Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 174 / Thursday, September 10, 2009 / Proposed Rules 46521 

the magnitude of risks in a project, and 

to help the project sponsor predict and 

establish a project budget and schedule. 

The most important objective of risk 

assessment and management protocols 

is to help the project sponsor predict the 

budget and schedule and to ensure that 

the sponsor can complete the project 

within the budget and schedule 

identified in the FTA grant award. 

Project risks track the project 

development process. In general terms, 

they can be described as follows: 

• Requirements Risk. The first step in 

project development is to identify the 

requirements—risks associated with 

definition of basic project needs and 

transit system requirements to meet 

those needs; 

• Design Risk. The second step is 

project design—risks involving the 

adequacy of the information available at 

each stage of design and engineering, 

geotechnical conditions in particular, 

and the impact of redesign; 

• Market Risks. The third step is to 

identify market risks—risks associated 

with both the procurement approach 

and the market conditions that can 

affect the cost of materials and the 

availability of bidders for construction 

services, materials, real estate, and 

manufactured products like vehicles; 

and 

• Construction Risks. The final step is 

to identify construction risks—those 

risks associated with the actual 

construction and start-up of the system. 

Once risks are identified, FTA and 

project sponsors must determine the 

best method for managing those risks. 

The preferred methods for managing 

risk are avoidance, reduction, and 

mitigation. Because they are really only 

ways of providing more up-front 

funding or reducing overall costs but do 

not reduce risk, less preferred risk 

management techniques include 

increasing contingency, reducing project 

scope, or reducing the level of service. 

FTA works with each project sponsor to 

determine the most feasible strategy for 

each project. 

Project sponsors document this riskinformed management process in the 

project management plan. Including 

these strategies can help ensure that the 

project sponsor has the requisite 

technical capacity and capability to 

deliver the project on time and within 

budget by ensuring that the project 

sponsor understands methods for 

addressing risks and that it implements 

strategies to avoid future delays. 

FTA can tailor these risk assessment 

and management tools to take into 

account the unique circumstances of a 

project, such as sponsor organization 

and technical capacity and capability, 

and the project complexity or status. 

C. Questions 

1. Should FTA assign PMOCs to 

oversee projects other than Major 

Capital Projects? Please provide the 

rationale for your recommendations 

including how oversight of these 

projects should alternatively be 

provided if PMOCs are not utilized. 

2. At what stage in the development 

process should FTA assign PMOCs to 

New Starts projects? Explain the basis 

for your recommendation. 

3. Other than a detailed review of a 

grantee’s financial plan, what other 

methods might FTA utilize to ensure a 

grantee has the financial capacity to 

construct and operate a major capital 

project? 

4. Please comment on FTA’s Risk 

Management approach. If you do not 

agree with FTA’s approach, please 

recommend an alternative and provide 

a basis for your recommendation. 

Following the close of the comment 

period on this ANRPM, FTA will 

summarize and respond to the 

comments and issue a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking that posits 

explicit text for a rewrite of the 

regulation at 49 CFR Part 633. We 

expect to publish such a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking in 2009. 

Issued this 4th day of September, 2009. 

Peter M. Rogoff, 

Administrator, Federal Transit 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–21849 Filed 9–9–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2009–0006] 

[MO 922105 0082–B2] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a 

Petition to List Astragalus anserinus 

(Goose Creek milkvetch) as 

Threatened or Endangered 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of a 12–month petition 

finding. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce our 

12–month finding on a petition to list 

Astragalus anserinus (Goose Creek 

milkvetch) as a threatened or 

endangered species under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). After a thorough review 

of all available scientific and 

commercial information, we find that 

listing A. anserinus under the Act is 

warranted. However, listing is currently 

precluded by higher priority actions to 

amend the Lists of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and Plants. We 

have assigned a listing priority number 

(LPN) of 5 to this species, because the 

threats affecting it have a high 

magnitude, but are non-imminent. Upon 

publication of this 12–month petition 

finding, A. anserinus will be added to 

our candidate species list. We will 

develop a proposed rule to list A. 

anserinus as our priorities allow. Any 

determinations on critical habitat will 

be made during development of the 

proposed rule. 

