we did not observe any individual plants within the disk
furrows themselves. Our assumption is that any A. anserinus individuals
that may have been previously established in these areas were turned
over and buried by the furrowing activities.
The above drilling and seeding activities were conducted one week
before our 2008 re-census surveys. Since the work had been recently
accomplished, we were able to observe evidence of several live
Astragalus anserinus individuals whose woody roots had been exposed
during the drilling effort. It is unlikely that these individuals with
exposed roots will survive the physical and physiological stress of
that exposure (Service, in litt. 2008, p. 12, 14). At two sites, the
drilling and seeding efforts affected clusters of live A. anserinus
individuals that had not been exposed to wildfire (Service 2008c, Maps
4, 9). During our 2008 surveys, we were unable to quantify the direct
effects of seeding efforts to A. anserinus for several reasons: 1) the
wildfire reduced plant numbers such that there were very few plants
left with which to analyze effects, 2) it was difficult to separate the
effects from drilling and seeding from those associated with the
wildfire, and 3) many of the 2004 and 2005 census polygons did not
completely align with the areas that were drilled and seeded, which
made comparisons difficult. Because there were no post-wildfire
project-specific surveys conducted in advance, it is possible that the
remedial drilling and seeding efforts in Utah affected previously
unknown and unsurveyed A. anserinus sites.
Although the ESP included plans to remove dead juniper trees from
several burned areas near Astragalus anserinus habitat by using a chain
connected between two tractors, we did not observe any evidence that
this activity had been conducted during our June 2008 field inspection.
Summary: During our 2008 post-wildfire re-census in Utah, we
documented 11 occupied sites within Utah EO 001 (the largest known
Astragalus anserinus EO) that were impacted by wildfire management
actions (Service 2008c, Table 3). The 11 affected sites contained an
estimated 11,000 individual plants (representing 18 percent of the
estimated pre-fire rangewide population and 34.5 percent of the pre-
fire population numbers within burned areas). On average, 47.1 percent
of the total occupied area of a site was seeded (Service 2008c, Tables
1, 4), with a range of 13.6 percent to 100 percent of the occupied
acreage at each of the 11 sites affected by disking and seeding
activities (Service 2008c, Table 4). The 11 sites comprised roughly 13
percent (54 of 405 ac (22 of 164 ha)) of the total area rangewide, with
roughly 25 ac (10 ha) or 6 percent of the total area rangewide being
impacted by disking and seeding activities (Service 2008c, Table 4). It
is likely that some A. anserinus individuals that were established in
these areas were killed either because of mechanical damage or burial
during the disking operations. However, we did see live plants between
the furrows that appeared intact and are likely to survive. Because 4
of the 11 sites were not surveyed in 2004 and 2005 (U001-6-2, U001-6-3,
U001-6-4, and U001-6-New), we do not have reliable baseline acreage
estimates for these areas. The seeding efforts conducted under the ESP
affected more than 50 percent of the occupied acreage at site U001-4-
17, the site with the highest number of individuals counted in 2005
(7,486 plants). In addition, 117 of the 772 individuals (15.2 percent)
counted at this site in 2008 were within areas impacted by the seeding
activities (Service 2008c, Tables 3, 4).
We were unable to quantify the direct effects of remedial seeding
activities to Astragalus anserinus because there were so few plants
left after the 2007 wildfire, and it was difficult to differentiate the
drilling and seeding effects from the fire effects. However, it is
likely that numerous individual plants were lost because of the post-
wildfire stabilization efforts. The effects of wildfire control
activities and seeding efforts were detrimental to several affected A.
anserinus sites and may continue to be detrimental because of the
overall reduced recruitment capacity. This could be exacerbated if
future wildfires result in similar or more aggressive post-fire
remedial seeding activities in areas occupied by A. anserinus, which
could negatively impact the population by further reducing the number
of individuals. However, the magnitude of that potential impact could
vary widely, depending on the specific location and scale of activity
and the specific A. anserinus EO affected. Therefore, we are unable to
assess the magnitude of those potential threats at this time.

Nonnative Introduced Species--Unseeded

Invasive nonnative plants (weeds) invade and alter diverse native
communities, often resulting in nonnative plant monocultures that
support little wildlife. Many experts believe that following habitat
destruction, invasive nonnative plants are the next greatest threat to
biodiversity (Randall 1996, p. 370). Invasive nonnative plants alter
different ecosystem attributes including geomorphology, fire regime,
hydrology, microclimate, nutrient cycling, and productivity (Dukes and
Mooney 2004, p. 4). Invasive nonnative plants can also detrimentally
affect native plants through competitive exclusion, alteration of
pollinator behaviors, niche displacement, hybridization, and changes in
insect predation. Examples are widespread among taxa and locations or
ecosystems (D'Antonio and Vitousek 1992, pp. 74-75; Olson 1999, pp. 6-
18; Mooney and Cleland 2001, pp. 5446-5451).
Nonnative plants that were not intentionally seeded and are known
to occur at Astragalus anserinus sites include Alyssum desertorum
(desert madwort), Bromus tectorum (cheatgrass), Descurainia sophia
(flixweed), Euphorbia esula (leafy spurge), and Halogeton glomeratus
(halogeton). In 2008, we also located one Hyoscyamus niger (black
henbane) individual within one A. anserinus site. In previous years,
this species had only been observed as a few plants along Goose Creek
road. With regard to the above nonnative species, the two of most
concern to A. anserinus are B. tectorum because of possible effect in
altering the wildfire regime (see Wildfire above), and E. esula because
of its invasive capabilities (DiTomaso 2000, p. 255).
Prior to the 2007 wildfire, Bromus tectorum was observed throughout
the range of Astragalus anserinus, but was generally encountered at low
density. Bromus tectorum is documented at all 5 EOs in Idaho, and 3 of
the 4 EOs in Utah. Although habitat information is available for only 4
of the 10 EOs in Nevada, B. tectorum is documented at 3. One Utah EO
has not been visited since

[[Page 46531]]

