[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 158 (Thursday, August 16, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46023-46030]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-16145]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on
a Petition To List Astragalus anserinus (Goose Creek milk-vetch) as
Threatened or Endangered
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition finding and initiation of status
review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
90-day finding on a petition to list Astragalus anserinus (Goose Creek
milk-vetch) as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We find that the petition presents
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that
listing A. anserinus may be warranted. Therefore, with the publication
of this notice, we are initiating a status review of the species, and
we will issue a 12-month finding to determine if listing the species is
warranted. To ensure that the status review is comprehensive, we are
soliciting information and data regarding this species.
DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on August 16,
2007. To be considered in the 12-month finding for this petition, data,
information, and comments must be submitted to us by October 15, 2007.
ADDRESSES: The complete supporting file for this finding is available
for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at
the Snake River Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 1387 S. Vinnell Way, Room 368, Boise, ID 83709. Please submit
any new information, materials, comments, or questions concerning this
species or this finding to the above address, or via electronic mail
(e-mail) at [email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Foss, Field Supervisor, Snake
River Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES); by telephone at 208-
378-5243; or by facsimile at 208-378-5262. Persons who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339. Please include
``Astragalus anserinus scientific information'' in the subject line for
faxes and e-mails.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Information Solicited
When we make a finding that substantial information is presented to
indicate that listing a species may be warranted, we are required to
promptly commence a review of the status of the species. To ensure that
the status review is complete and based on the best available
scientific and commercial information, we are soliciting information on
Astragalus anserinus. We request any additional information, comments,
and suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies,
Native American Tribes, the scientific community, industry,
agricultural, or any other interested parties concerning the status of
A. anserinus. We are seeking information regarding the species'
historical and current status and distribution, its biology and
ecology, ongoing conservation measures for the species and its habitat,
and threats to the species and its habitat.
We will base our 12-month finding on a review of the best
scientific and commercial information available, including all
information received during the public comment period. If you wish to
provide comments, you may submit your comments and materials concerning
this finding to the Field Supervisor, Snake River Fish and Wildlife
Office (see ADDRESSES). Please note that comments merely stating
support or opposition to the actions under consideration without
providing supporting information, although noted, will not be
considered in making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act
directs that determinations as to whether any species is a threatened
or endangered species shall be made ``solely on the basis of the best
scientific and commercial data available.'' At the conclusion of the
status review, we will issue the 12-month finding on the petition, as
provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act.
Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or
other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be
aware that your entire comment--including your personal identifying
information--may be made publicly available at any time. While you can
ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be
able to do so.
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that we make a finding
on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted. We are to base this finding on
information provided in the petition, supporting information submitted
with the petition, and information otherwise available in our files at
the time we make the determination. To the maximum extent practicable,
we are to make this finding within 90 days of our receipt of the
petition and publish our notice of the finding promptly in the Federal
Register.
Our standard for ``substantial information'' within the Code of
Federal
[[Page 46024]]
Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90-day petition finding is ``that
amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe
that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted'' (50 CFR
424.14(b)). If we find that substantial information was presented, we
are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the
species.
We base this finding on information provided by the petitioner that
we determined to be reliable after reviewing sources referenced in the
petition and information available in our files at the time of the
petition review. We evaluated that information in accordance with 50
CFR 424.14(b). Our process for making this 90-day finding under section
4(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 50 CFR 424.14(b) of our regulations is
limited to a determination of whether the information in the petition
meets the ``substantial information'' threshold.
On February 3, 2004, we received a petition dated January 30, 2004,
from Red Willow Research, Inc., and 25 other concerned parties
requesting that we emergency list Astragalus anserinus as threatened or
endangered, and designate critical habitat concurrently with the
listing. The other 25 concerned parties include the Prairie Falcon
Audubon Society Chapter Board, Western Watersheds Project, Utah
Environmental Congress, Sawtooth Group of the Sierra Club, and 21
private citizens; hereafter, we refer to them collectively as the
petitioners. The petition clearly identified itself as a petition and
included the requisite identification information as required in 50 CFR
424.14(a). The petition contains information on the natural history of
A. anserinus, its population status, and potential threats to the
species. Potential threats discussed in the petition include
destruction and modification of habitat, disease and predation,
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, and other natural and
manmade factors such as exotic and noxious weed invasions and road
construction and maintenance.
In a February 19, 2004, letter to the petitioners, we responded
that our initial review of the petition for Astragalus anserinus
determined that an emergency listing was not warranted, and that due to
court orders and judicially approved settlement agreements for other
listing actions, we would not be able to further address the petition
to list the species at that time. However, funding has since become
available to address this petition. As such, this finding addresses the
petition.
Species Information
Astragalus anserinus was first collected in 1982 by Duane Atwood
from a location in Box Elder County, Utah. The species was subsequently
described in 1984 by Atwood and Welsh (Baird and Tuhy 1991, p. 1). A.
anserinus is a low-growing, matted, perennial forb 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). The
petitioners state that at least eight other Astragalus species may be
found sympatric (i.e., coincident or in overlapping ranges of
geographic distribution) with A. anserinus, although five of the eight
species are not mat-forming. This species is distinguished from the
three other mat-forming Astragalus species primarily by its smaller
leaflets and flowers, as well as the color and shape of the seed pods.
