Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Proposed Rules 45779 

after the issuance of a notice of 

proposed rulemaking and until 20 days 

before the deadline for reply comments 

set forth in the notice of proposed 

rulemaking, unless otherwise specified 

by the Board in procedural orders 

governing the proceeding. The Board 

may delegate its participation in such ex 

parte communications to Board staff. All 

such ex parte communications must be 

disclosed in accordance with paragraph 

(g)(4) of this section. Any person who 

engages in such ex parte 

communications must comply with any 

schedule and additional instructions 

provided by the Board in the 

proceeding. Communications that do 

not comply with this section or with the 

schedule and instructions established in 

the proceeding are not permitted and 

are subject to the procedures and 

sanctions in paragraphs (e) and (f) of 

this section. 

(2) To schedule ex parte meetings 

permitted under paragraph (g)(1) of this 

section, parties should contact the 

Board’s Office of Public Assistance, 

Governmental Affairs, and Compliance 

or the Board Member office with whom 

the meeting is requested, unless 

otherwise specified by the Board. 

(3) Parties seeking to present 

confidential information during an ex 

parte communication must inform the 

Board of the confidentiality of the 

information at the time of the 

presentation and must comply with the 

disclosure requirements in paragraph 

(g)(4)(iv) of this section. 

(4) The following disclosure 

requirements apply to ex parte 

communications permitted under 

paragraph (g)(1) of this section: 

(i) Any person who engages in ex 

parte communications in an informal 

rulemaking proceeding shall submit to 

the Board Member office or delegated 

Board staff with whom the meeting was 

held a memorandum that states the date 

and location of the communication; lists 

the names and titles of all persons who 

attended (including via phone or video) 

or otherwise participated in the meeting 

during which the ex parte 

communication occurred; and 

summarizes the data and arguments 

presented during the ex parte 

communication. Any written or 

electronic material shown or given to 

Board Members or Board staff during 

the meeting must be attached to the 

memorandum. 

(ii) Memoranda must be sufficiently 

detailed to describe the substance of the 

presentation. Board Members or Board 

staff may ask presenters to resubmit 

memoranda that are not sufficiently 

detailed. 

(iii) If a single meeting includes 

presentations from multiple parties, 

counsel, or persons, a single summary 

may be submitted so long as all 

presenters agree to the form and content 

of the summary. 

(iv) If a memorandum, including any 

attachments, contains information that 

the presenter asserts is confidential, the 

presenter must submit a public version 

and a confidential version of the 

memorandum. If there is no existing 

protective order governing the 

proceeding, the presenter must, at the 

same time the presenter submits its 

public and redacted memoranda, file a 

request with the Board seeking such an 

order pursuant to § 1104.14 of this 

chapter. 

(v) Memoranda must be submitted to 

the Board in the manner prescribed no 

later than two business days after the ex 

parte communication. 

(vi) Ex parte memoranda submitted 

under this section will be posted on the 

Board’s Web site in the docket for the 

informal rulemaking proceeding within 

seven days of submission. If a presenter 

has requested confidential treatment for 

all or part of a memorandum, only the 

public version will appear on the 

Board’s Web site. Persons seeking access 

to the confidential version must do so 

pursuant to the protective order 

governing the proceeding. 

[FR Doc. 2017–21093 Filed 9–29–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4915–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2016–0013: 

FXES11130900000C6–178–FF09E30000] 

RIN 1018–BB41 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Removing Astragalus 

desereticus (Deseret Milkvetch) From 

the Federal List of Endangered and 

Threatened Plants 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule and 12-month 

petition finding; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: The best available scientific 

and commercial data indicate that 

threats to Astragalus desereticus 

(Deseret milkvetch) identified at the 

time of listing in 1999 are not as 

significant as originally anticipated and 

are being adequately managed. 

Therefore, the species no longer meets 

the definition of an endangered or 

threatened species under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). Consequently, we, the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), 

propose to remove (delist) Astragalus 

desereticus from the Federal List of 

Endangered and Threatened Plants 

(List). This determination is based on a 

thorough review of all available 

information, which indicates that this 

species’ population is much greater than 

was known at the time of listing in 1999 

and that threats to this species have 

been sufficiently minimized. This 

document also serves as the 12-month 

finding on a petition to remove this 

species from the List. We are seeking 

information, data, and comments from 

the public on the proposed rule to 

remove the Astragalus desereticus from 

the List. 

DATES: We will accept comments 

received or postmarked on or before 

December 1, 2017. Comments submitted 

electronically using the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES

below), must be received by 11:59 p.m. 

Eastern Time on the closing date. We 

must receive requests for public 

hearings, in writing, at the address 

shown in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section by November 16, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit written 

comments on the proposed rule and the 

draft post-delisting monitoring plan by 

one of the following methods: 

• Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, 

enter Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2016– 

0013, which is the docket number for 

this rulemaking. Then, click on the 

Search button. On the resulting page, in 

the Search panel on the left side of the 

screen, under the Document Type 

heading, click on the Proposed Rules 

link to locate this document. You may 

submit a comment by clicking on the 

blue ‘‘Comment Now!’’ box. If your 

comments will fit in the provided 

comment box, please use this feature of 

http://www.regulations.gov, as it is most 

compatible with our comment review 

procedures. If you attach your 

comments as a separate document, our 

preferred file format is Microsoft Word. 

If you attach multiple comments (such 

as form letters), our preferred formation 

is a spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel. 

• By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail 

or hand-delivery to: Public Comments 

Processing, Attn: FWS–6–ES–2016– 

0013; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 

MS: BPHC; 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls 

Church, VA 22041–3803. 

We request that you submit written 

comments only by the methods 

described above. We will post all 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
45780 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

comments on http://

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see Public 

Comments, below for more details). 

Document availability: This proposed 

rule and supporting documents, 

including a copy of the draft postdelisting monitoring plan referenced 

throughout this document, are available 

on http://www.regulations.gov at Docket 

No. FWS–R6–ES–2016–0013. In 

addition, the supporting file for this 

proposed rule will be available for 

public inspection, by appointment, 

during normal business hours at the 

Utah Ecological Services Field Office; 

2369 Orton Circle, Suite 50; West Valley 

City, Utah 84119, telephone: 801–975– 

3330. Persons who use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD) may call the Federal Relay 

Service at 800–877–8339. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Larry Crist, Field Supervisor, telephone: 

801–975–3330. Direct all questions or 

requests for additional information to: 

DESERET MILKVETCH QUESTIONS, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Utah 

Ecological Services Field Office; 2369 

Orton Circle, Suite 50; West Valley City, 

Utah 84119. Individuals who are 

hearing-impaired or speech-impaired 

may call the Federal Relay Service at 

800–877–8337 for TTY assistance. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

Why we need to publish a rule. Under 

the Act, if a species is determined no 

longer to be threatened or endangered 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range, we are required to promptly 

publish a proposal in the Federal 

Register and make a determination on 

our proposal within 1 year. Removing a 

species from the List can only be 

completed by issuing a rule. 

This document proposes delisting 

Astragalus desereticus. This proposed 

rule assesses the best available 

information regarding status of and 

threats to the species. 

The basis for our action. Under the 

Act, we can determine that a species is 

an endangered or threatened species 

based on any one or more of five factors 

or the cumulative effects thereof: (A) 

The present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range; (B) Overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, 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. We 

have determined that Astragalus 

desereticus no longer meets the 

definition of an endangered or 

threatened species under the Act. 

We will seek peer review. We will seek 

comments from independent specialists 

to ensure that our designation is based 

on scientifically sound data, 

assumptions, and analyses. We will 

invite these peer reviewers to comment 

on our listing proposal. Because we will 

consider all comments and information 

received during the comment period, 

our final determination may differ from 

this proposal. 

Information Requested 

Public Comments 

We want any final rule resulting from 

this proposal to be as accurate as 

possible. Therefore, we invite tribal and 

governmental agencies, the scientific 

community, industry, and other 

interested parties to submit comments 

or recommendations concerning any 

aspect of this proposed rule. Comments 

should be as specific as possible. We 

particularly seek comments concerning: 

(1) Reasons why we should or should 

not remove Astragalus desereticus from 

the List of Endangered and Threatened 

Plants (i.e., ‘‘delist’’ the species) under 

the Act; 

(2) New biological or other relevant 

data concerning any threat (or lack 

thereof) to this species (for example, 

those associated with climate change); 

(3) New information on any efforts by 

the State or other entities to protect or 

otherwise conserve the species; 

(4) New information concerning the 

range, distribution, and population size 

or trends of this species; 

(5) New information on the current or 

planned activities in the habitat or range 

that may adversely affect or benefit the 

species; and 

(6) Information pertaining to the 

requirements for post-delisting 

monitoring of Astragalus desereticus. 