1990, and nonnative species presence has not been reported (Service
2008b, 17pp.). Bromus tectorum was generally found at less than 5
percent cover when it occurred with A. anserinus, based on estimates
from the 2004 and 2005 census efforts. At A. anserinus sites with
either a southern slope exposure or where livestock trampling was
observed to be more prevalent, the B. tectorum percent cover was
generally higher (e.g., between 10 to 20 percent, although as high as
70 to 80 percent in a few cases) (Service 2008b, 17 pp.). We do not yet
know how the 2007 wildfire may have affected B. tectorum abundance, but
are aware that the species often proliferates as a result of wildfire
(D'Antonio and Vitousek 1992, pp. 74-75). The net effect of B. tectorum
invasion is a ``positive feedback from the initial colonization in the
interstices of shrubs, followed by fire, to dominance by B. tectorum
and more frequent fire'' (D'Antonio and Vitousek 1992, pp. 74-75).
However, field observations during the 2008 re-census effort suggest
that B. tectorum infestations were generally similar to what they were
before the 2007 fire within and outside of areas burned, although these
observations were not well quantified. This may imply that B. tectorum
may not be a threat to A. anserinus at this time. However, wildfire
frequency is tightly linked with annual grass abundance. If wildfire
frequency increases, it is expected that B. tectorum will also increase
in abundance.
Euphorbia esula (leafy spurge) is a perennial forb with a deep and
extensive spreading root system, which can be up to 20 ft (6 m) long.
E. esula also spreads by seeds that are explosively dispersed as much
as 15 ft (4.5 m). This species has been designated as a noxious weed by
the state of Idaho, meaning it has the potential to cause injury to
public health, crops, livestock, land or other property (Idaho Statute
22-2402). It reduces species diversity (Selleck et al. 1962, p.21;
Butler and Cogan 2004, p. 308), forms almost homogeneous plant
communities (Belcher and Wilson 1989, p. 174), poses a threat to other
rare plant species such as Platanthera praeclara, (western prairie
fringed orchid) (Kirby et al. 2003, p. 466), and is known from 42 of
the 44 counties in Idaho (Invaders Database System 2008). It generally
forms monocultures with very little native vegetation in the areas
where it is found in the Goose Creek drainage.
Euphorbia esula has not been documented at Astragalus anserinus
sites in Nevada; however, it has been documented at 4 of 5 A. anserinus
EOs in Idaho and within the largest EO in Utah (Service 2008b, 17 pp.).
In general, most E. esula sites are small in size, dispersed throughout
A. anserinus EOs, and impact only small portions of some sites. In Utah
EO 001, E. esula occurs in 1 of the 54 known occupied sites, and from
10 to 200 ft (3 to 61 m) away at 6 other sites (Service 2008b, 17 pp.).
In Idaho EO 003, it is present in 13 of the 26 A. anserinus sites,
although we have not established that all of these exposures directly
overlie A. anserinus sites. It has also been documented as occurring in
the area at seven other sites in Idaho (Service 2008b, 17 pp.). Based
on field observations in 2004 and 2005, we estimate that E. esula co-
occurs with A. anserinus at less than 2 percent of the total range-wide
occupied area. In 2008, we observed two leafy spurge sites that had
been disked and seeded during the post fire restoration effort in Utah
(Service 2008c, Maps 7, 9; Service, in litt. 2008, pp. 15-16). This
action may result in a substantial increase in E. esula, since one
study examining the effects of tilling on E. esula found a three-fold
increase in the number of stems per square meter after tilling was
conducted (Selleck et al. 1962, p. 14).
Euphorbia esula control efforts within the Goose Creek drainage
have been underway for several years; from 1999 through 2007, control
efforts were conducted at over 500 sites in Idaho. Approximately 40
percent of the E. esula sites documented between 1999 and 2006 at Idaho
EO 003 were no longer present in 2007 as a result of these efforts (A.
Feldhausen, in litt. 2007, pp. 5-6). However, despite a rather intense
control program in Utah, the species presence is increasing (Hardy
2005, p. 2). In 2007, increasingly aggressive control and monitoring
efforts targeting E. esula were expanded and implemented at several
Astragalus anserinus and Penstemon idahoensis sites in Utah and Idaho.
BLM-Idaho established 11 small study plots to determine the
effectiveness of E. esula treatments and to monitor any effects to A.
anserinus and P. idahoensis (A. Feldhausen, in litt. 2007a, p. 3).
Control efforts have expanded in the Goose Creek drainage in Idaho and
Utah, but E. esula is still found in or near at least 20 A. anserinus
sites in 5 EOs in Idaho and Utah (Service 2006b, p.4; A. Feldhausen, in
litt. 2007a, p. 3; Service 2008b, 17pp.). In the Nevada portion of the
Goose Creek drainage, BLM-Nevada has not conducted any invasive species
management activities and none are planned (Howard 2007, p. 3).
The potential for Euphorbia esula and Bromus tectorum to become
established throughout the entire Goose Creek drainage poses a threat
to Astragalus anserinus. However, infestations of both species are
currently limited and do not impact all occupied sites. In Idaho,
control efforts appear to have been effective in eliminating E. esula
at some sites and in controlling its spread. We recognize that this
threat could become greater in the future, if wildfire frequency
increases such that it promotes the spread of B. tectorum into A.
anserinus EOs, since B. tectorum is highly invasive, highly flammable,
dies and dries out in the spring, and spreads fire rapidly (D'Antonio
and Vitousek 1992, p. 74). The magnitude of the potential threat
presented by B. tectorum or E. esula competition would vary depending
on the location and scale of the infestations, the specific A.
anserinus EO(s) affected, and the effectiveness of any control
treatments. As a result, we are unable to assess the likelihood or
magnitude of future threats at this time.

Nonnative Introduced Species--Seeded

Agropyron cristatum (crested wheatgrass) was planted in the Goose
Creek drainage before 1970 (Hardy 2005, p. 2; A. Feldhausen, in litt.
2007, p. 10; Howard 2007, p. 3). It was planted extensively near
Astragalus anserinus sites during range seeding operations in the 1950s
and 1960s, and also during wildfire restoration activities conducted
within the Goose Creek drainage in 2007. Although A. cristatum is by
far the most common intentionally seeded nonnative species, other
nonnative species have also been introduced, including Agropyron
fragile (Vavilov Siberian wheatgrass), Elymus junceus (Russian
wildrye), Elymus lanceolatus ssp. lanceolatus (Critana thickspike
wheatgrass), Linum perenne (Apar blueflax), Medicago sativa (Ladak
alfalfa), and Thinopyrum ponticum (= Agropyron elongatum, tall
wheatgrass) (M. Gates, in litt. 2008e, p. 1; R. Hardy, in litt. 2008,
p. 1).
Agropyron cristatum is often used for rangeland seedings because
seed is widely available, it establishes easily, provides suitable
forage for livestock, provides some erosion control, and controls
competition from other invasive nonnative plants (Walker and Shaw 2001,
p.56). A. cristatum is extremely competitive and can out-compete other
vegetation in several ways (Pellant and Lysne 2005, pp. 82-83). A.
cristatum seedlings are better than some native species at acquiring
moisture at low temperatures (Lesica and DeLuca 1998, p. 1; Pyke and
Archer 1991, p. 4; Bunting et al. 2003, p. 82), and A. cristatum
plantings are very stable and may inhibit or retard the development of
a native plant

[[Page 46532]]

community (Marlette and Anderson 1986, p. 173). Range surveys conducted
in 1966 in southern Idaho documented that A. cristatum had persisted in
some areas for 30 to 50 years and was spreading into adjacent habitats
(Hull and Klomp 1966, p. 7; 1967, p. 227). Increasing plant diversity
within A. cristatum sites is challenging, and requires the
implementation of measures to reduce its ability to compete before
native species can be introduced (Pellant and Lysne 2005, pp. 84-87).
Prior to 2008, Agropyron cristatum had been documented at 2 of 5
Astragalus anserinus EOs in Idaho, and 1 of the 4 EOs in Nevada where
we had habitat information. A.gropyron cristatum has the largest extent
of area in A. anserinus habitat in Utah, where it was found extensively
in the largest Utah EO (EO 001) (Service 2008b, 17 pp.). Although not
quantified, some of the new EOs found in 2006 in Nevada were observed
to be occupied by A. cristatum (Howard 2007, p. 3; Smith 2007, p.2).
However, where both species co-occur they are typically separated, with
A. cristatum growing on flatter areas and A. anserinus on slopes
(Service 2006b, p. 5). Maps obtained from BLM-Utah indicate that A.
cristatum had been seeded directly over numerous A. anserinus EOs,
although, based on our field observations during the 2004 and 2005
census efforts, we were unable to confirm whether this actually
occurred. A. cristatum was seldom observed where A. anserinus occurred,
which indicates that the steep slopes may have been too difficult to
plant and were avoided (Service 2006b, p. 5). We observed that A.
anserinus density appeared to be higher on flat areas below tuffaceous
outcrops where A. cristatum was not seeded (Service 2008b, 17 pp.) than
on flat areas where A. cristatum was seeded. Two sites surveyed in 2005
(U001-NV-1 and U001-NV-2) were unusual in that we observed a high
density of A. anserinus individuals in flat areas, as opposed to
sloping areas where they are typically observed; these areas had not
been seeded with A. cristatum.
Areas disturbed in 2004 during construction of a livestock watering
pipeline that impacted one Astragalus anserinus site in Utah (see
Livestock Use below) were reseeded with several nonnative species,
including Agropyron fragile, Elymus junceus, Elymus lanceolatus ssp.
lanceolatus, Medicago sativa, and Thinopyrum ponticum (M. Gates, in
litt. 2008e, p. 1). We are unaware of the effect this activity may have
had on A. anserinus since we have not inspected the pipeline subsequent
to its construction. The monitoring associated with this project was
limited to tracking effects of reseeding on five A. anserinus
individuals in livestock exclusion cages.
Some areas in Utah that burned during the 2007 wildfire were
reseeded in 2008 with Achillea millefolium (western yarrow)--a native
forb; Pascopyrum smithii--a native grass; canby bluegrass (Poa secunda
Canbar)--a native grass; Agropyron cristatum--a nonnative grass; Elymus
junceus--a nonnative grass; Linum perenne--a nonnative forb; and
Medicago sativa--a nonnative forb (M. Gates, in litt. 2008b, p. 1).
Although the intention of these restoration efforts was to avoid known
occupied A. anserinus habitat (M. Gates, in litt. 2008b, p. 1), we
observed during our 2008 survey that 11 sites within Utah EO 001 (the
largest EO) had been drilled and seeded (Service 2008c, Table 3) (see
the ``2007 Wildfire Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation in
Utah'' section above for more details).
We do not fully understand the effects of the seeding efforts on
occupied Astragalus anserinus areas. The available literature has
documented that Agropyron cristatum, which is frequently used to
stabilize soils disturbed by fire, is able to out-compete slower-
developing native species because of its drought tolerance, fibrous
root system, and good seedling vigor (USDA 2006, p. 1). The seedings of
A. cristatum that were conducted prior to 2008 were generally separated
from A. anserinus areas, and did not appear to be spreading
significantly from the areas where the species was planted. Because of
this separation, populations of A. cristatum established due to the
pre-2008 seeding activities were not considered to be a threat to A.
anserinus.
The 2008 seeding activities took place directly over areas that
supported approximately 10 percent of the pre-wildfire Astragalus
anserinus individuals, although we are unable to conclusively determine
the ongoing or cumulative effect of this activity on A. anserinus
because of the short time that has elapsed. In addition, we are not
aware of any specific studies on the competitive relationship between
A. cristatum and any other Astragalus species, although A. cristatum is
known to be an effective competitor with other aggressive introduced
plants during the establishment period (USDA 2006, p. 1).
Summary: The 2008 Agropyron cristatum seeding activities occurred
directly over areas that supported 18 percent of the pre-2007 wildfire
Astragalus anserinus rangewide population numbers. We observed A.
anserinus density to be higher in areas where A. cristatum was not
seeded (Service 2008b, 17 pp.). We believe A. cristatum may be
outcompeting A. anserinus in flat areas where A. cristatum was seeded
directly over A. anserinus during the 1950s and 1960s. The available
literature has documented that A. cristatum is highly competitive with
other species (USDA 2006, p. 1). We believe that the reduced population
level effects that resulted from the 2007 wildfire are being
exacerbated by the ongoing competitive effects of nonnative seeded
plants that were introduced for rangeland improvement and fire response
activities. After fully considering each of the above factors, we find
the threat presented by nonnative invasive species to A. anserinus to
be moderate in magnitude, because of the likelihood of more frequent
wildfire in the area combined with the cumulative population-level
effects on recruitment and recovery from past seeding activities.