DATES: The finding announced in this 

document was made on September 10, 

2009. 

ADDRESSES: This finding is available on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov at Docket Number 

FWS–R1–ES–2009–0006. Supporting 

documentation we used to prepare this 

finding is available for public 

inspection, by appointment during 

normal business hours at the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Utah Field Office, 

2369 West Orton Circle Suite 50, West 

Valley City, Utah 84119. Please submit 

any new information, materials, 

comments, or questions concerning this 

finding to the above address or via 

electronic mail (e-mail) at http:// 

www.fw1srbocomments@fws.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Larry Crist, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Utah Field Office 

(see ADDRESSES)); by telephone at 801– 

975–3330; or by facsimile at 801–975– 

3331. If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD), call the 

Federal Information Relay Service 

(FIRS) at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that, for 

any petition containing substantial 

scientific and commercial information 

that listing may be warranted, we make 

a finding within 12 months of the date 

of receipt of the petition on whether the 

petitioned action is: (a) Not warranted, 

(b) warranted, or (c) warranted, but 

immediate proposal of a regulation 

implementing the petitioned action is 

precluded by other pending proposals to 

determine whether species are 

threatened or endangered, and 

expeditious progress is being made to 

add or remove qualified species from 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
46522 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 174 / Thursday, September 10, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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-togovernment 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’’ (unhyphenated) 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 (BLMIdaho), 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. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 174 / Thursday, September 10, 2009 / Proposed Rules 46523 

TABLE 1. SHORT-TERM TRACKING OF Astragalus anserinus INDIVIDUALS (2004–2006) (A. FELDHAUSEN, IN LITT. 2007A, 

PP. 8–9). 

Year 

Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 

Seedlings Seedlings Adults Seedlings Adults 

2004 10 seedlings 8 seedlings 7 adults 12 seedlings 10 adults 

2005 4 dead, 2 small 

seedlings (15 

leaves each), 4 

small adult plants 

with pods 

6 dead, 1 small 

seedling (12 

leaves), 1 young 

adult 

1 dead, 6 alive 1 stake missing, 5 

dead, 6 small 

adults (3 with 

pods) 

1 dead, 9 with desiccated leaves and 

numerous pods 

2006 All 6 remaining plants 

swept away by 

water in a wash 

Of the 7 remaining 

adult plants, 2 

dead and 5 alive 

Of the 6 remaining 

stakes: 1 stake 

missing, 4 dead, 1 

adult 

7 dead, 3 stakes 

missing 

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, 73 

seedlings, 

48 adults) 

138 total (42 

seedlings, 

96 adults) 

2005 136 total (8 

dead, 13 

seedlings, 

115 

adults) 

67 total (3 

dead, 6 

seedlings, 

58 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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
46524 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 174 / Thursday, September 10, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 174 / Thursday, September 10, 2009 / Proposed Rules 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 pre2004 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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
46526 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 174 / Thursday, September 10, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 174 / Thursday, September 10, 2009 / Proposed Rules 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 postwildfire 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. 

EO Number and 

Site Number 

Burned or 

Unburned 2004 or 2005 

2004/2005 

Number of 

Individuals 

2008 Number of 

Individuals 

Individuals 

Percent Change 

2004 or 2005 

Percent Area 

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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
46528 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 174 / Thursday, September 10, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 3. CENSUS RESULTS FROM THE 2008 POST-WILDFIRE SURVEYS.—Continued 

EO Number and 

Site Number 

Burned or 

Unburned 2004 or 2005 

2004/2005 

Number of 

Individuals 

2008 Number of 

Individuals 

Individuals 

Percent Change 

2004 or 2005 

Percent Area 

Burned 

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 resprout from the base, or plants can reestablish from seed (Brown and Smith 