Please include sufficient information 

with your submission (such as scientific 

journal articles or other publications) to 

allow us to verify any scientific or 

commercial information you include. 

Please note that submissions merely 

stating support for or opposition to the 

action under consideration without 

providing supporting information, 

although noted, may not meet the 

standard of information required by 

section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 

1531 et seq.), which directs that 

determinations as to whether any 

species is an endangered or threatened 

species must be made ‘‘solely on the 

basis of the best scientific and 

commercial data available.’’ 

To issue a final rule to implement this 

proposed action, we will take into 

consideration all comments and any 

additional information we receive. Such 

communications may lead to a final rule 

that differs from this proposal. All 

comments, including commenters’ 

names and addresses, if provided to us, 

will become part of the supporting 

record. 

You may submit your comments and 

materials concerning the proposed rule 

by one of the methods listed in 

ADDRESSES. Comments must be 

submitted to http://www.regulations.gov 

before 11:59 p.m. (Eastern Time) on the 

date specified in DATES. We will not 

consider hand-delivered comments that 

we do not receive, or mailed comments 

that are not postmarked, by the date 

specified in DATES. 

We will post your entire comment–– 

including your personal identifying 

information––on http://

www.regulations.gov. If you provide 

personal identifying information in your 

comment, you may request at the top of 

your document that we withhold this 

information from public review. 

However, we cannot guarantee that we 

will be able to do so. 

Comments and materials we receive, 

as well as supporting documentation we 

used in preparing this proposed rule, 

will be available for public inspection 

on http://www.regulations.gov, or by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Utah Ecological Services Field 

Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT). 

Public Hearing 

Section 4(b)(5)(E) of the Act provides 

for one or more public hearings on this 

proposed rule, if requested. We must 

receive requests for public hearings, in 

writing, at the address shown in FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by the 

date shown in DATES. We will schedule 

public hearings on this proposal, if any 

are requested, and places of those 

hearings, as well as how to obtain 

reasonable accommodations, in the 

Federal Register at least 15 days before 

the first hearing. 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our policy, 

‘‘Notice of Interagency Cooperative 

Policy for Peer Review in Endangered 

Species Act Activities,’’ which was 

published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 

34270), we will seek the expert opinion 

of at least three appropriate and 

independent specialists regarding 

scientific data and interpretations 

contained in this proposed rule. We will 

send copies of this proposed rule to the 

peer reviewers immediately following 

publication in the Federal Register. We 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Proposed Rules 45781 

will ensure that the opinions of peer 

reviewers are objective and unbiased by 

following the guidelines set forth in the 

Director’s Memo, which updates and 

clarifies Service policy on peer review 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2016). 

The purpose of such review is to ensure 

that our decisions are based on 

scientifically sound data, assumptions, 

and analysis. Accordingly, our final 

decision may differ from this proposal. 

Previous Federal Actions 

In 1975, the Smithsonian Institution 

prepared a report on plants considered 

to be endangered, threatened, or extinct. 

On July 1, 1975, we published a notice 

in the Federal Register accepting the 

Smithsonian report as a petition to list 

those taxa named, including Astragalus 

desereticus (40 FR 27823). On June 16, 

1976, we published a proposed rule to 

designate approximately 1,700 vascular 

plants, including Astragalus 

desereticus, as endangered pursuant to 

section 4 of the Act (41 FR 24523). On 

December 10, 1979, we published a 

notice of withdrawal for species that 

had not had a final rule published, 

including Astragalus desereticus (44 FR 

70796). On December 15, 1980, we 

published a revised notice of review for 

native plants designating Astragalus 

desereticus as a category 1 candidate 

species (taxa for which we had 

sufficient information to support 

preparation of listing proposals); 

Astragalus desereticus was also 

identified as a species that may have 

recently become extinct (45 FR 82480). 

In 1981, a population of Astragalus 

desereticus was re-discovered. On 

November 28, 1983, we published a 

revised notice of review in which 

Astragalus desereticus was included as 

a category 2 candidate species for which 

additional information on distribution 

and abundance was needed (48 FR 

53640). That designation was 

maintained in two subsequent notices of 

review (50 FR 39526, September 27, 

1985, and 55 FR 6184, February 21, 

1990). Following additional surveys, the 

species was reclassified as a category 1 

candidate on September 30, 1993 (58 FR 

51144). On February 28, 1996, we 

ceased using category designations and 

included Astragalus desereticus as a 

candidate species (61 FR 7596). A final 

rule listing Astragalus desereticus as 

threatened published in the Federal 

Register on October 20, 1999 (64 FR 

56590); the rule was effective November 

19, 1999. The final listing rule included 

a determination that the designation of 

critical habitat for Astragalus 

desereticus was not prudent. 

On July 5, 2005, the Center for Native 

Ecosystems, Forest Guardians, and the 

Utah Native Plant Society filed a 

complaint in the U.S. District Court for 

the District of Columbia challenging our 

October 20, 1999, determination that 

designating critical habitat was not 

prudent due to the lack of benefit to 

Astragalus desereticus (Center for 

Native Ecosystems, Forest Guardians, 

and Utah Native Plant Society v. Gale 

Norton (05–CV–01336–RCL)). In 

response to a stipulated settlement 

agreement, on January 25, 2007, we 

published an advanced notice of 

proposed rulemaking stating that 

designating critical habitat would not be 

beneficial to the species and 

recommending removal of the species 

from the List of Endangered and 

Threatened Plants because threats to the 

species identified in the final listing 

rule were not as significant as earlier 

believed and were managed such that 

the species was not likely to become in 

danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range in the 

foreseeable future (72 FR 3379). 

In 2011, we completed a 5-year 

review of the species to evaluate its 

status and determined that threats to the 

species either were not as significant as 

we had anticipated or had failed to 

develop; consequently, we 

recommended delisting (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2011, entire). On 

October 6, 2015, we received a petition 

(Western Area Power Administration 

2015) to delist the species based on our 

2007 recommendation to remove the 

species from the List of Endangered and 

Threatened Plants and supported by 

additional surveys and by 

recommendations to delist in our 2011 

5-year review for the species (72 FR 

3379, January 25, 2007; U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2011, p. 22). On March 

16, 2016, we published a notice of 

petition findings and initiation of status 

reviews for 29 species, including 

Astragalus desereticus, which found 

that the petition presented substantial 

information indicating that delisting 

may be warranted (81 FR 14058). This 

proposed rule presents our conclusions 

from a status review of the species and 

serves as the 12-month finding on the 

petition to delist the species. 

Species Description and Habitat 

Information 

Astragalus desereticus was first 

collected in 1893, again in 1909, then 

not located again until 1981 (Barneby 

1989, p. 126; Franklin 1990, p. 2). The 

gap in collections may be due to 

confusion regarding initial records, 

which were wrongly attributed to 

Sanpete County, Utah (Franklin 1990, p. 

2). The 1964 description and 

classification of Astragalus desereticus 

by Barneby is the accepted taxonomic 

status (Barneby 1989, p. 126; ITIS 2015). 

Astragalus desereticus is a perennial, 

herbaceous plant in the legume family 

with silvery-gray pubescent leaves that 

are 2–5 inches (in) (4–12 centimeters 

(cm)) long and flower petals that are 

white to pinkish with lilac-colored tips 

(Barneby 1989, p. 126). The flower 

structure indicates an adaptation to 

pollination primarily by large bees, 

likely bumblebees (Bombus spp.), which 

are generalist pollinators (Stone 1992, p. 

4). The species appears to be tolerant of 

drought (Stone 1992, p. 3). A more 

detailed description of the biology and 

life history of Astragalus desereticus can 

be found in our 5-year review of the 

species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2011, pp. 5–7). 

Astragalus desereticus is endemic to 

Utah County in central Utah, with the 

only known population near the town of 

Birdseye (Stone 1992, p. 2). It occurs 

exclusively on sandy-gravelly soils 

weathered from the Moroni geological 

formation, which is limited to an area of 

approximately 100 square miles (mi2) 

(259 square kilometers (km2)) (Franklin 

1990, p. 4; Stone 1992, p. 3). The 

species is known to occur at elevations 

of 5,400–5,700 feet (ft) (1,646–1,737 

meters (m)) (Stone 1992, p. 2; Anderson 

2016, pers. comm.; Fitts 2016, pers. 

comm.). Based upon the species’ narrow 

habitat requirements it has likely always 

been rare, with minimal additional 

potential habitat (Franklin 1990, p. 6; 

Stone 1992, p. 6). 

Astragalus desereticus is typically is 

found on steep south- and west-facing 

slopes with scattered Colorado pinyon 

pine (Pinus edulis) and Utah juniper 

(Juniperus osteosperma) (Franklin 1990, 

p. 2). It also can grow well on westfacing road-cuts where plants are 

typically larger than those found in 

undisturbed habitat (Franklin 1990, p. 