Livestock Use (Trampling, Water Developments, and Habitat Degradation)

Threats related to livestock use include the physical effects of
trampling of plants, and the effects from range improvement projects
and livestock water developments that degrade habitat and concentrate
animals. We are unaware of any research that has evaluated the effects
of livestock use on Astragalus anserinus specifically; however, the
effects of livestock on other plant species is well documented
(Milchunas and Lauenroth, 1993, pp. 327-366; Jones 2000, pp. 155-164).
To our knowledge, the effects of livestock use on A. anserinus
pollinators have not been investigated. However, one study of another
Great Basin Astragalus species hypothesized that sheep use and grazing
affected the pollinators for that species through the destruction of
potential nest sites, destruction of existing nests and contents,
direct trampling of adult bees, and removal of food resources (Sugden
1985, p. 309).
Livestock use has occurred within the Goose Creek drainage for more
than 150 years, although it was likely much greater during the late
1800s (Hardy 2005, p. 1). The Goose Creek drainage was a stopping area
for pioneers traveling the California National Trail because of the
availability of water, which increased livestock presence in the area
(Howard 2007, p. 3). However, without pre-livestock baseline population
information on Astragalus anserinus, it is difficult to assess the
effects of this activity to the species over time.

[[Page 46533]]

The presence of livestock trails and evidence of trampling has been
documented at every Astragalus anserinus EO (Howard 2007, p. 3; A.
Feldhausen, in litt. 2007a, p. 4; Service 2008b, 17 pp.). In addition,
all A. anserinus sites on public land are within active livestock
grazing allotments. None of these sites have been fenced or otherwise
excluded from livestock use, other than some allotments that were
recently closed in Nevada as a result of the 2007 wildfire (Bluff
Creek, Grouse Creek, and Little Goose Creek) (B. Fuell, Elko BLM, in
litt. 2008, p. 1). One livestock exclusion fence that is proposed for
construction east of the 2007 wildfire perimeter in Utah has not yet
been installed; however, BLM has indicated that they believe that A.
anserinus would be largely undisturbed by this activity (M. Gates, in
litt. 2008c, p. 1; 2008d, p. 1). This fence, if installed, would
protect A. anserinus sites from livestock use within areas burned by
the 2007 wildfire.
The intensity of livestock use varies throughout the Goose Creek
drainage, depending on the terrain, location, and proximity to water
sources. For example, flat areas (especially those planted with
Agropyron cristatum) generally receive more livestock use than the
steep tuffaceous outcrops where A. anserinus normally occurs. Based on
field observations from the 2004 and 2005 census efforts, we estimate
that less than 5 percent of any particular A. anserinus site is being
used as livestock trails, with the exception of one site located
approximately 328 ft (100 m) from a water development. The fact that A.
anserinus individuals have not been observed within well-used trails
suggests that plants are lost to trampling. However, the species is
sometimes observed to be abundant along trail margins. The relatively
sparse vegetation within most occupied sites and the species' apparent
ability to tolerate some level of disturbance has likely helped it
persist.
Water tanks, placement of salt licks, and fence construction may
alter livestock grazing patterns and influence the effects of trampling
at some Astragalus anserinus sites by concentrating animals. In
general, the few fences that occur within A. anserinus habitat occur on
private lands. Although salt licks can increase livestock use in an
area, we are only aware of one salt lick, which was placed
approximately 330 ft (100 m) from EO (N004) in Nevada. We are also
aware of two fences within the Goose Creek drainage in Utah. One was
installed adjacent to Pole Creek to protect the creek from livestock
(Service 2005a, p. 3), although its effects, if any, to A. anserinus
are unknown. A new fence is proposed for construction east of the 2007
wildfire perimeter to protect burned areas from livestock entry but is
not expected to affect A. anserinus (M. Gates, in litt. 2008c, p. 1;
2008d, p. 1).
We are aware of five livestock water tanks located within 1 mi (1.6
km) of Astragalus anserinus sites. The availability of watering
locations can influence livestock grazing patterns by concentrating
animals in certain areas, affecting native vegetation. During our 2004
plant census, we observed that an area extending approximately 150 ft
(45 m) around the tanks had been completely denuded of vegetation from
livestock use. A water pipeline constructed in Utah in 1987 delivers
water to two livestock tanks sited within A. anserinus habitat (Hardy
2005, p. 3). One of the tanks is located within 330 ft (100 m) of an
occupied A. anserinus site. Thirteen A. anserinus plants were observed
immediately outside the denuded area around this tank, although we are
unaware as to whether the species was present prior to construction
because this was a recently discovered site at an existing EO (Service
2006b, p. 2). A site within this same EO but approximately 450 ft (140
m) away from the closest water tank was partially protected from
livestock access because of its location on a steep bluff. More than
850 A. anserinus individuals were recorded within this partially
protected EO.
Another livestock watering tank was constructed in 2004 on an
extensive flat area within Utah EO 003. Although the nearest Astragalus
anserinus individuals are located approximately 1,600 ft (485 m) from
the tank itself (Service 2006b, p. 3), the pipeline serving this and
another water tank went through the upper portion of EO 003. Although
no A. anserinus plants were observed in the construction area during
BLM's 2000 and 2002 site surveys, plants were subsequently discovered
during a 2004 pre-construction survey. However, no A. anserinus
individuals were lost during project implementation (Service 2005a, p.
3). The areas that were disturbed by construction were seeded with
nonnative forage species (see Nonnative Invasive Species seeded
section), and monitoring efforts are underway to detect any changes to
A. anserinus. As part of the pipeline monitoring efforts, four
livestock exclosure cages measuring approximately 3 ft by 3 ft (0.9 m
by 0.9 m) were established. Vegetation is being monitored to detect
changes to A. anserinus within and outside of the cages (Hardy 2005, p.
7; Service 2005a, p. 3). In addition, BLM proposes to construct a
livestock exclosure around 1 ac (0.4 ha) of occupied habitat at this
location and conduct a census of A. anserinus within and adjacent to
the exclosure (Hardy 2005, p. 7).
Another water tank has been in place for over 15 years between two
Astragalus anserinus EOs on BLM land in Idaho (EOs 004 and 009), but is
located is at least 3,000 ft (900 m) away from any known A. anserinus
individuals (Service 2005b, p. 3). An above-ground pipeline and opening
valve was constructed within EO 004, but plans are being developed to
relocate the pipeline beneath an existing unimproved road. This
pipeline also distributes water to several water tanks on the Sawtooth
National Forest, but those tanks are not within any known A. anserinus
locations. The pipeline relocation project has not been accomplished to
date (J. Tharp, in litt. 2008b, p. 1), and an environmental assessment
will be completed prior to implementation to identify and develop
appropriate measures to avoid or minimize any adverse effects of this
activity to A. anserinus (Service 2005b, p.3). An additional water tank
(the Delano Well site), is located approximately 1,200 ft (370 m) from
Nevada EO 002, where 10 individual plants were counted in 2006 (Howard
2007, p. 2). However, since we don't have any pre-construction survey
information, we don't know whether the construction of the Delano Well
site affected A. anserinus. We are unaware of any future plans by BLM
to develop water tanks within A. anserinus habitat.
In addition to direct consumption (see discussion of herbivory
under Factor D below) and trampling impacts, habitat degradation and
alterations to the ecosystem associated with livestock use may also be
a concern (Milchunas and Lauenroth, 1993, pp. 327-366; Jones 2000, pp.
155-164). Jones (2000) analyzed 54 studies and 16 variables to assess
grazing on North American arid ecosystems across elevations, from
forest ecosystems to grasslands, and across different grazing systems.
The author found that 11 of the 16 variables that were evaluated
revealed significant detrimental effects from cattle grazing (Jones
2000, p. 159). Some of the adverse effects from livestock that have
been documented in studies include changes in the timing and
availability of pollinator food plants (Kearns and Inouye 1997, pp.
298-299); changes to insect communities (Kearns and Inouye 1997, pp.
298-299; Debano 2006, pp.