2000, p. 33). Field surveys conducted in 

November 2007 (after the 2007 wildfire), 

documented that most of the aboveground 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 resprouted 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. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 174 / Thursday, September 10, 2009 / Proposed Rules 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 PhosCheck 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 (BLMNevada) 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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
46530 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 174 / Thursday, September 10, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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 postwildfire 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 postfire 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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 174 / Thursday, September 10, 2009 / Proposed Rules 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 outcompete 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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
46532 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 174 / Thursday, September 10, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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 pre2008 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 prewildfire 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. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 174 / Thursday, September 10, 2009 / Proposed Rules 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 preconstruction 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. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
46534 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 174 / Thursday, September 10, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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 livestockrelated 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 sagebrushsteppe 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 nonimminent 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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 174 / Thursday, September 10, 2009 / Proposed Rules 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 nonimminent. 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 lateseral 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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
46536 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 174 / Thursday, September 10, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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 sagebrushsteppe 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 populationlevel 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. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 174 / Thursday, September 10, 2009 / Proposed Rules 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 postwildfire 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, peerreviewed 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 higherpriority 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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
46538 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 174 / Thursday, September 10, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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, 105th Congress, 1st

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, 107th Congress, 1st

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 courtmandated 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 courtmandated 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-butprecluded 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 highpriority 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, courtordered, 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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 174 / Thursday, September 10, 2009 / Proposed Rules 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 Petition To List the Least 

Chub 

Notice of 90–day Petition Finding, Substantial 73 FR 61007 61015 

10/21/2008 Listing 48 Species on Kauai as Endangered and 

DesignatingCritical Habitat 

Proposed Listing, Endangered; Proposed 

Critical Habitat 

73 FR 62591 62742 

10/24/2008 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Sacramento Valley Tiger Beetle as Endangered Notice of 90–day Petition Finding, Not 

substantial 

73 FR 63421 63424 

10/28/2008 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Dusky 

Tree Vole (Arborimus longicaudus silvicola) as 

Threatened or Endangered 

Notice of 90–day Petition Finding, Substantial 73 FR 63919 63926 

11/25/2008 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the Northern Mexican Gartersnake (Thamnophis eques 

megalops) as Threatened or Endangered With 

Critical Habitat; Proposed Rule 

Notice 12 month petition finding, Warranted but precluded 73 FR 71787 71826 

12/02/2008 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Blacktailed Prairie Dog as Threatened or Endangered Notice 90–day Petition Finding, Substantial 73 FR 73211 73219 

12/05/2008 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Sacramento Mountains Checkerspot Butterfly 

(Euphydryas anicia cloudcrofti) as Endangered 

with Critical Habitat 

Notice 90–day Petition Finding, Substantial 73 FR 74123 74129 

12/18/2008 90-Day Finding on a Petition to Change the Listing Status of the Canada Lynx Notice 90–day Petition Finding, Substantial 73 FR 76990 76994 

1/06/2009 Partial 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List 475 

Species in the Southwestern United States as 

Threatened or Endangered With Critical Habitat 

Notice 90–day Petition Finding, Not substantial 74 FR 419 427 

2/05/2009 Partial 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List 206 

Species in the in the Midwest and Western 

United States as Threatened or Endangered 

With Critical Habitat 

Notice 90–day Petition Finding, Not substantial 74 FR 6122 6128 

2/10/2009 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Wyoming 

Pocket Gopher as Threatened or Endangered 

With Critical Habitat 

Notice 90–day Petition Finding, Substantial 74 FR 6558 6563 

3/17/2009 Listing Phyllostegia hispida (No Common Name) 

as Endangered Throughout Its Range 

Final Listing Endangered 74 FR 11319 11327 

3/25/2009 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the YellowBilled Loon as Threatened or Endangered Notice 12 month petition finding, Warranted but precluded 74 FR 12931 12968 

4/09/2009 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the San 

Francisco Bay-Delta Population of the Longfin 

Smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys) as Endangered 

Notice 12 month petition finding, Not warranted 74 FR 16169 16175 

4/22/2009 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the 

Tehachapi Slender Salamander (Batrachoseps 

stebbinsi) as Threatened or Endangered 

Notice 90–day Petition Finding, Substantial 74 FR 18336 18341 

5/07/2009 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the American 

Pika as Threatened or Endangered with Critical 

Habitat 

Notice 90–day Petition Finding, Substantial 74 FR 21301 21310 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
46540 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 174 / Thursday, September 10, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