Flowering typically occurs from late May to early June, and the species
is assumed to be insect-pollinated, but the specific pollinator(s) is
unknown (Baird and Tuhy 1991, p. 3). Mechanisms of seed dispersal are
unknown (Baird and Tuhy 1991, p. 3).
Astragalus anserinus is endemic to the Goose Creek drainage in
Cassia County, Idaho; Elko County, Nevada; and Box Elder County, Utah.
Most sites are in an area encompassing approximately 10 square miles
(mi) (26 square kilometers (km)). An additional disjunct site is known
outside the Goose Creek drainage, approximately 22 mi (35 km) to the
southwest in Nevada (USFWS 2006, p. 1). Rainfall in the Goose Creek
area averages less than 12 inches (30 centimeters) annually. The plant
is generally confined to dry, ashy (sometimes sandy), tuffaceous
(volcanic ash and particulates) soils from the Salt Lake Formation
(Mancuso and Moseley 1991, p. 12). Element Occurrences (EOs) (areas
where a species is, or was, present (NatureServe 2002)) of A. anserinus
have been documented at elevations ranging between 4,900 to 5,480 feet
(1,494 and 1,670 meters) (Mancuso and Moseley 1991, p. 10). A.
anserinus is frequently associated with other species that show a
preference for ashy sites (Baird and Tuhy 1991, pp. 2-3).
Population Status
The petition states that there were 19 known EOs of Astragalus
anserinus as of 2003, including 7 in Idaho, 8 in Utah, and 4 in Nevada.
The petition states that surveys conducted between the species'
discovery in 1982 and 2003 did not document new range extensions, nor
any widely separated EOs or individuals. The petition also states that
the EOs in Idaho experienced a 94.8 percent decline in numbers between
1985 and 2001. This rate of decline was based on survey results from
seven EOs in Idaho that were sporadically monitored between 1985 and
2001 by Mancuso (2001a). The petition extrapolates this rate of decline
across the range of the species to estimate only 542 A. anserinus
individuals remaining as of 2001. Further extrapolation by the
petitioners suggests that there would likely be approximately 28 plants
remaining in 2011, for the 19 EOs identified in the petition.
The petition states that The Nature Conservancy ranked Astragalus
anserinus as a G2 species, indicating it is ``imperiled throughout its
range because of rarity or because of other factors making it
vulnerable to extinction,'' and is considered critically imperiled in
Idaho, Nevada, and Utah (Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR)
1998, p. 32; Nevada Natural Heritage Program (NNHP) 2001, p. 1; Idaho
Conservation Data Center (ID CDC) 2006, p. 2).
Based on information in our files, Astragalus anserinus was known
prior to 2004 from 20 EO records (7 in Idaho, 4 in Nevada, and 9 in
Utah). Most known sites were on Federal land managed by the U.S. Bureau
of Land Management (BLM) (USFWS 2006, Table 1). In 2004 and 2005, we
led a multiagency census and survey effort for A. anserinus in
cooperation with BLM, the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and the State
natural resource agencies of Idaho, Nevada, and Utah. Surveys typically
entailed scouting an area and estimating numbers of individuals. Census
efforts, which involved counting every individual, documented 3
additional A. anserinus sites in Idaho and 1 in Utah, for a total of 20
known EOs and 4 new sites pending confirmation as EOs (USFWS 2006,
Table 1). The census efforts in 2004 and 2005 resulted in detections of
5,052 plants in Idaho, 33,476 plants in Utah, and 4,930 plants in
Nevada, totaling 43,458 plants rangewide. State-specific information on
the population status of A. anserinus is described below.
Idaho
According to the petition, seven Astragalus anserinus EOs were
identified in Idaho in 2003, occurring primarily on BLM lands, with
partial EOs occurring on private land. The petition states that one of
the EOs in Idaho declined between 1985 and 2001, from an estimated
2,635 plants to an estimated 136 plants. The petition
[[Page 46025]]
indicates that some discrepancy exists regarding the actual EO numbers
in Idaho due to the survey techniques that were employed. Estimates
were not obtained by actual counts, but by surveying representative
areas and projecting numbers of plants observed across what appeared to
be potential habitat. As such, the estimates may not be reliable.
Information in our records indicate that, prior to the 2004 and
2005 census efforts, there were seven EOs tracked by the Idaho
Conservation Data Center, and numbers of Astragalus anserinus at most
sites were estimates. The first EO was documented in 1985, but
systematic or comprehensive surveys were not performed in Idaho until
1991 (Mancuso and Moseley 1991, p. iii). In 1991, A. anserinus counts
were estimated at over 914 individuals in Idaho (Mancuso and Moseley
1991, pp. 2, 13-14).
During the 2004 census and survey effort, the seven known Idaho EOs
were revisited, and three new sites were located. In total, 5,052
Astragalus anserinus individual plants were counted during the census
effort, 2,460 of which occurred on the original 7 Idaho EOs (USFWS
2006, Table 1). Census data indicate stable counts at four EOs, an
increase in count numbers at one EO (from 2003 surveys), and an unknown
change at two EOs (complete censuses were not possible at these sites
because part of the EOs are on private land and access is restricted).