[[Page 46534]]

2553-2554); changes in water infiltration due to soil compaction (Jones
2000, Table 1); disturbance to soil microbiotic crusts (Belnap et al.
1999, p. 167; Jones 2000, Table 1); subsequent weed invasions (Parker
et al. 2006, pp. 1459-1461); and soil erosion from hoof action (Jones
2000, Table 1). Portions of at least 1 EO in Idaho, 2 EOs in Nevada,
and the largest EO in Utah (EEO 001) show evidence of soil microbiotic
crusts that have been trampled by livestock (Service 2008b, 17 pp). In
addition, at least 1 EO in Idaho, 1 EO in Nevada, and the largest EO in
Utah (EO 001) exhibit deeply incised washes (Service 2008b, 17 pp.).
Given that all EOs on public lands are within active grazing
allotments, the possibility of such effects occurring to Astragalus
anserinus is high.
Summary: Livestock use has been documented at every Astragalus
anserinus EO, and all sites on public land are within active grazing
allotments. Livestock can trample plants, however, many of the A.
anserinus sites are on sloping hillsides that livestock generally
avoid. Since A. anserinus individuals have not been observed within
well-used trails, any individuals that may have been present within the
trail footprint prior to livestock use were likely lost to trampling.
The fact that the species is sometimes abundant along trail margins
suggests it is able to persist at some lower level of disturbance.
Based on these factors, even though grazing is ongoing, the magnitude
of livestock-related threats (including fence construction and water
tank construction) is considered low to moderate. The magnitude of this
threat could increase in the future if livestock management activities
or new water developments are implemented in a manner that concentrates
animals around A. anserinus EOs.

Development (Road Construction and Maintenance, Utilities, Garbage
Dumps, Private Properties)

In general, the Goose Creek drainage in Idaho, Utah, and Nevada
where Astragalus anserinus is found is sparsely populated, and the
effects of development are relatively minor. Across the range of the
species, we estimate there are fewer than ten human-inhabited areas
(each with fewer than five buildings). Mancuso and Moseley (1991, p.
22), indicate that some A. anserinus habitat was likely destroyed
during the construction of secondary access roads that cross much of
the Goose Creek drainage. We have documented roads affecting small
portions of 3 of 5 EOs in Idaho, 1 of the 4 EOs in Nevada (for which we
have habitat information), and 2 of 4 EOs in Utah, including the
largest EO (EO 001) (Service 2008b, 17 pp.). In addition, new roads and
fire lines associated with the 2007 wildfire impacted some sites in
Utah (see Wildfire Management and Firefighting Activities above). Most
of the land adjacent to Goose Creek is privately owned, and has been
largely converted to livestock pasture. The status of A. anserinus on
private land is largely unknown, because most of the known sites have
not been visited since the early 1990s. Because of the remoteness of
the Goose Creek drainage, development impacts on A. anserinus have been
few and localized to date. Most A. anserinus EOs are made up of several
sites within 0.6 mi (1 km) of each other, so population-level effects
often associated with habitat fragmentation are not anticipated. In
this regard, we do not anticipate any significant continuing or
cumulative effects to A. anserinus from the existing roads or
development. Since we are also unaware of any future development plans
in the area, we consider the magnitude of this threat to be low.

Recreation (Off-Highway Vehicle Use)

Recent census and survey efforts have not documented any impacts to
Astragalus anserinus because of recreational use (Service 2008b, 17
pp.). Accordingly, we consider this potential threat to be low in
magnitude and non imminent.

Mining

One expired mineral exploration permit did overlap with a portion
of EO 002 in Nevada (Howard 2007, p. 3), and another mineral
development firm has expressed interest in exploring areas south of the
Goose Creek drainage near an existing Astragalus anserinus EO in Nevada
(M. Hemker, Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office, in litt. 2006). However, we
are unaware of any other mining efforts that could potentially affect
A. anserinus or its habitat. Based on the limited mining interest that
has been identified in the Goose Creek vicinity to date, we consider
this threat to be low in magnitude and non-imminent.

Summary of Factor A

The 2007 wildfire severely constrained the range and numbers of the
population, significantly reducing the number of Astragalus anserinus
plants available for recruitment. This threat is exacerbated by the
increased fire return interval in the sagebrush-steppe ecosystem, which
increases the possibility that another wildfire will occur before the
species can recover from the loss of individuals associated with the
2007 wildfire. Accordingly, we find the negative rangewide, population-
level effects both from the 2007 wildfire and potential future
wildfires to be high in magnitude. However, this threat is not
considered to be imminent since we cannot predict when the next fire
may occur.
The threat presented from competition by seeded and unseeded
nonnative plant species will likely add to the negative wildfire
effects on the Astragalus anserinus population, further reducing its
ability to recover. Accordingly, we have determined that this threat is
also moderate in magnitude. The mechanical damage to A. anserinus
individuals from construction activities and the disking and seeding
efforts related to wildfire management activities were also detrimental
to several affected A. anserinus populations. These effects may
continue to impact the species' overall recruitment capacity; however,
we find them to be moderate to low in magnitude and non-imminent
because of their localized impact and the uncertain timing of future
activities of this nature.
Livestock-related threats could increase in magnitude if new water
developments or management activities are implemented that
significantly concentrate animals around Astragalus anserinus EOs, but
we are unaware of any plans in this regard. Accordingly, we have
determined that livestock use presents a threat that is low to moderate
in magnitude, but non-imminent. The threats presented by development,
recreation, and mining use in the Goose Creek drainage and A. anserinus
EOs are considered low in magnitude and non-imminent because of the
limited use of the area for these types of activities.

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

We are not aware of any threats involving the overutilization or
collection of Astragalus anserinus for any commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes at this time.

Factor C. Disease or Predation

During the 2004 and 2005 census efforts, few Astragalus anserinus
plants exhibited signs of herbivory. Those that did were observed to be
eaten near the ground (e.g., at a height of 1 inch (2 centimeters)),
which indicates that rabbits may have been responsible (G. Glenne,
Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office, in litt. 2006). We are unaware of any
herbivory attributable to livestock, native ungulates, or birds,
although in

[[Page 46535]]

2004, numerous green caterpillars and webs were found on plants at one
site in Idaho (Service 2008b, 17 pp.). In addition, several plants were
observed withering, particularly after the heavy rains in May of 2005
(IDCDC 2007a, p.3), which was attributed to either a fungus or
caterpillar damage.

Summary of Factor C

With very little herbivory by wildlife or livestock observed or
documented, predation does not appear to pose a significant threat to
Astragalus anserinus. We have no reason to suspect this poses a
significant threat to the species. Accordingly, we find the threat to
the species resulting from herbivory to be low in magnitude and non-
imminent. There is no evidence that disease, such as fungal damage,
poses a significant threat to the species.