2). The species’ habitat is typically 

sparsely vegetated (SWCA 

Environmental Consultants 2015, p. 7). 

The species is an apparent associate of 

the pinyon-juniper plant community; it 

is not shade-tolerant, but is found in 

open areas between trees where the 

geologic substrate is most likely the 

habitat feature to which these plants 

respond (Goodrich et al. 1999, p. 265). 

Astragalus desereticus is probably a 

relatively new species on the scale of 

geologic time that has always occurred 

in a restricted habitat (a localized 

neoendemic) based on the ability of the 

genus to colonize disturbed or unstable 

habitats in dry climates. This ability has 

likely hastened evolution of the genus 

and given rise to many species of 

Astragalus that are sharply 

differentiated and geographically 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
45782 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

restricted (Stone 1992, p. 6). Astragalus 

desereticus appears to tolerate at least 

some disturbance, such as that caused 

by road maintenance activities (Franklin 

1990, p. 2; Fitts and Fitts 2009, p. 5). 

Species Abundance, Distribution, and 

Trends 

In 1990, surveys for Astragalus 

desereticus estimated fewer than 5,000 

plants in a single population (Franklin 

1990, p. 3). A subsequent visit to the 

same site in 1992 estimated more than 

10,000 plants, indicating that a large 

seed bank likely exists (Stone 1992, p. 

7). Consequently, at the time of listing 

we estimated a total population of 

5,000–10,000 plants (64 FR 56591, 

October 20, 1999). 

A combination of survey and census 

was conducted by the Utah Natural 

Heritage Program in 2008 to visit 

unsurveyed, suitable habitat and to 

provide a total population estimate for 

the species (Fitts 2008, p. 1). The 

surveyors found new plant sites 

(hereafter referred to as a colony) to the 

north and west of the previously known 

population. Due to higher plant 

numbers than expected, only small 

colonies and one large colony were 

censused; plant numbers at the 

remaining large colonies were estimated 

based on a partial census of 20 percent 

of the site. The total population estimate 

was 152,229 plants––including 

seedlings, juveniles, and adults (Fitts 

and Fitts 2009, p. 4). It was also noted 

that the number of plants counted in the 

original area surveyed in 1990 was 

greater in 2008 than numbers counted 

previously (Fitts and Fitts 2009, p. 4). In 

2009, surveys were expanded and the 

updated total population estimate was 

197,277–211,915 juvenile and adult 

plants (Fitts and Fitts 2010, p. 6). More 

plants likely occurred on private land 

with exposed Moroni Formation 

outcrops, but the land owner did not 

give permission to survey (Fitts and 

Fitts 2010, p. 7). These surveys may 

have overestimated the species’ 

population using the partial census 

method due to extrapolation from 

earlier hand-drawn colony boundaries; 

the small number of transects; and the 

inclusion of seedlings, which have a 

high rate of mortality (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2011, p. 10). If only 

adults were counted, the population 

estimate was 86,775–98,818 plants (U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service 2011, p. 10). 

In 2016, surveys were conducted; those 

data are still being analyzed. However, 

we expect to have the 2016 survey 

results included in the final delisting 

determination. 

At the time of listing, we estimated 

the occupied habitat of Astragalus 

desereticus to include approximately 

300 acres (ac) (122 hectares (ha)) in an 

area 1.6 mi (2.6 km) × 0.3 mi (0.5 km) 

(64 FR 56591, October 20, 1999). The 

most recent occupied habitat estimate is 

approximately 345 ac (140 ha) in an area 

2.8 mi (4.5 km) × 0.3 mi (0.5 km) (Fitts 

and Fitts 2010, p. 6; SWCA 

Environmental Consultants 2015, p. 2). 

The species remains known from one 

population (Birdseye) of scattered 

colonies on the Moroni formation soils 

near Birdseye, Utah (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2011, p. 8). 

The limited number of surveys and 

censuses completed for Astragalus 

desereticus, as well as differences in the 

size of area investigated, prevent a 

detailed assessment of population 

trends. However, the available 

information indicates a larger 

population since at least 1990 when the 

first surveys were conducted. 

Land Ownership 

An estimated 230 ac (93 ha) (67 

percent) of the 345 ac (140 ha) of total 

habitat for Astragalus desereticus are in 

the Birdseye Unit of the Northwest 

Manti Wildlife Management Area 

owned by the Utah Division of Wildlife 

Resources (UDWR); the Utah Division of 

Transportation (UDOT) owns 25 ac (10 

ha) (7 percent); and 90 ac (36 ha) (26 

percent) are privately owned (UDWR et 

al. 2006, p. 4). Utah School and 

Institutional Trust Lands 

Administration (SITLA) owns most of 

the mineral rights in the species’ habitat 

(UDWR et al. 2006, p. 7). Surveys in 

1990 and 2016 did not locate the species 

on Federal lands (Franklin 1990, pp. 3– 

4; Anderson 2016, pers. comm.). 

Conservation Efforts 

A recovery plan for Astragalus 

desereticus was not prepared; therefore, 

specific delisting criteria were not 

developed for the species. However, in 

2005, we invited agencies with 

management or ownership authorities 

within the species’ habitat to serve on 

a team to develop an interagency 

conservation agreement for Astragalus 

desereticus intended to facilitate a 

coordinated conservation effort between 

the agencies (UDWR et al. 2006, entire). 

The Conservation Agreement for Deseret 

milkvetch (Astragalus desereticus) 

(Conservation Agreement) was signed 

and approved by UDWR, UDOT, SITLA, 

and the Service in 2006 and will remain 

in effect for 30 years. The Conservation 

Agreement provides guidance to 

stakeholders to address threats and 

establish goals to ensure long-term 

survival of the species (UDWR et al. 

2006, p. 7). Conservation actions 

contained in the Conservation 

Agreement (in italics), efforts to 

accomplish these actions, and their 

current status are described below. 

• Maintain species’ habitat within the 

Wildlife Management Area in its natural 

state, restricting habitat disturbance: 

This action is successful and ongoing. 

UDWR acquired the Birdseye Unit of the 

Northwest Manti Wildlife Management 

Area in 1967; prior to this acquisition, 

livestock grazing occurred for more than 

50 years in the vicinity (UDWR et al. 

2006, p. 6). Since acquisition, livestock 

grazing has been used on a limited basis 

as a management tool by UDWR; 

however, Astragalus desereticus 

occupied habitat is not suitable for 

grazing, and impacts to the species have 

been negligible (UDWR et al. 2006, p. 7). 

This habitat has not been grazed by 

livestock since 2002 (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife 2011, p. 17). Future grazing 

within occupied habitat is unlikely due 

to the steep terrain (Howard 2016, pers. 

comm.). A draft wildlife management 

plan completed by UDWR proposes 

closing some unauthorized unpaved 

roads within the Wildlife Management 

Area, which likely would further benefit 

the species by reducing habitat 

fragmentation (as plants reestablish 

themselves) and reducing future access 

to the population (Howard 2016, pers. 

comm.). We anticipate that the plan will 

be finalized within the next year 

(Howard 2017 pers. comm.). Because 

this plan is currently only in draft, we 

do not rely on it in this proposal to 

delist the species. However, it provides 

an indication of future management 

intentions of UDWR. Removal of juniper 

may occur as a habitat improvement for 

grazing, but not within habitat occupied 

by the species to avoid plant damage 

and mortality associated with this 

surface-disturbing activity (Howard 

2016, pers. comm.). The steep terrain 

associated with Astragalus desereticus 

habitat makes grazing, juniper removal, 

and other land-disturbing activities 

associated with livestock grazing 

unlikely. 

• Retain species’ habitat within the 

Wildlife Management Area under 

management of UDWR: This action is 

successful and ongoing. The UDWR 

continues to manage species’ habitat 

within the Wildlife Management Area in 

its natural state, with minimal 

disturbance, as stipulated in the 

Conservation Agreement (Howard 2016, 

pers. comm.). 

• Evaluate feasibility of acquiring 

conservation easements or fee title 

purchases on small private land parcels 

between U.S. Highway 89 and the 

existing Wildlife Management Area as 

resources and willing sellers become 

available: No easements or property 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Proposed Rules 45783 

have been acquired, and we do not rely 

on this conservation action in our 

proposal to delist the species. However, 

UDWR has a statewide initiative to 

acquire additional lands, so future 

acquisition may be possible (Howard 

2016, pers. comm.). 

• Avoid using herbicides in species’ 

habitat managed by UDOT: This action 

is successful and ongoing. The UDOT 

does not use herbicides in species’ 

habitat within highway rights-of-way, 

and has committed to continuing this 

action as stipulated in the Conservation 

Agreement (Kisen 2016, pers. comm.). 