Due to different census and survey methodologies between those used
prior to 2004, and those used for the 2004 and 2005 efforts, we are
unable to estimate trends for the species in Idaho (USFWS 2006, Table
1).
Utah
According to the petition, eight Astragalus anserinus EO locations
were identified in Utah prior to 2003. These EOs were located partially
on BLM lands and partially on State or private lands, and most were
estimated to be less than 1 acre (ac) (0.4 hectare (ha)) in size. The
petition provides an estimate of 7,000 plants from a 1990 survey (Baird
and Tuhy 1991), and indicates that a discrepancy exists regarding the
actual numbers of individuals in Utah due to the survey techniques that
were employed. Estimates were not obtained by actual counts, but by
surveying representative areas and projecting numbers of plants
observed across what appeared to be potential habitat. Thus, they may
not be reliable. The petition also states that the 1991 population
counts may have been significantly overestimated because more recent
information has confirmed that A. anserinus is not present in all areas
determined to be potential habitat during the 1991 surveys.
Information in our records indicates that prior to the 2004 and
2005 census and survey efforts, there were nine known Astragalus
anserinus EOs in Utah. Eight of these EOs were documented by the Utah
Natural Heritage Program (UNHP), and the other was documented by the
NNHP database, but was not included in the UNHP database (Mancuso and
Moseley 1991, p. 2). In addition, at least one site that had not been
submitted to the UNHP was known by the staff of BLM's Salt Lake City,
Utah, Field Office. All 9 EOs in Utah were surveyed either in 1990 or
1991, documenting an estimated 7,617 individuals in Utah (Baird and
Tuhy 1991, p. 2; NNHP 2001, p. 1).
During the 2004 and 2005 census efforts, six previously known
Astragalus anserinus EOs (although only partial counts were conducted
at three of the six sites) and one new site were visited. We counted
33,476 individuals at these 7 sites (EOs). Two other EOs, previously
documented in Utah with the greatest numbers of individuals, were not
visited during the 2004 and 2005 census efforts, due to difficulty of
access and time limitations of surveyors (USFWS 2006, Table 1). Census
data indicate higher count numbers of A. anserinus than previous
estimates at five previously known EOs. Due to different census and
survey methodologies used prior to 2004, and in the 2004 and 2005
efforts, we are unable to estimate trends for the species in Utah
(USFWS 2006, Table 1).
Nevada
According to the petition, one area with four loosely connected
Astragalus anserinus EOs had been identified in Nevada by 2003. The
petition states that approximately 800 plants were observed during
surveys conducted in 1993, and that no further surveys were conducted
between 1993 and the time that the petition was submitted in 2004.
Reference information from NNHP (2001, p. 1) includes documentation
of surveys in Nevada in 1991 and 1992, during which 4 EOs were located
and numbers were estimated at 827 individuals. The 2004 and 2005 census
efforts did not locate any new sites in Nevada. There are currently
four EOs in Nevada, documented by the NNHP. During the 2004 and 2005
census efforts, all 4 EOs were visited, and 4,930 Astragalus anserinus
individuals were counted. Although census data indicate increasing
numbers at all EOs in Nevada, different census and survey methodologies
used prior to 2004, and for the 2004 and 2005 efforts, prevent us from
estimating trends for the species in Nevada (USFWS 2006, Table 1).
Threats Analysis
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and implementing regulations
at 50 CFR part 424, set forth procedures for adding species to the
Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A
species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened species due
to one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the
Act: (A) Present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or
predation; (D) inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E)
other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. In
making this finding, we evaluated whether threats to Astragalus
anserinus presented in the petition and other information available in
our files at the time of the petition review reasonably indicate that
listing the species may be warranted. Our evaluation of these threats
is presented below.
A. Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of
the Species' Habitat or Range
The petition states that Astragalus anserinus is endemic to the
Goose Creek watershed in Idaho, Utah, and Nevada, and that based on
survey information available in 2003, the plant occurred at a total of
19 sites in Cassia County, Idaho; Box Elder County, Utah; and Elko
County, Nevada. The petition also states that, based on the decline in
estimated plant numbers at one site in Idaho (a 94.8 percent decrease
between 1985 and 2001), the species was in danger of extinction
throughout its range.
There is little information available regarding the EO size,
viability, or distribution of Astragalus anserinus prior to 1989.
Records prior to 2004 may not accurately reflect the species'
historical distribution because they were limited in scope, although
they were collected in a systematic, comprehensive manner with the goal
of determining species distribution and abundance (Mancuso and Moseley
1991, p. 2).