Factor D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

There are no State regulations in Idaho, Utah, or Nevada that
protect Astragalus anserinus. All A. anserinus sites on public land are
within active livestock grazing allotments. The status of A. anserinus
on private land is largely unknown, because most of the known sites
have not been visited since the early 1990s. The BLM has promulgated
regulations, policies, and guidelines to protect sensitive species on
Federal lands, control wildfire and rehabilitate burned areas, and
implement rangeland assessments, standards, and guidelines to assess
rangeland health. In Idaho, A. anserinus occurs within four livestock
grazing allotments, although we do not know the extent to which the
standards or assessments are being met (A. Feldhausen, in litt. 2007,
p.4). Trespass cattle were removed from one of these allotments in 2007
as an administrative matter not related to a resource concern (A.
Feldhausen, in litt. 2007b, p. 1); we have no information regarding
whether these cattle may have impacted A. anserinus. In Nevada, A.
anserinus occurs within three livestock grazing allotments, although
none of the livestock management plans for these allotments have
identified A. anserinus as a species of concern (Howard 2007, p. 3).
Generally, all allotments require biannual pasture rotations (Howard
2007, pp. 3-4), but do not specifically address A. anserinus
management. We do not have any information regarding the implementation
of rangeland standards or assessments within these allotments, whether
the allotments have been surveyed for A. anserinus, or whether these
rotations benefit A. anserinus. In Utah, A. anserinus sites occur
within one allotment (Hardy 2005, p. 1); the Utah Goose Creek Ranch was
established as a private grazing unit in 1928 and the Goose Creek
Allotment fence was constructed in 1953. Livestock use on most key
forage species within this allotment is generally ``light to moderate''
but has been ``heavy to severe'' in some areas in some years
(especially during drought years) (Hardy 2005, p. 2). A rangeland
standards assessment was conducted in the Utah Goose Creek drainage in
May of 1999, and determined the western portion of Goose Creek to be
``functional,'' and the central portion to be ``stable'' with the
hydrological aspects ``functional''. However, the central portion's
biotic integrity was determined to be ``at risk'' because of a lack of
vegetative diversity (Hardy 2005, p. 3). This area was primarily
occupied by Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis and Agropyron
cristatum, but lacked forbs and other grasses. Consequently, the
western portion of the Basin was rated as being in the late-seral
stage, but the middle part was rated as being in the mid-seral stage.
BLM guidelines within Utah require that areas not be grazed for two
growing seasons after a fire treatment (M. Gates, in litt. 2008d, p.
1), although we frequently observed livestock within the area burned in
the 2007 fire during our 2008 surveys in Utah. We have been advised
that BLM-Nevada has closed all burned areas to livestock use until
further notice (B. Fuell, in litt. 2008, p. 1).
As discussed under Factor A, two livestock water tank and pipeline
projects in Utah and Idaho were surveyed by the BLM for Astragalus
anserinus prior to construction. Survey and monitoring efforts specific
to A. anserinus are discussed above; however range-wide trend
monitoring has not been conducted. The species special designation
status by the BLM requires that they follow specific management
guidelines; however, we have no information regarding whether or how
the guidelines are being implemented.

Summary of Factor D

We do not have information on how BLM standards and guidelines are
being met within livestock allotments that contain Astragalus
anserinus, nor do we have any information that allotment management
plans address A. anserinus. We consider the threat presented by
inadequate regulatory mechanisms to be moderate to low in magnitude,
but non-imminent, because the native vegetation at A. anserinus sites
appears to be relatively intact and it appears the standards and
guidelines are probably protective of the species.

Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence

We have no information concerning pollinators, genetic diversity,
or germination that is specific to Astragalus anserinus. As such, we
are unable to determine whether these or any other presently unknown
natural or manmade factors could potentially affect the ability of this
species to survive into the foreseeable future. With regard to climate
change, Bromus tectorum and other C3 grasses (C3 refers to one of three
alternative photosynthetic pathways) are likely to thrive as
atmospheric carbon dioxide increases, likely influencing wildfire
frequency (Mayeux et al. 1994, p. 98). Further, as the climate changes,
the abundance and distribution of native flora and fauna will also
likely change. While the extent to which climate change may affect A.
anserinus habitat is not fully understood, those effects could result
in physiological stress or the loss or alteration of habitat. In
addition, an increased occurrence of extreme events, such as fire and
drought, could also impact the remaining populations. Endemic species
with limited ranges and adapted to localized conditions would be
expected to be more severely impacted by climate change (Midgley et al.
2002, p. 448) than those considered habitat generalists. Because the
specific effects of probable climate change are unknown at this time,
we are not able to predict the foreseeable magnitude of this potential
threat with confidence.
Since most EOs are comprised of many sites that are within 0.6 mi
(1 km) of each other, genetic exchange should still be possible given
appropriate pollination vectors, although the scale at which it occurs
may be reduced because of a reduced number of individuals. One
exception may be Nevada EO-005, which was small and isolated to begin
with and burned in 2007. Our 2008 field inspection observed only two
plants, so the genetic bottleneck effects typically relevant to small
population sizes may be evident in this EO. However, the surrounding
area has not been thoroughly searched for additional plants.

Summary of Factor E

We are unaware of any other natural or manmade factors affecting
the species' continued existence that present a current threat to
Astragalus anserinus. We are unable to predict the magnitude of the
threat presented by probable climate change to A. anserinus at this
time. We also consider the

[[Page 46536]]

potential genetic bottleneck effects to A. anserinus to be low in
magnitude, since it may only apply to one EO, which has not been
thoroughly surveyed for the presence of other individuals.

General Threats Summary

Ongoing threats to remaining Astragalus anserinus individuals
include future habitat degradation and modifications to the sagebrush-
steppe ecosystem in which it occurs because of an altered wildfire
regime (i.e., fires are increasing in frequency, size, and duration);
diminished recruitment capacity resulting from the 2007 wildfire that
eliminated 53 percent of the known individuals (31,500 of 60,000) and
burned 25 percent of the known occupied habitat (100 ac (41 ha) of 400
ac (164 ha)); loss of additional individuals and diminished recruitment
capacity from future wildfires; and ongoing effects of habitat
competition from both seeded and unseeded nonnative plant species.
Other factors that may threaten A. anserinus to a lesser extent include
livestock use, recreation, mining, development, and the inadequacy of
regulatory mechanisms. Climate change effects to Goose Creek drainage
habitats are possible, but we are unable to predict the specific
impacts of this change to A. anserinus at this time.
The continuing effect of the 2007 wildfire to the species'
recruitment capabilities, and the potential for similar effects to
remaining populations from future fires present the greatest threats to
Astragalus anserinus at this time. The fact that our post-fire surveys
documented a 50 percent decline in the number of known A. anserinus
individuals in areas that did not burn versus a 98 percent decline in
the number of known individuals in areas that did burn suggests
strongly that fire may kill A. anserinus. We did not observe any
evidence that A. anserinus seed dormancy is broken by wildfire during
our field inspections, which occurs in some other plant species. Based
on the best available information, the species' capacity to replace the
number of individuals lost to the 2007 wildfire will likely depend on
recruitment, which we believe occurs slowly based on the average number
of seedlings that were observed during our post-wildfire surveys. Given
what we believe to be an increasing fire frequency, it is possible that
recruitment will not restore these populations before the next fire
event. In addition to the threats related to increased fire frequency,
wildfires now tend to be larger and burn more uniformly across the
landscape, leaving fewer unburned areas, which affects the post-fire
recovery capacity of native sagebrush-steppe vegetation (Whisenant
1990, p. 4; Knick and Rotenberry 1997, pp. 287, 297; Brooks et al.
2004, pp. 682-683). These cascading effects increase the likelihood
that the species will become endangered within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
The establishment of Euphorbia esula and Bromus tectorum throughout
the Goose Creek drainage also represents a potential but not imminent
invasive competition threat to Astragalus anserinus. E. esula
represents a potential threat primarily because of its invasive
capabilities and its ability to displace native plants. B. tectorum
represents an additional threat because of its ability to alter and
shorten the wildfire return regime. However, infestations for both
species are currently localized, limited in size, and do not impact all
A. anserinus occupied sites. Further, E. esula control efforts have
increased in recent years, and B. tectorum invasion appears to be
primarily confined to southern portions of the Goose Creek drainage.
Nevertheless, if wildfire frequency is increasing as suggested by the
occurrence of two wildfire events in the last 7 years, the threat
presented by B. tectorum expansion would likely increase in magnitude.
Astragalus anserinus normally occurs in sparsely-vegetated sites,
where it is able to tolerate the physiological stresses of living in
tuffaceous soils that are apparently not conducive to supporting other
plant species. The 2008 wildfire response included seeding Agropyron
cristatum directly over areas that supported approximately 18 percent
of the pre-wildfire A. anserinus individuals. A. cristatum is known to
be an effective competitor with other aggressive introduced plants
(USDA 2006, p. 1), and we presume that it may be an even more effective
competitor with less aggressive plants. If A. cristatum plants which
are seeded during fire restoration activities are able to outcompete A.
anserinus, it may displace the species over time. This threat could
increase in magnitude if seeding activities are conducted to respond to
future wildfires in A. anserinus habitat.

