[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 174 (Thursday, September 10, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46521-46542]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-21754]


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

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://[email protected].

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