FY 2009 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS—Continued 

Publication Date Title Actions FR Pages 

5/19/2009 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Coaster 

Brook Trout as Endangered 

Notice 12–month petition finding, Not warranted 74 FR 23376 23388 

6/09/2009 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List Oenothera 

acutissima (Narrowleaf Evening-primrose) as 

Threatened or Endangered 

Notice 90–day Petition Finding, Not substantial 74 FR 27266 27271 

6/29 /2009 Proposed Endangered Status for the Georgia 

Pigtoe Mussel, Interrupted Rocksnail, and 

Rough Hornsnail with Critical Habitat 

Proposed Listing, Endangered; Proposed 

Critical Habitat 

74 FR 31113 31151 

7/01/2009 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Northern 

Leopard Frog (Lithobates [=Rana] pipiens) in 

the Western United States as Threatened 

Notice 90–day Petition Finding, Substantial 74 FR 31389 31401 

7/07/2009 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List a Distinct 

Population Segment of the Roundtail Chub (Gila 

robusta) in the Lower Colorado River Basin 

Notice 12–month petition finding, Warranted but precluded 74 FR 32351 32387 

7/08/2009 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Coqui 

Llanero (Eleutherodactylus juanariveroi) as Endangered 

Notice 90–day Petition Finding, Substantial 74 FR 32510 32513 

7/08/2009 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Susan’s 

purse-making caddisfly (Ochrotrichia susanae) 

as Threatened or Endangered 

Notice 90–day Petition Finding, Substantial 74 FR 32514 32521 

7/08/2009 Proposed Endangered Status for Flying Earwig 

Hawaiian Damselfly (Megalagrion nesiotes) and 

Pacific Hawaiian Damselfly (M. pacificum) 

Throughout Their Ranges 

Proposed Listing, Endangered 74 FR 32490 32510 

7/09/2009 Listing Casey’s June Beetle (Dinacoma caseyi) as 

Endangered and Designation of Critical Habitat 

Proposed Listing, Endangered; Proposed 

Critical Habitat 

74 FR 32857 32875 

7/22/2009 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the WhiteSided Jackrabbit (Lepus callotis) as Threatened 

or Endangered 

Notice 90–day Petition Finding, Substantial 74 FR 36152 36158 

8/06/2009 Initiation of Status Review for Mountain Whitefish 

(Prosopium williamsoni) in the Big Lost River, 

Idaho 

Notice of Status Review 74 FR 39268 39269 

8/11/2009 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Jemez 

Mountains Salamander (Plethodon 

neomexicanus) as Threatened or Endangered 

With Critical Habitat 

Notice 90–day Petition Finding, Substantial 74 FR 40132 40138 

8/19/2009 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the Ashy 

Storm-Petrel as Threatened or Endangered 

Notice 12 month petition finding, Not warranted 74 FR 41832 41860 

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 

ACTIONS FUNDED IN FY 2009 BUT NOT

YET COMPLETED—Continued 

Species Action 

Slickspot 

peppergrass 

Final listing determination 

Coastal cutthroat 

trout 

Final listing determination 

Mono basin sagegrouse 12–month petition 

finding 

Sacramento Mtns. 

checkerspot butterfly 

12–month petition 

finding 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 174 / Thursday, September 10, 2009 / Proposed Rules 46541 

ACTIONS FUNDED IN FY 2009 BUT NOT

YET COMPLETED—Continued 

Species Action 

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 milkvetch 12–month petition 

finding 

Mojave fringe-toed 

lizard1

12–month petition 

finding 

Pygmy rabbit 

(rangewide)1

12–month petition 

finding 

Kokanee – Lake 

Sammamish population1

12–month petition 

finding 

Delta smelt 

(uplisting) 

12–month petition 

finding 

Cactus ferruginous 

pygmy owl1

12–month petition 

finding 

Tucson shovelnosed snake112–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 

ACTIONS FUNDED IN FY 2009 BUT NOT

YET COMPLETED—Continued 

Species Action 

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 pop. of 

piping plover 

90–day petition finding 

Berry Cave salamander190–day petition finding 

Ozark chinquapin1 90–day petition finding 

Smooth-billed ani 90–day petition finding 

Bay Springs salamander190–day petition finding 

Mojave ground 

squirrel1

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 

ACTIONS FUNDED IN FY 2009 BUT NOT

YET COMPLETED—Continued 

Species Action 

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 

completed) 