Finding

As discussed in the Summary of Factors section, we determined that
any future threat resulting from the effects of wildfire would be high
in magnitude, based on the continuing population-level effects
resulting from the 2007 wildfire on recruitment. That threat would be
exacerbated by fire fighting response and restoration activities,
including drilling, disking, and seeding efforts in burned areas, which
could introduce competitive species as discussed in Factor A.
The wildfire return interval in the Goose Creek watershed may now
be on the average of every decade (versus every 60 to 110 years), based
on the two recent occurrences. However, we acknowledge the uncertainty
associated with establishing trends based on the limited data
available, particularly since we have no historical records of wildfire
frequency in the Goose Creek watershed. Preliminary data suggest that
within the 4 sites that were completely burned by the 2007 wildfire,
Astragalus anserinus numbers declined 98 percent from the 2004 and 2005
counts (Service 2008c, Table 2). The primary threats to the species
center on the ongoing and cumulative effects of the 2007 wildfire and
future wildfires to recruitment capacity, compounded by competition
from nonnative species. Based on our analysis of the best available
information, we have no reason to believe that population trends will
improve, nor that the effects of the primary threats acting on the
species will be ameliorated in the foreseeable future.
Climate change projection models are not reasonably accurate for
the localized range of Astragalus anserinus, and therefore we cannot
reasonably predict that climate change will pose a threat in the
future. Accordingly, because the specific effects of climate change are
unknown, we are unable to project with any certainty whether climate
change may lead to such on the ground effects as changing wildfire
regimes or increasing size and number of invasive plant populations,
which might impact A. anserinus.
As required by the Act, we considered the five potential threat
factors to assess whether Astragalus anserinus is threatened or
endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range. When
considering the listing status of the species, the first step in the
analysis is to determine whether the species is in danger of extinction
throughout all of its range. If this is the case, then we list the
species in its entirety. For instance, if the threats to a species are
directly acting on only a portion of its range, but they are at such a
large scale that they place the entire species in danger of extinction,
we would list the entire species. If, however, we determine a species
is not endangered throughout its range, we would then evaluate whether
the species is threatened throughout all or a significant portion of
its range.

[[Page 46537]]

Threats affecting Astragalus anserinus and its habitat are at a
magnitude that threatens the species throughout all of its range. We
acknowledge there are uncertainties regarding (1) the post-wildfire
recovery abilities of the species over the long-term; (2) the return
interval of future wildfires; (3) the effects of post-fire restoration
seeding activities in occupied areas; and (4) the extent of invasive
nonnative plant competition that will occur as a result of wildfire and
post-fire restoration activities. Based on the best available
information, the threats of greatest concern to A. anserinus include
the continuing effects to its recruitment capacity due to: (1) the loss
of 98 percent of the known individuals in areas burned in the 2007
wildfire, versus the loss of 50 percent of the known individuals in
areas that did not burn; (2) the potential inability of the species to
recover those losses through recruitment of new individuals before the
next wildfire occurs; and (3) competition from nonnative plants.
Decreased genetic exchange may present a threat to Nevada EO-005, which
was a small and isolated site to begin with and burned in 2007.
However, the genetic bottleneck effects of small population size would
not be a factor at this time for the other EOs, since they are composed
of several sites within 0.6 mi (1 km) of each other. Accordingly,
genetic exchange between them should remain possible provided
sufficient pollination vectors are available.
In summary, we have carefully assessed the best available
scientific and commercial information available regarding the past,
present, and future threats faced by Astragalus anserinus in developing
this 12- month finding. We have reviewed the petition, information in
our files, information supplied to us by State and Federal agencies,
peer-reviewed literature, and other unpublished documents. We evaluated
both the extent of the occupied area that was burned and the decline in
the total number of individual plants that resulted from the 2007
wildfire. We also evaluated the 2008 fire rehabilitation activities,
and the effects of competition from nonnative plants and other
potential threats. Given the possibility that wildfire frequency may be
increasing, the species may not have an opportunity to recover before
the next wildfire event. Accordingly, we find that listing A. anserinus
as threatened or endangered is warranted. However, as explained in more
detail below, an immediate proposal of a regulation implementing this
action is precluded by higher priority listing actions, and progress is
being made to add or remove qualified species from the Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants.
We have reviewed the available information to determine if the
existing and foreseeable threats render the species at risk of
extinction now such that emergency listing is warranted. We have
determined that an emergency listing is not warranted for this species
at this time because there are extant populations in Idaho, Nevada, and
Utah, and we do not believe there are any potential threats of such
great immediacy, severity, and/or scope that would threaten all of the
known populations with the imminent risk of extinction. However, if at
any time we determine that emergency listing of Astragalus anserinus is
warranted, we will initiate an emergency listing.
The Service adopted guidelines on September 21, 1983 (48 FR 43098)
to establish a rational system for allocating available appropriations
to the highest priority species when adding species to the Lists of
Endangered or Threatened Wildlife and Plants or reclassifying
threatened species to endangered status. The system places greatest
importance on the immediacy and magnitude of threats, but also factors
in the level of taxonomic distinctiveness by assigning priority in
descending order to monotypic genera, full species, and subspecies (or
equivalently, distinct population segments of vertebrates). The lower
the listing priority number, the higher the listing priority (that is,
a species with an LPN of 1 would have the highest listing priority).
As a result of our analysis of the best available scientific and
commercial information, we have assigned Astragalus anserinus a Listing
Priority Number of 5, based on our finding that the threats to the
species are high in magnitude but not imminent. Approximately 98
percent of the individual plants that had been previously documented in
the areas burned by the 2007 wildfire were killed, based on the lack of
adult plants as well as seedlings in the burned areas. In addition, it
is possible that the fire return interval is increasing in the Goose
Creek drainage. We believe the rangewide threat from future wildfires
will exacerbate the ongoing effects to the population's recruitment
capacity resulting from the 2007 wildfire and is high in magnitude.
However, this and other threats to the species are not imminent. While
we conclude that listing Astragalus anserinus is warranted, an
immediate proposal to list this species is precluded by other higher
priority listing, which we address below.

Preclusion and Expeditious Progress

Preclusion is a function of the listing priority of a species in
relation to the resources that are available and competing demands for
those resources. Thus, in any given fiscal year (FY), multiple factors
dictate whether it will be possible to undertake work on a proposed
listing regulation or whether promulgation of such a proposal is
warranted but precluded by higher-priority listing actions.
The resources available for listing actions are determined through
the annual Congressional appropriations process. The appropriation for
the Listing Program is available to support work involving the
following listing actions: proposed and final listing rules; 90-day and
12-month findings on petitions to add species to the Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists) or to change the
status of a species from threatened to endangered; annual
determinations on prior ``warranted but precluded'' petition findings
as required under section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act; proposed and final
rules designating critical habitat; and litigation-related,
administrative, and program management functions (including preparing
and allocating budgets, responding to Congressional and public
inquiries, and conducting public outreach regarding listing and
critical habitat). The work involved in preparing various listing
documents can be extensive and may include, but is not limited to:
gathering and assessing the best scientific and commercial data
available and conducting analyses used as the basis for our decisions;
writing and publishing documents; and obtaining, reviewing, and
evaluating public comments and peer review comments on proposed rules
and incorporating relevant information into final rules. The number of
listing actions that we can undertake in a given year also is
influenced by the complexity of those listing actions; that is, more
complex actions generally are more costly. For example, during the past
several years, the cost (excluding publication costs) for preparing a
12-month finding, without a proposed rule, has ranged from
approximately $11,000 for one species with a restricted range and
involving a relatively uncomplicated analysis to $305,000 for another
species that is wide-ranging and involving a complex analysis.
We cannot spend more than is appropriated for the Listing Program
without violating the Anti-Deficiency

[[Page 46538]]