• Avoid disturbing plants during 

highway maintenance and construction 

carried out by UDOT: This action is 

successful and ongoing. The UDOT has 

not disturbed the species during 

highway maintenance and construction, 

and no highway widening projects are 

anticipated through at least 2040, which 

is as far as their planning extends (Kisen 

2016, pers. comm.). 

• Service will monitor populations on 

an annual basis as needed: This action 

is successful and ongoing. Surveys were 

conducted in May 2016 by Utah Natural 

Heritage Program personnel, and they 

are currently analyzing the data. 

• UDWR and the Service will 

continue discussions on the 

development and review of management 

plans and habitat restoration that may 

affect species’ habitat on the Wildlife 

Management Area: This action is 

successful and ongoing. The Service’s 

Utah Field Office is actively engaged 

with UDWR in the development and 

review of actions that may affect the 

species, and meets periodically to 

implement the protections identified in 

the Conservation Agreement. 

In summary, most of the conservation 

actions described in the Conservation 

Agreement have been successfully 

achieved and are part of an ongoing 

management strategy for conserving 

Astragalus desereticus. Potential threats 

from residential development, livestock 

grazing, and highway maintenance and 

widening are addressed by conservation 

actions on approximately 74 percent of 

all occupied habitat owned and 

managed by either UDWR or UDOT. 

Conservation measures initiated under 

the Conservation Agreement will 

continue through at least 2036. 

As described above, we have new 

information for Astragalus desereticus 

since our listing decision and the 

species’ status has improved. This 

improvement is likely due to expanded 

surveys as well as the amelioration of 

threats and an improved understanding 

of the stressors affecting the species (see 

five-factor discussion in the following 

section). In addition to the conservation 

actions identified in the Conservation 

Agreement, new opportunities for 

conservation of the species may be used 

in the future. For example, a new power 

line proposed near the species’ habitat 

will use the same corridor as an existing 

transmission line (see Factor A). 

Survey results from 2009 (the most 

recent estimate), determined that the 

total population estimate was 197,277– 

211,915 juvenile and adult plants 

occurring on approximately 345 ac (140 

ha) of habitat, which is a significant 

increase compared to estimates of 

5,000–10,000 plants occurring on 

approximately 300 ac (122 ha) at the 

time of listing. We anticipate that the 

2016 survey results will confirm that the 

population remains stable. The majority 

of the species’ occupied habitat (74 

percent) is managed by UDWR and 

UDOT, and we have no information that 

indicates the species faces significant 

threats on private lands. Active 

participation on conservation actions 

specified in the Conservation 

Agreement has fluctuated due to 

funding and staffing since it was 

established in 2006 (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2011, p. 4). However, 

all of the associated conservation 

actions for UDWR and UDOT managed 

habitat have been successfully 

implemented, with the exception of 

acquiring conservation easements. 

Additionally, as described below, 

threats identified at the time of listing 

in 1999 are not as significant as 

originally anticipated (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2011, p. 21). 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Species 

Section 4 of the Act and its 

implementing regulations (50 CFR part 

424) set forth the procedures for listing 

species, reclassifying species, or 

removing species from listed status. 

‘‘Species’’ is defined by the Act as 

including any species or subspecies of 

fish or wildlife or plants, and any 

distinct vertebrate population segment 

of fish or wildlife that interbreeds when 

mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). 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) The present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, 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. We must consider these same 

five factors in delisting a species. For 

species that are already listed as 

endangered or threatened, this analysis 

of threats is an evaluation of both the 

threats currently facing the species and 

the threats that are reasonably likely to 

affect the species in the foreseeable 

future following the removal of the Act’s 

protections. We may delist a species 

according to 50 CFR 424.11(d) if the best 

available scientific and commercial data 

indicate that the species is neither 

endangered nor threatened for the 

following reasons: (1) The species is 

extinct; (2) the species has recovered 

and is no longer endangered or 

threatened; and/or (3) the original 

scientific data used at the time the 

species was classified were in error. 

Astragalus desereticus is currently 

listed as threatened. Section 3(20) of the 

Act defines a ‘‘threatened species’’ as 

‘‘any species which is likely to become 

an endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range’’ (16 

U.S.C. 1532). We consider ‘‘foreseeable 

future’’ as that period of time within 

which a reliable prediction can be 

reasonably relied upon in making a 

determination about the future 

conservation status of a species, as 

described in the Solicitor’s opinion 

dated January 16, 2009. We consider 20 

years to be a reasonable period of time 

within which reliable predictions can be 

made for the species. This time period 

includes multiple generations of the 

species, coincides with the duration of 

the Conservation Agreement, and falls 

within the planning period used by 

UDOT. We consider 20 years a 

conservative timeframe in view of the 

much longer term protections in place 

for 67 percent of the species’ occupied 

habitat occurring within the UDWR 

Wildlife Management Area. 

A recovered species has had threats 

removed or reduced to the point that it 

no longer meets the Act’s definition of 

threatened or endangered. A species is 

an ‘‘endangered species’’ for purposes of 

the Act if it is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range and is a ‘‘threatened species’’ 

if it is likely to become endangered 

within the foreseeable future throughout 

all or a significant portion of its range. 

For the purposes of this analysis, we 

will evaluate whether or not the 

currently listed species, Astragalus 

desereticus, should continue to be listed 

as a threatened species, based on the 

best scientific and commercial 

information available. 

In considering what factors might 

constitute threats, we must look beyond 

the exposure of the species to a 

particular factor to evaluate whether the 

species may respond to the factor in a 

way that causes actual impacts to the 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
45784 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

species. If there is exposure to a factor 

and the species responds negatively, the 

factor may be a threat, and during the 

five-factor threats analysis, we attempt 

to determine how significant a threat it 

is. The threat is significant if it drives 

or contributes to the risk of extinction 

of the species such that the species 

warrants listing as endangered or 

threatened as those terms are defined by 

the Act. However, the identification of 

factors that could affect a species 

negatively may not be sufficient to 

justify a finding that the species 

warrants listing. The information must 

include evidence sufficient to suggest 

that the potential threat is likely to 

materialize and that it has the capacity 

(sufficient magnitude and extent) to 

affect the species’ status such that it 

meets the definition of endangered or 

threatened under the Act. This 

determination does not necessarily 

require empirical proof of a threat. The 

combination of exposure and some 

corroborating evidence of how the 

species is likely impacted could suffice. 

The mere identification of factors that 

could impact a species negatively is not 

sufficient to compel a finding that 

listing is appropriate; we require 

evidence that these factors are operative 

threats that act on the species to the 

point that the species meets the 

definition of an endangered species or 

threatened species under the Act. The 

following analysis examines the five 

factors currently affecting Astragalus 

desereticus, or that are likely to affect it 

within the foreseeable future. 

A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 

Factor A requires the Service to 

consider present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of Astragalus desereticus 

habitat or range. The species is found in 

three different land use zones, as 

categorized by Utah County Land Use 

Ordinance (Jorgensen 2016b, pers. 

comm.; Utah County 2016, Chapter 5). 

Approximately 74.6 percent of the 

species’ habitat occurs in Critical 

Environment Zone 1, which has the 

primary purpose of supporting water 

resources for culinary use, irrigation, 

recreation, natural vegetation, and 

wildlife. Approximately 16.7 percent 

occurs in Residential Agricultural Zone 

5, which has the primary purpose of 

preserving agricultural lands. The 

remaining 8.6 percent occurs in Critical 

Environment Zone 2, which has the 

primary purpose of preserving fragile 

environmental uses (Jorgensen 2016b, 

pers. comm.). These zones do not 

strictly regulate management and land 

use and, therefore, are not discussed 

under Factor D; however, the Ordinance 

prioritizes uses and provides 

management guidance for all lands in 

Utah County, unless specifically 

exempted (Utah County 2016, Chapter 

5). All of the conservation actions in 

place for the species meet the guidelines 

under their respective land use zone, 

and we are not aware of any occupied 

habitat specifically exempted from the 

guidance described for the 

aforementioned land use zones. 

The following potential stressors were 

identified for this species at the time of 

listing: (1) Residential development, (2) 

highway maintenance and widening, 

and (3) livestock grazing and trampling. 

During the current status review we also 

considered: (4) mineral development, 

(5) transmission lines, and (6) climate 

change. Each of these stressors are 

assessed below. 

Residential Development 

In our final rule listing Astragalus 

desereticus, substantial human 

population growth and urban expansion 

were predicted in the Provo, Spanish 

Fork, and Weber River drainages east of 

the Wasatch Mountains. Increased 

residential development was considered 

a threat to the species due to the 

potential for loss of plants and habitat 

that results from construction of roads, 

buildings, and associated infrastructure 

(e.g., utilities) (64 FR 56591, October 20, 

1999). However, counter to the 

predictions of the Quality Growth 

Efficiency Tools Technical Committee 

cited in our final listing rule, residential 

development in these areas has been 

very limited since listing. Despite the 

recent construction of a house and a 

barn adjacent to Astragalus desereticus 

occupied habitat (Fitts 2016, pers. 

comm.), all other nearby development 

that has already occurred or is planned 

for the future is located several miles 

from the species’ habitat as described in 

the following paragraph. 