Our survey records from 2004 and 2005 indicate that Astragalus
anserinus exists in 24 known EOs. Ten of the EOs are in Idaho, nine in
Utah, and five in Nevada (USFWS 2006, Table 1). Most of these sites
occur on BLM lands. The Service, BLM, USFS, Idaho Conservation Data
Center, NNHP, and Utah Conservation Data Center (UCDC)
[[Page 46026]]
conducted survey and census activities for the species in 2004 and
2005, and four new sites were identified (three in Idaho and one in
Utah). Censuses included counts of individual plants, unlike the
previous population surveys cited in the petition. As a result, counts
of individuals at known EOs were higher than previously documented for
one EO in Idaho, five EOs in Utah, and three EOs in Nevada. No counts
of individuals at any known EOs demonstrated a decline, and the number
of EOs has not decreased since 2003. Overall, it appears that the
petitioners' claim of a decline in the number of individuals in Idaho
has not occurred, and population declines have also not occurred at
most of the EOs in Utah or Nevada.
Livestock Grazing and Water Developments
The petition cites ground-disturbing water developments, such as
pipelines and placement of water sources within EOs for the purposes of
livestock management, as threats to Astragalus anserinus. The petition
states that road and water pipeline construction occurred within extant
A. anserinus EOs in Idaho in 2001 and 2002. The petition also states
that additional livestock-related water construction projects were
planned in known EOs in both Utah and Idaho in 2004, and that these
activities would likely result in loss of individual plants, reduction
or loss of seed bank, permanent alteration of habitat, and increased
potential for additional noxious and exotic weed introductions.
The petition does not provide specific information on the effects
of the water pipeline that was constructed in Idaho during 2001 and
2002. A water tank on BLM lands fed by this pipeline is located at
least 3,000 feet (1,000 meters) from Astragalus anserinus EOs and has
been in place for 12 years (USFWS 2005b, p. 3). The pipeline to this
tank (and an opening valve) is located above ground within an A.
anserinus EO. Plans are being made to remove the water pipeline from
the EO and bury it under the existing unimproved road at the site. An
environmental assessment will be completed prior to implementation of
this activity (USFWS 2005b, p.3), to identify and develop appropriate
measures to avoid or minimize adverse effects of this activity,
including potential effects to A. anserinus.
Based on information contained in our files, the first water
pipeline in Goose Creek (Goose Creek Pipeline Number 1) was constructed
in 1987 (Hardy 2005, p. 3), and supplies two water tanks within
Astragalus anserinus habitat in Utah. The 2004 census report indicates
that vegetation was trampled and consumed more heavily closer to the
water tanks, and that areas within approximately 150 feet (50 meters)
of the tanks were completely denuded of vegetation due to livestock
use. The denuded area around one water tank extended for 300 feet (100
meters). Thirteen plants were located at that location, but no data is
available on whether the species was present in the area prior to
construction (USFWS 2006, p. 2). This was a newly discovered A.
anserinus site at an existing EO. We are unable to determine if plant
numbers changed as a result of the water tank installation, because we
do not have pre-construction data. Approximately 450 feet (140 meters)
away from this same tank, another A. anserinus site (within the same
EO) occurs and is occupied by more than 850 plants. This site is
partially protected from livestock use due to its location on a steep
bluff. A second water tank was constructed in 2005 on a large flat
area. Based on limited survey efforts, we estimate the nearest A.
anserinus plants to be approximately 1,600 feet (500 meters) from this
tank (USFWS 2006, p. 3). The pipeline servicing this tank and another
tank impacted the upper portion of this A. anserinus site. Areas
disturbed by construction were seeded with nonnative forage species,
and monitoring to detect the effects from this new water tank and
pipeline is underway. Currently, there are four exclosure cages, and
plant monitoring will occur inside and outside the cages (Hardy 2005,
p. 6; USFWS 2005a, p. 3). In addition, BLM plans to construct a
livestock exclosure around 1 acre (0.4 ha) of occupied habitat at this
site, and undertake a census of A. anserinus within and adjacent to the
exclosure (Hardy 2005, p. 6).
Information in our records indicates that a pipeline was
constructed in Utah through two Astragalus anserinus EOs in 2004. BLM
staff conducted site clearances in 2000, 2002, and in conjunction with
the Service in 2004, prior to pipeline construction. No A. anserinus
plants were found during the initial 2000 survey, but plants were
documented during the 2002 survey. However, no plants were lost during
construction of the pipeline (USFWS 2005a, p. 3).
The petition indicates that livestock cause impacts to Astragalus
anserinus through trampling, increased levels of disturbance, and
consumption of ash soils in attempts to alleviate mineral deficiencies
resulting from their diet of low quality rangeland forage. The petition
cites a report by Mancuso (2001b) on Idaho EOs to support portions of
this claim. The report stated that concerns for A. anserinus are
focused on the sharp decline in the number of plants over the past
decade and possible habitat degradation problems related to recent
wildfires and ongoing livestock use impacts.
One report on Utah and Idaho occurrences of Astragalus anserinus
(Mancuso and Moseley 1991, p. 22) identified indirect impacts from
cattle grazing, such as trampling and trailing (moving cattle to, or
between, allotments repeatedly on the same path), as primary existing
threats to the species. However, neither this report nor the petition
provides specific information on the magnitude or severity of livestock
trampling and disturbance threats in Idaho, Nevada, or Utah.