Act (see 31 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1)(A)). In addition, in FY 1998 and for each
fiscal year since then, Congress has placed a statutory cap on funds
which may be expended for the Listing Program, equal to the amount
expressly appropriated for that purpose in that fiscal year. This cap
was designed to prevent funds appropriated for other functions under
the Act (for example, recovery funds for removing species from the
Lists), or for other Service programs, from being used for Listing
Program actions (see House Report 105-163, 105\th\ Congress, 1\st\
Session, July 1, 1997).
Recognizing that designation of critical habitat for species
already listed would consume most of the overall Listing Program
appropriation, Congress also put a critical habitat subcap in place in
FY 2002 and has retained it each subsequent year to ensure that some
funds are available for other work in the Listing Program: ``The
critical habitat designation subcap will ensure that some funding is
available to address other listing activities'' (House Report No. 107 -
103, 107\th\ Congress, 1\st\ Session, June 19, 2001). In FY 2002 and
each year until FY 2006, the Service has had to use virtually the
entire critical habitat subcap to address court-mandated designations
of critical habitat, and consequently none of the critical habitat
subcap funds have been available for other listing activities. In FY
2007, we were able to use some of the critical habitat subcap funds to
fund proposed listing determinations for high-priority candidate
species. In FY 2008, while we were unable to use any of the critical
habitat subcap funds to fund proposed listing determinations, we did
use some of this money to fund the critical habitat portion of some
proposed listing determinations, so that the proposed listing
determination and proposed critical habitat designation could be
combined into one rule, thereby being more efficient in our work. In FY
2009, we anticipate being able to do the same.
Thus, through the listing cap, the critical habitat subcap, and the
amount of funds needed to address court-mandated critical habitat
designations, Congress and the courts have in effect determined the
amount of money available for other listing activities. Therefore, the
funds in the listing cap, other than those needed to address court-
mandated critical habitat for already listed species, set the limits on
our determinations of preclusion and expeditious progress.
Congress also recognized that the availability of resources was the
key element in deciding whether, when making a 12-month petition
finding, we would prepare and issue a listing proposal or instead make
a ``warranted but precluded'' finding for a given species. The
Conference Report accompanying Public Law 97-304, which established the
current statutory deadlines and the warranted-but-precluded finding,
states (in a discussion on 90-day petition findings that by its own
terms also covers 12-month findings) that the deadlines were ``not
intended to allow the Secretary to delay commencing the rulemaking
process for any reason other than that the existence of pending or
imminent proposals to list species subject to a greater degree of
threat would make allocation of resources to such a petition [that is,
for a lower-ranking species] unwise.''
In FY 2009, expeditious progress is that amount of work that can be
achieved with $8,808,000, which is the amount of money that Congress
appropriated for the Listing Program (that is, the portion of the
Listing Program funding not related to critical habitat designations
for species that are already listed). Our process is to make our
determinations of preclusion on a nationwide basis to ensure that the
species most in need of listing will be addressed first and also
because we allocate our listing budget on a nationwide basis. The
$8,808,000 is being used to fund work in the following categories:
compliance with court orders and court-approved settlement agreements
requiring that petition findings or listing determinations be completed
by a specific date; section 4 (of the Act) listing actions with
absolute statutory deadlines; essential litigation-related,
administrative, and listing program management functions; and high-
priority listing actions for some of our candidate species. The
allocations for each specific listing action are identified in the
Service's FY 2009 Allocation Table (part of our administrative record).
In FY 2007, we had more than 120 species with an LPN of 2, based on
our September 21, 1983, guidance for assigning an LPN for each
candidate species (48 FR 43098). Using this guidance, we assign each
candidate an LPN of 1 to 12, depending on the magnitude of threats
(high vs. moderate to low), immediacy of threats (imminent or
nonimminent), and taxonomic status of the species (in order of
priority: monotypic genus (a species that is the sole member of a
genus); species; or part of a species (subspecies, distinct population
segment, or significant portion of the range)). The lower the listing
priority number, the higher the listing priority (that is, a species
with an LPN of 1 would have the highest listing priority). Because of
the large number of high-priority species, we further ranked the
candidate species with an LPN of 2 by using the following extinction-
risk type criteria: International Union for the Conservation of Nature
and Natural Resources (IUCN) Red list status/rank, Heritage rank
(provided by NatureServe), Heritage threat rank (provided by
NatureServe), and species currently with fewer than 50 individuals, or
4 or fewer populations. Those species with the highest IUCN rank
(critically endangered), the highest Heritage rank (G1), the highest
Heritage threat rank (substantial, imminent threats), and currently
with fewer than 50 individuals, or fewer than 4 populations, comprised
a list of approximately 40 candidate species (``Top 40''). These 40
candidate species have had the highest priority to receive funding to
work on a proposed listing determination. As we work on proposed and
final listing rules for these 40 candidates, we are applying the
ranking criteria to the next group of candidates with LPN of 2 and 3 to
determine the next set of highest priority candidate species.
To be more efficient in our listing process, as we work on proposed
rules for these species in the next several years, we are preparing
multi-species proposals when appropriate, and these may include species
with lower priority if they overlap geographically or have the same
threats as a species with an LPN of 2. In addition, available staff
resources are also a factor in determining high-priority species
provided with funding. Finally, proposed rules for reclassification of
threatened species to endangered are lower priority, since as listed
species, they are already afforded the protection of the Act and
implementing regulations.
As discussed above, we assigned Astragalus anserinus an LPN of 5,
based on our finding that the threats to the species are high in
magnitude but not imminent. Pursuant to the 1983 Guidelines, a
``species'' facing imminent high-magnitude threats is assigned an LPN
of 1, 2, or 3 depending on its taxonomic status. Therefore, work on a
proposed listing determination for A. anserinus is precluded by work on
higher priority candidate species (i.e., species with LPN of 1 through
4); listing actions with absolute statutory, court-ordered, or court-
approved deadlines; and final listing determinations for those species
that were proposed for listing with funds from FY 2008. This work
includes all the actions listed in

[[Page 46539]]

the tables below under expeditious progress.
As explained above, a determination that listing is warranted but
precluded must also demonstrate that expeditious progress is being made
to add or remove qualified species to and from the Lists of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. (Although we do not discuss it in
detail here, we are also making expeditious progress in removing
species from the list under the Recovery program, which is funded by a
separate line item in the budget of the Endangered Species Program. As
explained above in our description of the statutory cap on Listing
Program funds, the Recovery Program funds and actions supported by them
cannot be considered in determining expeditious progress made in the
Listing Program.) As with our ``precluded'' finding, expeditious
progress in adding qualified species to the Lists is a function of the
resources available and the competing demands for those funds. Given
that limitation, we find that we are making progress in FY 2009 in the
Listing Program. This progress included preparing and publishing the
following determinations:

FY 2009 Completed Listing Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Publication Date Title Actions FR Pages
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10/15/2008 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 73 FR 61007 61015
Petition To List the Petition Finding,
Least Chub Substantial
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10/21/2008 Listing 48 Species on Proposed Listing, 73 FR 62591 62742
Kauai as Endangered Endangered; Proposed
and Critical Habitat
DesignatingCritical
Habitat
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10/24/2008 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 73 FR 63421 63424
Petition to List the Petition Finding, Not
Sacramento Valley substantial
Tiger Beetle as
Endangered
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10/28/2008 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 73 FR 63919 63926
Petition To List the Petition Finding,
Dusky Tree Vole Substantial
(Arborimus longicaudus
silvicola) as
Threatened or
Endangered
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11/25/2008 12-Month Finding on a Notice 12 month 73 FR 71787 71826
Petition To List the petition finding,
Northern Mexican Warranted but
Gartersnake precluded
(Thamnophis eques
megalops) as
Threatened or
Endangered With
Critical Habitat;
Proposed Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12/02/2008 90-Day Finding on a Notice 90-day Petition 73 FR 73211 73219
Petition To List the Finding, Substantial
Black-tailed Prairie
Dog as Threatened or
Endangered
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12/05/2008 90-Day Finding on a Notice 90-day Petition 73 FR 74123 74129
Petition To List the Finding, Substantial
Sacramento Mountains
Checkerspot Butterfly
(Euphydryas anicia
cloudcrofti) as
Endangered with
Critical Habitat
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12/18/2008 90-Day Finding on a Notice 90-day Petition 73 FR 76990 76994
Petition to Change the Finding, Substantial
Listing Status of the
Canada Lynx
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/06/2009 Partial 90-Day Finding Notice 90-day Petition 74 FR 419 427
on a Petition To List Finding, Not
475 Species in the substantial
Southwestern United
States as Threatened
or Endangered With
Critical Habitat
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2/05/2009 Partial 90-Day Finding Notice 90-day Petition 74 FR 6122 6128
on a Petition To List Finding, Not
206 Species in the in substantial
the Midwest and
Western United States
as Threatened or
Endangered With
Critical Habitat
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2/10/2009 90-Day Finding on a Notice 90-day Petition 74 FR 6558 6563
Petition To List the Finding, Substantial
Wyoming Pocket Gopher
as Threatened or
Endangered With
Critical Habitat
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3/17/2009 Listing Phyllostegia Final Listing 74 FR 11319 11327
hispida (No Common Endangered
Name) as Endangered
Throughout Its Range
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3/25/2009 12-Month Finding on a Notice 12 month 74 FR 12931 12968
Petition to List the petition finding,
Yellow-Billed Loon as Warranted but
Threatened or precluded
Endangered
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4/09/2009 12-Month Finding on a Notice 12 month 74 FR 16169 16175
Petition to List the petition finding, Not
San Francisco Bay- warranted
Delta Population of
the Longfin Smelt
(Spirinchus
thaleichthys) as
Endangered
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4/22/2009 90-Day Finding on a Notice 90-day Petition 74 FR 18336 18341
Petition To List the Finding, Substantial
Tehachapi Slender
Salamander
(Batrachoseps
stebbinsi) as
Threatened or
Endangered
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5/07/2009 90-Day Finding on a Notice 90-day Petition 74 FR 21301 21310
Petition To List the Finding, Substantial
American Pika as
Threatened or
Endangered with
Critical Habitat
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 46540]]