The nearest community, Birdseye, is 

unincorporated and has not been 

included in recent U.S. Census Bureau 

surveys; therefore, no recent population 

estimates are available. We are aware of 

only three proposed development 

properties in this area. One property has 

potential for 95 lots and is 2.8 mi (4.5 

km) from known occupied habitat. The 

other two developments would be single 

dwelling properties approximately 4 mi 

(6 km) and 5 mi (8 km) from known 

occupied habitat (Larsen 2016, pers. 

comm.; Jorgensen 2016a, pers. comm.). 

These three proposed developments are 

located near Thistle Creek, upstream 

from Astragalus desereticus habitat 

(Jorgensen 2016a, pers. comm.). 

However, the species’ habitat occurs on 

steep upland slopes that are not 

vulnerable to potential impacts from 

changes in downstream flows. 

Residential development at this scale 

and distance from Astragalus 

desereticus population is not likely to 

impact the species or its habitat now or 

within the foreseeable future. 

The majority of Astragalus desereticus 

habitat occurs on steep, rocky, erosive 

slopes that are not favorable for 

development; consequently, we do not 

anticipate any future residential 

development in the species’ occupied 

habitat (Fitts 2016, pers. comm.). 

Additionally, as previously noted, 

approximately 230 ac (93 ha)––67 

percent of total habitat for the species— 

are in a Wildlife Management Area 

owned by the UDWR that is protected 

from residential development as 

described under Factor D. 

We conclude, based on the available 

information, that residential 

development is not a threat to 

Astragalus desereticus currently or 

within the foreseeable future due to: (1) 

The minimal disturbance from 

residential development that has 

occurred on the species’ habitat to date 

and is anticipated to be minimal in the 

future; (2) the steep, rocky, erosive 

nature of the species’ habitat, which 

precludes most development; and (3) 

the amount of habitat (67 percent) that 

is protected from residential 

development. 

Highway Widening and Maintenance 

In our final rule listing Astragalus 

desereticus, potential widening of 

Highway 89 was considered a threat to 

plants growing in the highway right-ofway (64 FR 56592, October 20, 1999). 

Highway widening would result in the 

loss of plants and habitat directly 

adjacent to Highway 89. Regular 

highway maintenance activities include 

herbicide use to control weeds that 

could result in the loss of plants within 

the right-of-way and adjacent habitat. 

Additionally, road improvement 

projects may generate dust that can 

affect nearby plants. However, widening 

of Highway 89 has not occurred and is 

not anticipated by UDOT through at 

least 2040, which is as far as planning 

extends (Kisen 2016, pers. comm.). 

The nearest highway development 

project is a modification of the 

intersection of Highway 89 and 

Highway 6 planned for 2017 (Kisen 

2016, pers. comm.). This project will 

take place approximately 7 mi (11 km) 

north of Birdseye and 4 mi (6 km) north 

of the nearest occurrence of the species. 

Therefore, we do not anticipate any 

direct or indirect impacts to the species. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Proposed Rules 45785 

No other projects are currently planned 

within 20 mi (32 km) of Birdseye (Kisen 

2016, pers. comm.). 

Road maintenance is ongoing; 

however, as committed to in the 

Conservation Agreement, UDOT avoids 

herbicide use and other disturbance in 

the species’ habitat (Lewinsohn 2016, 

pers. comm.; UDWR et al. 2006, p. 9). 

In instances where herbicides must be 

used, UDOT will not apply by aerial 

application within 500 ft (152.5 m) of 

occupied habitat and will maintain a 

100-ft (30-m) buffer for hand application 

of herbicides around individual plants 

(UDWR et al. 2006, p. 9). The species 

appears to tolerate some levels of 

disturbance related to road maintenance 

because it recolonizes areas that have 

been disturbed by tracked vehicles, road 

grading equipment, and road cuts 

(Franklin 1990, p. 2; Fitts and Fitts 

2009, p. 5; SWCA 2015, p. 7). 

In summary, highway widening and 

maintenance can destroy habitat and 

fragment populations, but based upon 

information provided by UDOT, impacts 

from these activities are not projected to 

occur across the range of Astragalus 

desereticus within the foreseeable 

future. We are not aware of planned 

road-widening construction projects in 

or near the species’ habitat, and UDOT 

has committed to avoiding herbicide use 

and other disturbance in occupied 

Astragalus desereticus habitat during 

maintenance activities (Lewinsohn 

2016, pers. comm.; UDWR et al. p. 9). 

Therefore, based on the available 

information, we conclude that highway 

widening and maintenance is not a 

threat to Astragalus desereticus 

currently or within the foreseeable 

future. 

Livestock Grazing and Trampling 

In our final rule listing Astragalus 

desereticus, livestock grazing and 

trampling were considered threats to the 

species because of direct consumption 

of plants, trampling of plants and the 

burrows of ground-dwelling pollinators, 

and soil erosion (64 FR 56591, October 

20, 1999). In contrast to many species of 

Astragalus, this species apparently is 

not toxic to livestock, and is palatable 

and may be consumed (Stone 1992, p. 

6; Tilley et al. 2010, p. 1). 

Prior to UDWR acquiring the 

Northwest Manti Wildlife Management 

Area in 1967, livestock grazing occurred 

for more than 50 years on habitat 

occupied by Astragalus desereticus, and 

may explain why attempts to locate the 

species were unsuccessful for decades 

(UDWR et al. 2006, p. 6). Once UDWR 

acquired the land, they chained 

(removed scrub growth) and seeded 

level land upslope of the species’ 

habitat to improve grazing for wild 

ungulates and livestock; impacts from 

grazing in the form of trails and 

trampling were noted at the southern 

end of Astragalus desereticus habitat 

(Franklin 1990, p. 4, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife 2011, p. 16). However, cattle 

tended to concentrate upslope of the 

species’ habitat in the chained and 

seeded area where forage production 

was higher, and by 1992, there were no 

signs of recent grazing in the species’ 

habitat (Stone 1992, p. 8). The last cattle 

grazing on the Wildlife Management 

Unit occurred in 2002 (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife 2011, p. 17). 

The UDWR does not currently allow 

livestock grazing on the Birdseye Unit of 

the Wildlife Management Area, and 

does not plan for any future grazing 

within the portion of the Wildlife 

Management Area that contains 

Astragalus desereticus habitat (Howard 

2016, pers. comm.). Avoidance of 

livestock grazing in species’ habitat that 

is managed by UDWR is stipulated in 

the Conservation Agreement (UDWR et 

al. 2006, p. 8). Additionally, the species’ 

habitat is not well-suited to grazing due 

to sparse forage and steep slopes. Some 

private lands where the species occurs 

allow livestock grazing; however, when 

last visited, there was no evidence of 

impacts to the species (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife 2011, p. 17). 

In summary, livestock grazing and 

trampling were considered a threat to 

Astragalus desereticus in our final 

listing rule because grazing occurred 

historically over much of the species’ 

habitat and we were concerned about 

trampling and erosion impacts to the 

species from livestock use, especially in 

light of the small population size known 

at the time. However, changes in land 

ownership and management due to 

establishment of the Birdseye Unit of 

the Northwest Manti Wildlife 

Management Area reduced the level of 

livestock use within 67 percent of the 

species habitat managed now by UDWR. 

Permitted cattle grazing on the Wildlife 

Management Area ceased in 2002, and 

UDWR remains committed to avoiding 

impacts within the species’ habitat 

(Howard 2016, pers. comm.). 

Additionally, occupied habitat on both 

private and protected lands is steep and 

rocky, with sparse forage. Consequently, 

minimal grazing impacts have been 

documented. We conclude, based on the 

available information, that livestock 

grazing and trampling are not a threat to 

Astragalus desereticus currently or 

within the foreseeable future. 

Mineral Development 

Impacts from mineral development 

were not considered in the final rule to 

list Astragalus desereticus (64 FR 56590, 

October 20, 1999). At the time the 

Conservation Agreement was signed 

there was no information indicating that 

mineral development was going to occur 

(UDWR et al. 2006, p. 7). SITLA owns 

the mineral rights on most of the land 

occupied by Astragalus desereticus, and 

the agency has not had any inquiries 

regarding mineral development in the 

species’ habitat since the Conservation 

Agreement was signed (UDWR et al. 

2006, p. 7; Wallace 2016, pers. comm.). 