Multi-agency surveys conducted in 2004 and 2005 failed to detect
any evidence of livestock impacts to Astragalus anserinus due to soil
consumption (USFWS 2006, p. 1). Neither the petition nor the
information available in our files indicate that livestock soil
consumption presents a threat to the species.
Public Land Management
The petition indicates that changes in land management in Cassia
County, Idaho, would pose a threat to Astragalus anserinus EOs in that
county. The petition provides general information about management
proposals submitted to the Idaho Federal Lands Task Force Working Group
(Task Force) by the Twin Falls/Cassia Resource Enhancement Trust
(Enhancement Trust). The Task Force proposed that public lands
management be turned over to State and private groups. The petition
states that the Enhancement Trust proposes significant alteration of
habitat in Cassia County, Idaho, including habitats that currently
support the species. It also states that the Enhancement Trust may
recommend increasing the length of the grazing season on Federal lands,
which would be detrimental to A. anserinus EOs. However, the petition
does not provide a citation or reference material for the Task Force
information.
The alterations in land management identified in the petition have
not occurred to date, and any change of management is speculative at
this point. In addition, prior to occurring, Federal agencies must
follow a specific process to relinquish ownership and management of
public land, including compliance with the National Environmental
Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and other laws. The
[[Page 46027]]
coordination with the Service that would take place during that process
would provide an opportunity for us to recommend conservation measures
for Astragalus anserinus and other species of concern at that time. The
petition does not provide evidence, nor is there any information in our
files, that such a land transfer is imminent, or that the potential
management change may be a significant threat to A. anserinus.
Summary of Factor A
The petition identifies potential factors, including livestock
grazing and water development, and public land management, as threats
to Astragalus anserinus habitat that are causing a decline in estimated
plant numbers. We find that the petition does not present substantial
scientific or commercial information to indicate that livestock
trampling or water development exist at levels that may threaten A.
anserinus, that livestock soil consumption or public land management
revisions may threaten the species, or that population declines exist
in any of the EOs.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
The petition indicates that any collection of Astragalus anserinus
could pose additional and substantial risk to the species due to
estimated low numbers of individuals (542 plants in all 3 States as of
2001). However, no collection efforts were documented, and we are
unaware of any efforts in the planning stages. The petition states that
past attempts to germinate seeds in the lab were not successful, and
that this makes the species additionally vulnerable to any collection
efforts. The petition cites a personal communication from Cheney (2000)
on failed germination attempts, but does not provide a full citation or
supporting information. We are, therefore, unable to determine whether
collection may be a risk factor for A. anserinus, based on information
contained in the petition. Further, we are not aware of any information
indicating that the overutilization of A. anserinus for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes may represent a
significant threat to the species.
Summary of Factor B
The petition identifies collection as a threat to Astragalus
anserinus. However, we find that the petition does not present
substantial scientific or commercial information to indicate that
overutilization (collection) may threaten this species.
C. Disease or Predation
The petition states that disease and herbivory are potential
threats to Astragalus anserinus. Information cited in the petition to
support the claim that disease is a potential threat to the species is
limited to an excerpt from Baird and Tuhy (1991): ``It is possible that
natural predation and disease have greater impacts on A. anserinus than
those caused by livestock.''
The petition provides general information about leguminous plants
and possible herbivory of foliage and seeds, and indicates that natural
herbivory of Astragalus anserinus exists. The petition states that
regional fires have reduced the amount of habitat adjacent to A.
anserinus EOs, increasing the likelihood of herbivory by invertebrates
and wildlife. Herbivory by livestock is discussed as a potential threat
to the species, with the magnitude of threat depending in part on
whether water developments occur within EOs. Water developments are
present within some EOs; however, no information presented in the
petition, or available in our files, documents a relationship to
herbivory by livestock. Livestock exclosure fencing is in place or
planned for installation around A. anserinus occupied habitat in these
EOs, reducing potential livestock impacts.
The petition also states that herbivory by introduced gallinaceous
species (e.g., quail, partridge, and turkey) is a potential threat, and
discusses general distribution and diet information for these species.
However, the petition provides no information on the magnitude or
extent of potential impacts of herbivory on Astralagus anserinus.
Information in our files indicates that fungal infection and insect
or rabbit herbivory occur in some of the known Astragalus anserinus EOs
(Glenne 2006). However, the documented fungus and herbivory conditions
were not prevalent throughout an entire EO, nor throughout the range of
A. anserinus. Accordingly, the magnitude of the threat from these
factors appears to be low. We are not aware of any data indicating
herbivory by livestock or introduced wildlife may be a factor
threatening this species.
Summary of Factor C
The petition identifies disease and herbivory as threats to
Astragalus anserinus. However, we find that the petition does not
present substantial scientific or commercial information to indicate
that either of these factors may threaten this species.
D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
The petition states that State and Federal agencies have failed to
conduct regular monitoring for Astragalus anserinus throughout its
range, and have failed to protect it from numerous direct and indirect
impacts associated with livestock (i.e., water developments, trampling,
and grazing) and invasive, non-native plants (see Factors A and E). The
petition also states that mechanisms to regulate and control these
various activities have failed to prevent harm to A. anserinus habitat.