5/19/2009 12-Month Finding on a Notice 12-month 74 FR 23376 23388
Petition to List the petition finding, Not
Coaster Brook Trout as warranted
Endangered
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6/09/2009 90-Day Finding on a Notice 90-day Petition 74 FR 27266 27271
Petition To List Finding, Not
Oenothera acutissima substantial
(Narrowleaf Evening-
primrose) as
Threatened or
Endangered
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6/29 /2009 Proposed Endangered Proposed Listing, 74 FR 31113 31151
Status for the Georgia Endangered; Proposed
Pigtoe Mussel, Critical Habitat
Interrupted Rocksnail,
and Rough Hornsnail
with Critical Habitat
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7/01/2009 90-Day Finding on a Notice 90-day Petition 74 FR 31389 31401
Petition to List the Finding, Substantial
Northern Leopard Frog
(Lithobates [=Rana]
pipiens) in the
Western United States
as Threatened
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7/07/2009 12-Month Finding on a Notice 12-month 74 FR 32351 32387
Petition To List a petition finding,
Distinct Population Warranted but
Segment of the precluded
Roundtail Chub (Gila
robusta) in the Lower
Colorado River Basin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7/08/2009 90-Day Finding on a Notice 90-day Petition 74 FR 32510 32513
Petition to List the Finding, Substantial
Coqui Llanero
(Eleutherodactylus
juanariveroi) as
Endangered
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7/08/2009 90-Day Finding on a Notice 90-day Petition 74 FR 32514 32521
Petition to List the Finding, Substantial
Susan's purse-making
caddisfly
(Ochrotrichia susanae)
as Threatened or
Endangered
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7/08/2009 Proposed Endangered Proposed Listing, 74 FR 32490 32510
Status for Flying Endangered
Earwig Hawaiian
Damselfly (Megalagrion
nesiotes) and Pacific
Hawaiian Damselfly (M.
pacificum) Throughout
Their Ranges
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7/09/2009 Listing Casey's June Proposed Listing, 74 FR 32857 32875
Beetle (Dinacoma Endangered; Proposed
caseyi) as Endangered Critical Habitat
and Designation of
Critical Habitat
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7/22/2009 90-Day Finding on a Notice 90-day Petition 74 FR 36152 36158
Petition To List the Finding, Substantial
White-Sided Jackrabbit
(Lepus callotis) as
Threatened or
Endangered
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8/06/2009 Initiation of Status Notice of Status Review 74 FR 39268 39269
Review for Mountain
Whitefish (Prosopium
williamsoni) in the
Big Lost River, Idaho
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8/11/2009 90-Day Finding on a Notice 90-day Petition 74 FR 40132 40138
Petition To List the Finding, Substantial
Jemez Mountains
Salamander (Plethodon
neomexicanus) as
Threatened or
Endangered With
Critical Habitat
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8/19/2009 12-Month Finding on a Notice 12 month 74 FR 41832 41860
Petition To List the petition finding, Not
Ashy Storm-Petrel as warranted
Threatened or
Endangered
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Our expeditious progress also included work on listing actions,
which we funded in FY 2009, but have not yet been completed to date.
These actions are listed below. Actions in the top section of the table
are being conducted under a deadline set by a court. Actions in the
middle section of the table are being conducted to meet statutory
timelines, that is, timelines required under the Act. Actions in the
bottom section of the table are high priority listing actions. These
actions include work primarily on species with an LPN of 2, and
selection of these species is partially based on available staff
resources, and when appropriate, include species with a lower priority
if they overlap geographically or have the same threats as the species
with the high priority. Including these species together in the same
proposed rule results in considerable savings in time and funding as
compared to preparing separate proposed rules for each of them in the
future.

Actions funded in FY 2009 but not yet completed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actions Subject to Court Order/Settlement Agreement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slickspot peppergrass Final listing determination
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coastal cutthroat trout Final listing determination
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mono basin sage-grouse 12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sacramento Mtns. checkerspot butterfly 12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 46541]]

SW Bald eagle population 12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Black-tailed prairie dog 12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lynx (include New Mexico in listing) 12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
White-tailed prairie dog 12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
American pika 12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hermes copper butterfly 90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thorne's hairstreak butterfly 90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actions with Statutory Deadlines
------------------------------------------------------------------------
48 Kauai species Final listing determination
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Black-footed albatross 12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mount Charleston blue butterfly 12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Goose Creek milk-vetch 12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mojave fringe-toed lizard\1\ 12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pygmy rabbit (rangewide)\1\ 12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kokanee - Lake Sammamish population\1\ 12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delta smelt (uplisting) 12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cactus ferruginous pygmy owl\1\ 12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tucson shovel-nosed snake\1\ 12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northern leopard frog 12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tehachapi slender salamander 12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coqui Llanero 12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Susan's purse-making caddisfly 12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
White-Sided Jackrabbit 12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jemez Mountains Salamander 12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Desert tortoise - Sonoran population 12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 subspecies of Pseudocopaeodes enunus 90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Southeastern pop snowy plover & wintering 90-day petition finding
pop. of piping plover
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Berry Cave salamander\1\ 90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ozark chinquapin\1\ 90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smooth-billed ani 90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bay Springs salamander\1\ 90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mojave ground squirrel\1\ 90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gopher tortoise - eastern population 90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mojave ground squirrel 90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific walrus 90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
32 species of snails and slugs 90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calopogon oklahomensis 90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Striped newt 90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
American dipper - Black Hills population 90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sprague's pipit 90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Southern hickorynut 90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 Southwest mussel species 90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chihuahua scarfpea 90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrights marsh thistle 90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
White-bark pine 90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Puerto Rico harlequin 90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fisher - Northern Rocky Mtns. population 90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
42 snail species (Nevada & Utah) 90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HI yellow-faced bees 90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
206 species (partially completed) 90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
475 Southwestern species (partially 90-day petition finding
completed)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
High Priority Listing Actions\3\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
19 Oahu candidate species (16 plants, 3 Proposed listing
damselflies) (15 with LPN = 2, 3 with LPN
= 3, 1 with LPN =9)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
17 Maui-Nui candidate species (14 plants, Proposed listing
3 tree snails) (12 with LPN = 2, 3 with
LPN = 3, 3 with LPN = 8)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sand dune lizard (LPN = 2) Proposed listing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Arizona springsnails (Pyrgulopsis Proposed listing
bernadina (LPN = 2), Pyrgulopsis
trivialis (LPN = 2))
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 New Mexico springsnails (Pyrgulopsis Proposed listing
chupaderae (LPN = 2), Pyrgulopsis
thermalis (LPN = 11))
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 mussels (rayed bean (LPN = 2), snuffbox Proposed listing
No LPN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 46542]]

2 mussels (sheepnose (LPN = 2), Proposed listing
spectaclecase (LPN = 4),)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ozark hellbender\2\ (LPN = 3) Proposed listing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Altamaha spinymussel (LPN = 2) Proposed listing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 southeast fish (rush darter (LPN = 2), Proposed listing
chucky madtom (LPN = 2), yellowcheek
darter (LPN = 2), Cumberland darter (LPN
= 5), laurel dace (LPN = 5))
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 southeast mussels (southern kidneyshell Proposed listing
(LPN = 2), round ebonyshell (LPN = 2),
Alabama pearlshell (LPN = 2), southern
sandshell (LPN = 5), fuzzy pigtoe (LPN =
5), Choctaw bean (LPN = 5), narrow pigtoe
(LPN = 11), and tapered pigtoe (LPN =
11))
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 Colorado plants (Pagosa skyrocket Proposed listing
(Ipomopsis polyantha) (LPN = 2), Parchute
beardtongue (Penstemon debilis) (LPN =
2), Debeque phacelia (Phacelia submutica)
(LPN = 8))
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funds for listing actions for these species were provided in
previous FYs.
\2\ We funded a proposed rule for this subspecies with an LPN of 3 ahead
of other species with LPN of 2, because the threats to the species
were so imminent and of a high magnitude that we considered emergency
listing if we were unable to fund work on a proposed listing rule in
FY 2008.
\3\ Funds for these high priority listing actions were provided in FY
2008 and 2009

We have endeavored to make our listing actions as efficient and
timely as possible, given the requirements of the relevant law and
regulations, and constraints relating to workload and personnel. We are
continually considering ways to streamline processes or achieve
economies of scale, such as by batching related actions together. Given
our limited budget for implementing section 4 of the Act, these actions
described above collectively constitute expeditious progress.
Astragalus anserinus will be added to the list of candidate species
upon publication of this 12-month finding. We will continue to monitor
the status of this species as new information becomes available. This
review will determine if a change in status is warranted, including the
need to make prompt use of emergency listing procedures.
We intend that any proposed listing action for Astragalus anserinus
will be as accurate as possible. Therefore, we will continue to accept
additional information and comments from all concerned governmental
agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested
party concerning this finding.

References Cited

A complete list of all references cited is available on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.govand on request from the Idaho
Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES).

Author

The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the
Idaho 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: August 26, 2009
Daniel M. Ashe
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
[FR Doc. E9-21754 Filed 9-9-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-55-S