In the Conservation Agreement, which 

will remain in effect through 2036, 

SITLA agreed to alert any energy and 

mineral developers to the presence of 

occupied habitat and recommend 

surface use stipulations that avoid 

disturbance and provide mitigation for 

unavoidable effects to plants or their 

habitat (UDWR et al. 2006, p. 8). 

However, there is a low potential for 

mineral development in the area; 

consequently, no future development is 

anticipated (Wallace 2017, pers. 

comm.). 

In summary, developers have not 

expressed any interest in mineral 

development within the range of 

Astragalus desereticus. Additionally, 

there is a low potential for mineral 

development in the area; consequently, 

no future development is anticipated 

(Wallace 2017, pers. comm.). Therefore, 

based on the available information, we 

conclude that mineral development is 

not a threat to Astragalus desereticus 

currently or within the foreseeable 

future. 

Transmission Lines 

Impacts from transmission lines were 

not considered in the final rule to list 

the species (64 FR 56590, October 20, 

1999). The Mona to Bonanza highvoltage transmission line is an existing 

power line near Astragalus desereticus 

habitat located at the easternmost extent 

of the known range of the species 

(Miller 2016, pers. comm.). A new 

power line proposed in the area is the 

TransWest Express transmission line. 

This proposed transmission line would 

use the same corridor as the existing 

Mona to Bonanza transmission line 

(SWCA Environmental Consultants 

2015, p. 1). TransWest Express 

estimated that approximately 10.9 ac 

(4.4 ha) of potential or occupied habitat 

for the species occurs within 300 ft (91 

m) of proposed transmission structures, 

and approximately 0.25 ac (0.10 ha) 

would be directly disturbed (SWCA 

Environmental Consultants 2015, p. 17). 

This estimate included some habitat 

above 6,000 ft (1,829 m) that was likely 

misidentified as occupied habitat (Fitts 

2016, pers. comm.). Therefore, actual 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
45786 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

disturbance estimates may be slightly 

less than 0.25 ac (0.10 ha). We estimate 

that up to one percent of the species’ 

total population could be impacted if no 

measures to minimize impacts were 

taken (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2016, p. 29). However, minimal impacts 

are expected to result from the 

transmission line installation because 

dust abatement measures would be 

implemented, the proposed route is 

located farther away from Astragalus 

desereticus populations than the 

existing Mona to Bonanza transmission 

line, and existing access roads would be 

used within the species’ habitat (U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service 2016, pp. 25– 

31). Consequently, impacts from the 

proposed TransWest Express 

transmission line are not anticipated to 

result in a population-level effect to the 

species based upon the localized extent 

of impacts and the currently robust 

status of the species (see Species 

Abundance, Distribution, and Trends). 

In addition, the species is able to 

tolerate some levels of disturbance, and 

plants have recolonized disturbed areas 

(Fitts and Fitts 2009, p. 5; Franklin 

1990, p. 2). 

In summary, Astragalus desereticus 

maintains a large, robust population 

next to the existing Mona to Bonanza 

transmission line, and only a very 

minimal amount of habitat (less than 

0.25 ac (0.10 ha)) would be disturbed by 

the proposed future construction of the 

TransWest transmission line. We 

conclude, based on the available 

information, that transmission lines are 

not a threat to Astragalus desereticus 

currently or within the foreseeable 

future. 

Climate Change 

Impacts from climate change were not 

considered in the final rule to list the 

species (64 FR 56590, October 20, 1999). 

Our current analyses under the Act 

include consideration of ongoing and 

projected changes in climate. The terms 

‘‘climate’’ and ‘‘climate change’’ are 

defined by the Intergovernmental Panel 

on Climate Change (IPCC). ‘‘Climate’’ 

refers to the mean and variability of 

different types of weather conditions 

over time, with 30 years being a typical 

period for such measurements, although 

shorter or longer periods also may be 

used (IPCC 2007, p. 78). The term 

‘‘climate change’’ thus refers to a change 

in the mean or variability of one or more 

measures of climate (e.g., temperature or 

precipitation) that persists for an 

extended period, typically decades or 

longer, whether the change is due to 

natural variability, human activity, or 

both (IPCC 2007, p. 78). Various types 

of changes in climate can have direct or 

indirect effects on species. These effects 

may be positive, neutral, or negative and 

they may change over time, depending 

on the species and other relevant 

considerations, such as the effects of 

interactions of climate with other 

variables (e.g., habitat fragmentation) 

(IPCC 2007, pp. 8–14, 18–19). In our 

analyses, we use our expert judgment to 

weigh relevant information, including 

uncertainty, in our consideration of 

various aspects of climate change. 

The current rate of a decade-long 

drought in the southwestern United 

States is one per century (Ault et al. 

2013, p. 7538). This equates to a 50 

percent chance over a 50 year interval. 

Estimates regarding the risk of future 

persistent droughts in the southwestern 

United States over the time period from 

2050 to 2100 increase to 50–90 percent 

over the 50 year interval (Ault et al. 

2013, pp. 7541–7547). In other words, 

the likelihood of future drought in the 

southwestern United States is stable to 

increasing when compared to current 

conditions. Climate models that predict 

future temperatures over three different 

time periods in the 21st century for the 

southwestern United States show the 

greatest warming in summer months 

(3.5–6.5 degrees Fahrenheit (°F)) (1.9– 

3.6 degrees Celsius (°C)), with a 

localized maximum increase in 

temperatures in central Utah (Kunkel et 

al. 2013, p. 72). Nationwide, Utah ranks 

eighth in rate of warming since 1912, 

with a 0.233 °F (0.129 °C) increase per 

decade; and seventh in rate of warming 

since 1970, with a 0.588 °F (0.327 °C) 

increase per decade (Tebaldi et al. 2012, 

pp. 3 and 5). We do not have 

information regarding the increased 

likelihood of drought or temperature 

increases at the more detailed scale of 

the range of Astragalus desereticus––a 

range that encompasses only a portion 

of one county in central Utah. 

Therefore, more site specific predictions 

are not possible. 

The Astragalus genus has the ability 

to colonize disturbed or unstable 

habitats in progressively dry climates 

and thus appears to be adapted to 

drought (Stone 1992, p. 6). Generally 

plant numbers decrease during drought 

years and recover in subsequent seasons 

that are less dry. For example, many 

plants of Astragalus desereticus 

appeared to die-off in response to the 

2012 drought, but have since 

repopulated the area from the seed bank 

(Fitts 2016, pers. comm.). Astragalus 

desereticus and other species in the 

bean family typically have persistent 

seed banks with at least some 

proportion of the seed bank being longlived because the seeds are physically 

dormant for long periods of time (Dodge 

2009, p. 3; Orscheg and Enright 2011, p. 

186; Segura et al. 2014, p. 75). Dormant 

seeds have a seed coat that imposes a 

physical barrier between water and the 

embryo, and this type of dormancy 

provides an ecological advantage by 

staggering germination over a long 

period of time, protecting the embryo 

from microbial attack, and increasing 

the longevity of seeds within the soil 

(Fulbright 1987, p. 40). Species with 

physically dormant seeds typically have 

seeds germinating over many years, 

which increases the probability of the 

species’ persistence in an unpredictable 

environment and has been termed a 

‘‘bet-hedging strategy’’ (Simons 2009, 

pp. 1990–1991; Williams and Elliott 

1960, pp. 740–742). This strategy buffers 

a population against catastrophic losses 

and negative effects from environmental 

variation (Tielbo ̈rger et al. 2014, p. 4). 

Astragalus desereticus can be dormant 

and not detectable for some years, but 

later detected in the same area given 

favorable precipitation conditions (Fitts 

2016, pers. comm.). This pattern 

provides some evidence the species has 

a persistent seed bank and possibly 

other life stages that remain dormant 

during drought conditions. As a result, 

multiple years of surveys may be 

necessary to determine if Astragalus 

desereticus is present within suitable 

habitat. 

Astragalus desereticus appears welladapted to a dry climate and can 

quickly colonize after disturbance. 

Plants growing in high-stress landscapes 

(e.g., poor soils and variable moisture) 

are generally adapted to stress and thus 

may experience lower mortality during 

severe droughts (Gitlin et al. 2006, pp. 

1477 and 1484). Furthermore, plants 

and plant communities of arid and 

semi-arid systems may be less 

vulnerable to the effects of climate 

change if future climate conditions are 

within the historic natural climatic 

variation experienced by the species 

(Tielbo ̈rger et al. 2014, p. 7). The species 

likely has experienced multiple periods 

of prolonged drought conditions in the 

past as documented from reconstructed 

pollen records in sagebrush steppe 

lands (Mensing et al. 2007, pp. 8–10). 

Natural climatic variation in the 

Southwest for the last 500 years 

included periodic major droughts 

(Kunkle et al. 2013, p. 14). Therefore, it 

is likely that the species will be able to 

withstand future periods of prolonged 

drought. 