The petition also asserts that BLM has failed to enforce the Idaho
Standards and Guidelines (State-specific policies under which lands are
to be managed to maintain rangeland health and resources), and that the
Nevada Standards and Guidelines are inadequate for the conservation of
Astragalus anserinus. It further states that BLM in Utah has not
adequately implemented the Utah Standards and Guidelines. The petition
explains that BLM has indicated its intent to approve and construct
water developments in Utah without conducting site-specific clearances,
and refers to a project that would take place in a known occurrence of
A. anserinus. Finally, the petition states that while the petitioners
were under contract to the USFS, none of their recommended management
or conservation actions for this species were ever implemented by the
USFS or the Idaho Conservation Data Center.
Information in our records confirms that regular monitoring of
Astragalus anserinus or its known EOs has not historically been
conducted. The Goose Creek drainage is in a remote area not easily
accessed for monitoring; however, coordinated, multi-agency efforts
were conducted in 2004, 2005, and 2006, and additional surveys and
censuses are planned in the future (USFWS 2005a, pp. 1 and 2; 2005b,
pp. 1 and 2; 2006, pp. 7-9). The petition's assertion that BLM is
likely to approve and construct water developments without conducting
site-specific clearances is not supported by the information in our
files.
Our records indicate that BLM conducted site-specific clearances in
2000 and 2002, prior to constructing the Goose Creek Pipeline number 2
in Utah (Hardy 2005, p. 5; USFWS 2005a, p. 3). Our records also
indicate that, as a result of the clearance procedure and
implementation of recommendations from the Service, there was no loss
of Astragalus anserinus plants (Hardy 2005, p. 5; USFWS 2005a, p. 3).
Finally, our records indicate that coordination among agencies on
future development
[[Page 46028]]
projects, weed control efforts, and other conservation efforts is
underway (USFWS 2005b, p. 3; USFWS 2006, p. 6).
Summary of Factor D
The petition states that State and Federal agencies have failed to
monitor and protect Astragalus anserinus. However, we find that the
petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that a lack of agency monitoring and protection
efforts may threaten the species.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Species' Continued
Existence
The petition presents a number of other factors as having negative
effects on the continued existence of Astragalus anserinus, including
natural soil characteristics, failure of seeds to germinate, loss or
lack of native pollinators, loss of genetic variability, fires and
firefighting tactics, exotic and noxious weeds, road construction and
maintenance, range improvements, off-road vehicle use, mining, and
illegal trash dumping.
Germination Failure and Natural Soil Characteristics
The petition states that an attempt to germinate seeds collected
from Astragalus anserinus was unsuccessful. The petition cites a
personal communication from Cheney (2000) for the information on
germination and translocation of the species, but does not provide us
with a full citation or supporting documentation. It further states
that future seed collection, laboratory germination, and transplanting
individuals back into suitable habitat in the Goose Creek watershed do
not represent a viable option for the species' recovery and
enhancement. Based on the failure to germinate seeds in a laboratory
setting, petitioners conducted soil tests at occupied and potentially
suitable but unoccupied sites. Soil test results indicated that all
occupied sites contained low nutrient levels. The petition states that
poor nutrient levels at occupied sites make it unlikely that A.
anserinus EOs will expand within known habitats, or colonize or
recolonize unoccupied habitat.
The petition does not provide information on the techniques used
during the attempted germination of Astragalus anserinus, and we are
unable to assess whether appropriate dormancy breaking techniques were
employed. Although the petition states that poor nutrient levels at
occupied sites make it unlikely that occurrences of A. anserinus will
expand, we are unaware of any studies relating A. anserinus
colonization potential to soil nutrients. The species may be more
tolerant of low nutrient soils, which could be a factor in its current
distribution. Mancuso and Moseley (1991, p. 12) state that A. anserinus
occurs in very low densities in many locations, and is commonly missing
from similar-looking habitats near sites where it occurs. On balance,
the data do not appear to indicate that low germination success or low
nutrient levels in soils may be threats to this species.
Native Pollinators
The petition states that the potential loss or lack of native plant
pollinators has been noted as a threat to the persistence of Astragalus
anserinus. It indicates that pollinators are adversely impacted by
livestock through habitat degradation, loss of food sources, and
trampling of ground nests, and that A. anserinus reproduction is then
reduced by lack of pollination. Mancuso and Mosely (1991, p. 24) cited
a study by Sugden (1985, p. 309) on the trampling effects of sheep
grazing on a rare milk-vetch in California with a life history similar
to that of A. anserinus. This study was compared to discussion by
Mancuso and Mosely on livestock effects to A. anserinus. However, the
petition does not present documentation of loss or decline of native
pollinators within A. anserinus habitat.
Loss of Genetic Variability
The petition states that loss of genetic variability was likely
occurring because Astragalus anserinus plants are few in number and the
remaining individuals are widely scattered. No supporting data or
information on whether genetic variability of A. anserinus is being
lost is provided in the petition or its supporting materials. In
addition, interagency census efforts conducted in 2004 and 2005
resulted in detections of 43,458 A. anserinus plants rangewide (USFWS
2006, Table 1).