90–day petition finding 

High Priority Listing Actions3

19 Oahu candidate 

species (16 plants, 

3 damselflies) (15 

with LPN = 2, 3 

with LPN = 3, 1 

with LPN =9) 

Proposed listing 

17 Maui-Nui candidate species (14 

plants, 3 tree 

snails) (12 with 

LPN = 2, 3 with 

LPN = 3, 3 with 

LPN = 8) 

Proposed listing 

Sand dune lizard 

(LPN = 2) 

Proposed listing 

2 Arizona 

springsnails 

(Pyrgulopsis 

bernadina (LPN = 

2), Pyrgulopsis 

trivialis (LPN = 2)) 

Proposed listing 

2 New Mexico 

springsnails 

(Pyrgulopsis 

chupaderae (LPN 

= 2), Pyrgulopsis 

thermalis (LPN = 

11)) 

Proposed listing 

2 mussels (rayed 

bean (LPN = 2), 

snuffbox No LPN) 

Proposed listing 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
46542 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 174 / Thursday, September 10, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

ACTIONS FUNDED IN FY 2009 BUT NOT

YET COMPLETED—Continued 

Species Action 

2 mussels 

(sheepnose (LPN 

= 2), 

spectaclecase 

(LPN = 4),) 

Proposed listing 

Ozark hellbender2

(LPN = 3) 

Proposed listing 

Altamaha 

spinymussel (LPN 

= 2) 

Proposed listing 

5 southeast fish 

(rush darter (LPN 

= 2), chucky 

madtom (LPN = 

2), yellowcheek 

darter (LPN = 2), 

Cumberland darter 

(LPN = 5), laurel 

dace (LPN = 5)) 

Proposed listing 

8 southeast mussels 

(southern 

kidneyshell (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)) 

Proposed listing 

3 Colorado plants 

(Pagosa skyrocket 

(Ipomopsis 

polyantha) (LPN = 

2), Parchute 

beardtongue 

(Penstemon 

debilis) (LPN = 2), 

Debeque phacelia 

(Phacelia 

submutica) (LPN = 

8)) 

Proposed listing 

1Funds for listing actions for these species 

were provided in previous FYs. 2We 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. 3Funds 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 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2009-0060] 

[92210-1111-0000-B2] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a 

Petition to List Cirsium wrightii 

(Wright’s marsh thistle) as Threatened 

or Endangered with Critical Habitat 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of 90–day petition 

finding and initiation of a status review. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 

90–day finding on a petition to list 

Cirsium wrightii (Wright’s marsh thistle) 

as threatened or endangered under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended, and designate critical habitat. 

Following a review of the petition, we 

find the petition provides substantial 

scientific or commercial information 

indicating that listing this species may 

be warranted. Therefore, with the 

publication of this notice, we are 

initiating a status review of the species 

to determine if the petitioned action is 

warranted. To ensure that the status 

review is comprehensive, we request 

scientific and commercial data 

regarding Cirsium wrightii. At the 

conclusion of this review, we will issue 

a 12–month finding to determine if the 

petitioned action is warranted. We will 

make a determination on critical habitat 

if and when we initiate a listing action 

for this species. 

DATES: We made the finding announced 

in this document on September 10, 

2009. To allow us adequate time to 

conduct this review, we request that we 

receive information on or before 

November 9, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit 

information by one of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Search for docket 

FWS-R2-ES-2009-0060 and then follow 

the instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public 

Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R2- 

ES-2009-0060; Division of Policy and 

Directives Management; U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, 

Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203. 

We will post all information received 

on http://www.regulations.gov. This 

generally means that we will post any 

personal information you provide us 

(see the Information Solicited section 

below for more details). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Wally ‘‘J’’ Murphy, Field Supervisor, 

New Mexico Ecological Services Office, 

2105 Osuna NE, Albuquerque, NM 

87113; by telephone (505-346-2525) or 

by facsimile (505-346-2542). Persons 

who use a telecommunications device 

for the deaf (TTD) may call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800- 

877-8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Request for Information 

When we make a finding that a 

petition presents substantial 

information indicating that listing a 

species may be warranted, we are 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1