In summary, climate change is 

affecting and will continue to affect 

temperature and precipitation events. 

We expect that Astragalus desereticus, 

like other narrow endemics, could 

experience future climate changeVerDate Sep<11>2014 16:16 Sep 29, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02OCP1.SGM 02OCP1

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Proposed Rules 45787 

related drought. However, current data 

are not sufficiently reliable at the local 

level to predict the scope of effects of 

future climate change-related drought. 

The information we do have indicates 

the species and the genus are adapted to 

drought and are able to re-colonize 

disturbed areas. Therefore, based upon 

available information, we conclude that 

climate change is not a threat to 

Astragalus desereticus currently or 

within the foreseeable future. 

Summary of Factor A 

The following stressors warranted 

consideration as possible current or 

future threats to Astragalus desereticus 

under Factor A: (1) Residential 

development, (2) highway maintenance 

and widening, (3) livestock grazing and 

trampling, (4) mineral development, (5) 

transmission lines, and (6) climate 

change. However, these stressors either 

have not occurred to the extent 

anticipated at the time of listing, are 

being adequately managed, or the 

species is tolerant of the stressor as 

described below. 

• Minimal disturbance from 

residential development has occurred 

on the species’ habitat to date and is 

anticipated in the future because of the 

steep, rocky, erosive nature of the 

species’ habitat. In addition, 67 percent 

of the species’ habitat is protected from 

residential development due to its 

inclusion in a State wildlife 

management area. 

• No highway widening is anticipated 

by UDOT in occupied habitat, and 

herbicide use and other disturbances are 

avoided in habitat for the species. 

• The steep, rocky nature of the 

species’ habitat and sparse forage 

minimize livestock grazing, and 67 

percent of all habitat is carefully 

managed by UDWR to restrict it from 

grazing. 

• The lack of inquiries and low 

potential regarding mineral 

development indicate that mineral 

development is not a threat. 

• The existing transmission line is 

not a threat to the species, and activity 

associated with the proposed 

transmission line occurring within the 

species’ occupied habitat will be 

confined to existing access roads. 

• The species and its genus are likely 

adapted to drought related to climate 

change. 

• The species appears able to readily 

re-colonize disturbed areas. 

Therefore, based on the available 

information, we do not consider there to 

be any threats now, nor are there likely 

to be any threats in the future, related 

to the present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of habitat 

or range of Astragalus desereticus. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

Factor B requires the Service to 

consider overutilization of Astragalus 

desereticus for commercial, recreational, 

scientific, or educational purposes. 

Overutilization for any purpose was not 

considered a threat in the final rule to 

list the species (64 FR 56593, October 

20, 1999). The only collections of the 

species that we are aware of were for 

scientific purposes. An unknown 

number of seeds were collected in 2007 

and approximately 850 seeds were 

collected from 45 plants in 2008. In 

addition, 1,016 seeds were collected 

from 55 plants in 2009 for germination 

trials and long-term seed storage at Red 

Butte Gardens and Arboretum in Salt 

Lake City, Utah, and the National Center 

for Genetic Resources Preservation in 

Fort Collins, Colorado (Dodge 2009, p. 

4). This amount of collection is 

insignificant given the current 

population estimates for the species, 

and overall it is beneficial because it 

will improve our understanding of 

species propagation and ensure genetic 

preservation. We are not aware of any 

other utilization of the species. 

Therefore, based on the available 

information, we do not consider there to 

be any threats now, nor are there likely 

to be any threats in the future, related 

to overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes of Astragalus desereticus. 

C. Disease or Predation 

Factor C requires the Service to 

consider impacts to Astragalus 

desereticus from disease and predation. 

Disease and predation were not 

considered threats in the final rule to 

list the species (64 FR 56593, October 

20, 1999). We are not aware of any 

issues or potential stressors regarding 

disease or insect predation. As 

described in more detail under Factor A, 

grazing––which could be considered a 

form of predation––is limited in the 

species’ habitat and it does not affect the 

species throughout its range or at a 

population level. Therefore, based on 

the available information, we do not 

consider there to be any threats now, 

nor are there likely to be any threats in 

the future, related to disease or 

predation of Astragalus desereticus. 

D. The Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

Under this factor, we examine 

whether existing regulatory mechanisms 

are inadequate to address the threats to 

Astragalus desereticus discussed under 

other factors. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the 

Act requires the Service to take into 

account ‘‘those efforts, if any, being 

made by any State or foreign nation, or 

any political subdivision of a State or 

foreign nation, to protect such species.’’ 

In relation to Factor D under the Act, we 

interpret this language to require us to 

consider relevant Federal, State, and 

Tribal laws, regulations, and other such 

mechanisms that may minimize any of 

the threats we describe in the threats 

analyses under the other four factors, or 

otherwise enhance conservation of the 

species. We give strongest weight to 

statutes and their implementing 

regulations and to management 

direction that stems from those laws and 

regulations; an example would be State 

governmental actions enforced under a 

State statute or constitution, or Federal 

action under statute. 

For currently listed species that are 

being considered for delisting, we 

consider the adequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms to address 

threats to the species absent the 

protections of the Act. We examine 

whether other regulatory mechanisms 

would remain in place if the species 

were delisted, and the extent to which 

those mechanisms will continue to help 

ensure that future threats will be 

reduced or minimized. 

In our discussion under Factors A, B, 

C, and E, we evaluate the significance of 

threats as mitigated by any conservation 

efforts and existing regulatory 

mechanisms. Where threats exist, we 

analyze the extent to which 

conservation measures and existing 

regulatory mechanisms address the 

specific threats to the species. 

Regulatory mechanisms may reduce or 

eliminate the impacts from one or more 

identified threats. 

As previously discussed, conservation 

measures initiated by UDWR, SITLA, 

and UDOT under the Conservation 

Agreement manage potential threats 

caused by residential development, 

highway maintenance and widening, 

and livestock grazing and trampling, as 

well as the more recently identified 

proposed transmission line. In addition 

to these conservation measures, relevant 

Utah State statutes and UDWR 

administrative rules that will remain in 

effect regardless of the species’ status 

under the Act include: 

1. Title 23––Wildlife Resources Code 

of Utah, Chapter 21––Lands and Waters 

for Wildlife Purposes, Section 5––Stateowned lands authorized for use as 

wildlife management areas, fishing 

waters, and for other recreational 

activities. This statute authorizes the 

creation, operation, maintenance, and 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
45788 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

management of wildlife management 

areas including the Birdseye Unit of the 

Northwest Manti Wildlife Management 

Area. The Birdseye Unit contains 67 

percent of all known habitat occupied 

by Astragalus desereticus. 

Consequently, two-thirds of all known 

habitat is currently managed and will 

continue to be managed as wildlife 

habitat regardless of the species’ status 

under the Act. 

2. UDWR Administrative Rule R657– 

28––Use of Division Lands. This 

administrative rule describes the lawful 

uses and activities on UDWR lands 

including Birdseye Unit of the 

Northwest Manti Wildlife Management 

Area. These uses cannot conflict with 

the intended land use or be detrimental 

to wildlife or wildlife habitat. This 

administrative rule provides further 

support to beneficial management on 

the 67 percent of occupied habitat 

managed by UDWR, regardless of the 

species’ status under the Act. 

We are not aware of any Astragalus 

desereticus occupied habitat on Federal 

lands. We anticipate that the 

conservation measures initiated by 

UDWR, SITLA, and UDOT under the 

Conservation Agreement will continue 

through at least 2036. Consequently, we 

find that conservation measures along 

with existing State regulatory 

mechanisms are adequate to address 

these specific stressors absent 

protections under the Act. 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting Its Continued Existence 

Factor E requires the Service to 

consider any other factors that may be 

affecting Astragalus desereticus. Under 

this factor, we discuss: (1) Rarity, (2) 

stochastic events, and (3) cumulative 

effects. 

Rarity 

In our final rule listing Astragalus 

desereticus, small population size was 

considered a concern for the species 

because of the potential for low levels 

of genetic diversity as compared to other 

more widespread related species (64 FR 

56593, October 20, 1999). A species may 

be considered rare due to: (1) a Limited 

geographic range, (2) occupation of 

specialized habitats, or (3) small 

population numbers (Primack 1998, p. 

176). This species meets each of these 

qualifications. 

Astragalus desereticus is likely a 

localized neoendemic, that is, it is a 

relatively new species on the scale of 

geologic time and likely has always 

been geographically restricted (rare) 

(Stone 1992, p. 6). A species that has 

always been rare, yet continues to 

survive, could be well-equipped to 

continue to exist into the future. Many 

naturally rare species exhibit traits that 

allow them to persist for long periods 

within small geographic areas, despite 

their small population size. 