Fires and Firefighting
The petition cites Mancuso (2001b) as stating that fires have had
an apparent impact on Idaho EOs of Astragalus anserinus. It states that
fires can result in additional herbivory of native plants and
accelerated weed invasions, and that wildfires in 2000 resulted in
blading of fire lines and roads (for firefighting) through occupied A.
anserinus habitat (Petition, p. 56). The petitioners also provide one
example of blading at a potential A. anserinus site (Petition, p. 21).
However, interagency surveys conducted in 2004 and 2005 did not
document the blading of fire lines or roads through A. anserinus EOs
(USFWS 2006, pp. 4-5 and Table 1). The petition does not provide
information regarding the threat posed by fires and firefighting
tactics to A. anserinus EOs in Utah and Nevada, and our files indicate
that surveyors were unable to demonstrate a link between fires and
increased herbivory in 2004 and 2005 (USFWS 2006, pp. 4-5, and Table
1).
Nonnative and Noxious Plants
The petition states that nonnative and noxious plants are currently
impacting or threatening Astragalus anserinus EOs. It cites Mancuso and
Moseley (1991) as having observed Euphorbia esula (leafy spurge) in the
region in 1991, but not in any A. anserinus EOs, and that E. esula was
documented in four EOs and near two EOs in 2001 (Mancuso 2001a).
Information in our files corroborates the petition's claim that
nonnative and noxious plants may be impacting Astragalus anserinus EOs.
Our records indicate that during the 2004 and 2005 surveys and census
efforts, Euphorbia esula was detected at or near 7 of the 10 sites in
Idaho and 2 of the 10 sites in Utah (USFWS 2006, p. 4), in spite of the
fact that efforts to control E. esula within the Goose Creek drainage
have been underway for several years. Control efforts for E. esula are
increasing, but past efforts to control this species in the Goose Creek
drainage have not halted its spread, and it has been found directly
competing with Astragalus anserinus at three sites (USFWS 2006, p. 4).
Based on the information provided in the petition and other information
available in our files, we have determined that Euphorbia esula
competition may present a threat to A. anserinus, because it often
creates monocultures where little or no other native vegetation
persists. Euphorbia esula displaces other vegetation by shading,
reducing water and nutrients available to other plants, and produceing
plant toxins that prevent the growth of other plants beneath it. In
addition, because of its persistent nature and ability to regenerate
from small pieces of root, E. esula is extremely difficult to
eradicate.
The petition also states that Halogeton glomeratus (halogeton) was
present within one EO, and Bromus tectorum (cheatgrass) was present in
four Idaho EOs in 2001, although these species were not documented at
these locations in 2000. Information from our 2004 and 2005 surveys
confirmed H. glomeratus near one Astragalus anserinus EO
[[Page 46029]]
(USFWS 2006, p. 4). It is presently undetermined whether the presence
of B. tectorum or H. glomeratus may present a threat to A. anserinus.
Road Construction and Maintenance
The petition identifies loss of habitat and loss of individual
Astragalus anserinus plants resulting from road construction and
maintenance as a concern, and cites the widening of the Coal Banks road
through an extant Idaho occurrence in 2001 as an example. However, it
does not provide specific information on the threat of road
construction and maintenance in other portions of A. anserinus's range.
Information from our files, specifically Mancuso and Moseley (1991,
p. 22), indicates that some habitat was likely destroyed during
construction of a network of secondary roads that cross much of the
Goose Creek Basin. During the 2004 and 2005 surveys, Astragalus
anserinus was observed as generally occurring in loose soils, although
a few plants were found in areas with compacted soils (USFWS 2006, p.
1). However, field observations suggest that A. anserinus is capable of
withstanding, and is possibly adapted to, some level of natural
disturbance, because plants were found in washes and on steep slopes
where downward soil movement occurs (USFWS 2006, p. 1). Astragalus
anserinus was found on unimproved roads and livestock trail margins,
but not in tire tracks or livestock trails, presumably because
compaction is too great (USFWS 2006, p. 1). Roads were observed in
three A. anserinus EOs in Idaho, two EOs in Nevada, and one EO in Utah
(USFWS 2006, Table 1). It is likely that road construction and
maintenance have an adverse effect on A. anserinus through temporary
loss of habitat or individuals, and that some habitat is lost through
road development; however it is unclear whether such adverse effects
may threaten the species.
Range Management
The petition identifies habitat loss from range management as a
negative impact to Astragalus anserinus. Petitioners state that
Agropyron cristatum (crested wheatgrass), which is seeded to establish
forage for livestock and for erosion control, was growing within
occupied A. anserinus habitat, resulting in habitat modifications that
may preclude A. anserinus's occupation. The petition also indicates
that fencing and vegetation treatments, such as chaining or controlled
burns, may contribute to adverse habitat modification. The petition
does not provide specific information on the magnitude, extent, or
severity of these threats.
Our records indicate that range management in the Goose Creek area
consists primarily of water development projects (see Pipeline and
Water Development and Livestock under Factor A above) and Agropyron
cristatum seedings. A. cristatum was documented at two Astragalus
anserinus EOs in Idaho, one EO in Nevada, and three EOs and a new site
in Utah, during the 2004 and 2005 census efforts (USFWS 2006, p. 5). A.
cristatum seedings are extensive within A. anserinus habitat,
especially in Utah. The two species are typically spatially separated,
with A. cristatum growing on flatter areas and A. anserinus occurring
on sloping areas (USFWS 2006, p. 5). Maps obtained from BLM's Salt Lake
City Office indicate that A. cristatum was seeded directly on top of
numerous A. anserinus EOs; however, this could not be confirmed during
field observations. Since A. cristatum was seldom observed on steeper
slopes where A. anserinus is established, the steep slopes may have
been too difficult to plant and were avoided for this reason (USFWS
2006, p. 5).
Off-road Vehicle (ORV) Use, Mining, and Illegal Trash Dumping
The petition discusses ORV use as a potential threat to Astragalus
anserinus, and cites DeBolt (1989) and Mancuso (2001b) as first
describing ORV use as a threat to the species, because of rapidly
increasing ORV use in Idaho, Nevada, and Utah. Neither a complete
citation for the DeBolt reference nor supporting documentation is
provided in the petition. The petition refers to illegal trash dumping
as a potential threat to A. anserinus, and states that although dumping
is limited in scope, the potential impact is important to consider. It
also discusses mining that historically occurred in and near occupied
habitat, and states that if mining efforts were to increase, they could
present substantial threats to the species. The petition does not
provide information on the number of A. anserinus occurrences impacted
or the magnitude, extent, or severity of impacts from ORV use, trash
dumping, or mining.
Our records indicate that one ORV track was observed in the 2004
surveys near an Astragalus anserinus EO, but not within the EO itself
(USFWS 2006, Table 1). One trash dump was observed on private land near
an A. anserinus EO in Utah during the 2004 surveys (USFWS 2006, p. 5).
While ORV use and illegal trash dumping occur in the range of the
species and may impact some individuals, the magnitude and extent of
these threats appear to be low at this time. We lack information on
potential or actual threats that mining activities may present to A.
anserinus.
Summary of Factor E
The petition identifies numerous potential factors, including seed
germination failure and native soil characteristics, loss of native
pollinators, loss of genetic variability, fires and firefighting
tactics, nonnative and noxious plants, road construction and
maintenance, range management, ORV use, mining, and illegal trash
dumping, as threats to Astragalus anserinus. We find that the petition
along with information available in our files presents substantial
scientific or commercial information indicating that competition with
Euphorbia esula may present a threat to A. anserinus from shading,
reducing available water and nutrients, and producing plant toxins that
prevent the growth of other plants beneath it. Because of its
persistent nature and ability to regenerate from small pieces of root,
E. esula is extremely difficult to eradicate. However, based on the
available information, it is unclear whether the potential factors of
seed germination failure and native soil characteristics, loss of
native pollinators, loss of genetic variability, fires and firefighting
tactics, road construction and maintenance, range management, ORV use,
mining, and illegal trash dumping identified by the petition may
threaten this species. We will consider information related to these
factors during the status review.
Finding
We have reviewed the petition and literature cited in the petition,
and evaluated the information determined to be reliable to make this
finding. We also reviewed reliable information that was readily
available in our files to evaluate the reliability of information in
the petition. The petition presents information that degradation of
habitat from invasive exotic species and noxious plant species may have
contributed to habitat loss and population declines. The information in
our files supports the petition's statements regarding this threat to
Astragalus anserinus. Survey information available in our files
corroborates that Euphorbia esula has been documented at several EOs,
and may represent a threat to A. anserinus, based on A. anserinus'
difficulty in competing with this nonnative, invasive species (USFWS
2006 p. 4). Therefore, based on our review, we find that the petition
presents substantial
[[Page 46030]]
information indicating that listing A. anserinus may be warranted. As
such, we are initiating a status review to determine whether listing A.
anserinus under the Act is warranted.
We have also reviewed the available information to determine if the
existing and foreseeable threats pose an emergency to Astragalus
anserinus. We have determined that an emergency listing is not
warranted at this time, based on the information provided in the
petition and otherwise available in our files. This determination is
based on the fact that none of the threats, aside from a catastrophic
fire, are capable of eliminating a substantial portion of the species
over the course of the next 2 or 3 years. Catastrophic and other
natural wildfires are normally beyond management control and difficult
to predict, but the open ash, sparsely vegetated habitat sites where A.
anserinus occurs rarely burn. All known sites of the population are
assumed extant, and a paucity of information makes it difficult to
establish population trends. Based on the information contained in the
petition and information provided through discussions with
knowledgeable individuals, we do not believe that an emergency listing
of this species is warranted because while the plant's current status
range-wide is unclear or unknown, there are no known range-wide
imminent threat(s). However, if at any time we determine that emergency
listing of this species is warranted, we will seek to initiate an
emergency listing.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited is available, upon request,
from the Snake River Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES).
Author
The primary authors of this notice are staff members of the Snake
River Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES).
Authority
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: August 9, 2007.
H. Dale Hall,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. E7-16145 Filed 8-15-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P