Consequently, the fact that a species is 

rare does not necessarily indicate that it 

may be endangered or threatened. Rarity 

alone, in the absence of other stressors, 

is not a threat. Despite the species’ 

unique habitat characteristics and 

limited range, its current population 

numbers and preliminary demographic 

analyses show that its known 

population (via information at 

monitored sites) is much larger than in 

1990 when the first surveys were 

conducted and will likely be sustained 

due to the species’ resiliency and the 

absence of significant stressors. 

Additionally, as noted under Factor B, 

seeds have been collected for long-term 

seed storage at Red Butte Gardens and 

Arboretum in Salt Lake City, Utah, and 

the National Center for Genetic 

Resources Preservation in Fort Collins, 

Colorado (Dodge 2009, p. 4). This 

collection provides added security for 

the species. 

Stochastic Events 

In our final rule listing Astragalus 

desereticus, stochastic events–– 

particularly fire, drought, and disease– 

–were considered a threat because of the 

species’ small population size and 

highly restricted range (64 FR 56593, 

October 20, 1999). Because rare species 

may be vulnerable to single event 

occurrences, it is important to have 

information on how likely it is such an 

event may occur and how it may affect 

the species. Demographic stochasticity– 

–random events in survival and 

reproductive success––and genetic 

stochasticity––from inbreeding and 

changes in gene frequency––are not 

significant threats based on limited 

abundance trends and the known 

population size of the species (Stone 

1992, pp. 8–10). The same author noted 

that environmental stochasticity––such 

as fire, drought, and disease––may be a 

threat to the species (Stone 1992, p. 10). 

However, we have since concluded that 

fire is unlikely in the open, sparsely 

wooded habitat that the species favors 

(72 FR 3379, January 25, 2007; U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife 2011, p. 21). As noted in 

the discussion of climate change under 

Factor A, the species appears to be 

drought tolerant, showing an ability to 

rebound following drought and recolonize disturbed areas in 

progressively dry climates. Lastly, as 

noted under Factor C, there is no 

evidence of disease or insect pests. 

Since listing, survey data has shown the 

species’ known range is somewhat 

larger and its population numbers are 

much higher than previously thought, 

which indicates a tolerance to stochastic 

events. These increases are likely due to 

a combination of expanded surveys and 

increases in population. 

Summary of Factor E 

Given the lack of threats within the 

Astragalus desereticus population and 

the robust population size, we conclude 

that rarity and stochastic events are not 

threats now, nor are they likely to be 

threats in the future, to Astragalus 

desereticus. 

Cumulative Effects 

Many of the stressors discussed in 

this analysis could work in concert with 

each other resulting in a cumulative 

adverse effect to Astragalus desereticus, 

e.g., one stressor may make the species 

more vulnerable to other threats. For 

example, stressors discussed under 

Factor A that individually do not rise to 

the level of a threat could together result 

in habitat loss. Similarly, small 

population size in combination with 

stressors discussed under Factor A 

could present a potential concern. 

However, most of the potential stressors 

we identified either have not occurred 

to the extent originally anticipated at 

the time of listing in 1999 or are 

adequately managed as described in this 

proposal to delist the species. 

Furthermore, those stressors that are 

evident, such as drought and rarity, 

appear well-tolerated by the species. In 

addition, we do not anticipate stressors 

to increase on UDWR lands that afford 

protections to the species on 67 percent 

of occupied habitat for the reasons 

discussed in this delisting proposal. 

Furthermore, the increases documented 

in the abundance and distribution of the 

species since it was listed do not 

support a conclusion that cumulative 

effects threaten the species. 

Proposed Determination of Species 

Status 

Introduction 

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), 

and its implementing regulations at 50 

CFR part 424, set forth the procedures 

for determining whether a species is an 

endangered species or threatened 

species and should be included on the 

Federal Lists of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and Plants (listed). 

The Act defines an endangered species 

as any species that is ‘‘in danger of 

extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range’’ and a threatened 

species as any species ‘‘that is likely to 

become endangered throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range within 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Proposed Rules 45789 

the foreseeable future.’’ The phrase 

‘‘significant portion of its range’’ (SPR) 

is not defined by the Act, and, since the 

Service’s policy interpreting the phrase 

was vacated by the court in Center for 

Biological Diversity v. Sally Jewel, No. 

14–cv–02506–RM (D. Ariz. Mar. 29, 

2017), we currently do not have a 

binding interpretation that addresses: 

(1) The outcome of a determination that 

a species is either in danger of 

extinction or likely to become so in the 

foreseeable future throughout a 

significant portion of its range; or (2) 

what qualifies a portion of a range as 

‘‘significant.’’ We have examined the 

plain language of the Act and court 

decisions addressing the Service’s 

application of the SPR phrase in various 

listing decisions, and for purposes of 

this rulemaking we are applying the 

following interpretation for the phrase 

‘‘significant portion of its range’’ and its 

context in determining whether or not a 

species is an endangered species or a 

threatened species. 

Two district court decisions have 

evaluated whether the outcomes of the 

Service’s determinations that a species 

is in danger of extinction or likely to 

become so in the foreseeable future in 

a significant portion of its range were 

reasonable. Defenders of Wildlife v. 

Salazar, 729 F. Supp. 2d 1207 (D. Mont. 

2010) (appeal dismissed as moot 

because of public law vacating the 

listing, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 26769 

(9th Cir. Nov. 7, 2012)); WildEarth 

Guardians v. Salazar, No. 09–00574– 

PHX–FJM, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

105253 (D. Ariz. Sept. 30, 2010). Both 

courts found that once the Service 

determines that a ‘‘species’’—which can 

include a species, subspecies, or DPS 

under ESA Section 3(16)—meets the 

definition of ‘‘endangered species’’ or 

‘‘threatened species,’’ the species must 

be listed in its entirety and the Act’s 

protections applied consistently to all 

members of that species (subject to 

modification of protections through 

special rules under sections 4(d) and 

10(j) of the Act). See Defenders, 729 F. 

Supp. 2d at 1222 (delisting the Northern 

Rocky Mountain DPS of gray wolf 

except in the Wyoming portion of its 

range (74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009) was 

unreasonable because the ESA 

unambiguously prohibits listing or 

protecting part of a DPS); WildEarth 

Guardians, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

105253, at 15–16 (the Service’s finding 

that listing the Gunnison’s prairie dog in 

the ‘‘montane portion’’ of its range was 

warranted (73 FR 6660, February 5, 

2008) was unreasonable because the 

Service ‘‘cannot determine that anything 

other than a species, as defined by the 

ESA, is an endangered or threatened 

species’’). The issue has not been 

addressed by a Federal Court of 

Appeals. 

For the purposes of this rule, we 

interpret the phrase ‘‘significant portion 

of its range’’ (SPR) in the Act’s 

definitions of ‘‘endangered species’’ and 

‘‘threatened species’’ to provide an 

independent basis for listing a species 

in its entirety; thus there are two 

situations (or factual bases) under which 

a species would qualify for listing: A 

species may be in danger of extinction 

or likely to become so in the foreseeable 

future throughout all of its range; or a 

species may be in danger of extinction 

or likely to become so throughout a 

significant portion of its range. If a 

species is in danger of extinction 

throughout an SPR, it, the species, is an 

‘‘endangered species.’’ The same 

analysis applies to ‘‘threatened species.’’ 

Therefore, the consequence of finding 

that a species is in danger of extinction 

or likely to become so throughout a 

significant portion of its range is that the 

entire species will be listed as an 

endangered species or threatened 

species, respectively, and the Act’s 

protections will be applied to all 

individuals of the species wherever 

found. 

Although there are potentially many 

ways to determine whether a portion of 

a species’ range is ‘‘significant,’’ we 

conclude, for the purposes of this rule, 

that the significance of the portion of 

the range should be determined based 

on its biological contribution to the 

conservation of the species. For this 

reason, we describe the threshold for 

‘‘significant’’ in terms of an increase in 

the risk of extinction for the species. We 

conclude that such a biologically based 

definition of ‘‘significant’’ best conforms 

to the purposes of the Act, is consistent 

with judicial interpretations, and best 

ensures species’ conservation. 

For the purposes of this rule, we 

determine if a portion’s biological 

contribution is so important that the 

portion qualifies as ‘‘significant’’ by 

asking whether, without that portion, 

the species in the remainder of its range 

warrants listing (i.e., is in danger of 

extinction or likely to become so in the 

foreseeable future). Conversely, we 

would not consider the portion of the 

range at issue to be ‘‘significant’’ if the 

species would not warrant listing in the 

remainder of its range even if the 

population in that portion of the range 

in question became extirpated (extinct 

locally). 

We interpret the term ‘‘range’’ to be 

the general geographical area within 

which the species is currently found, 

including those areas used throughout 

all or part of the species’ life cycle, even 

if not used on a regular basis. We 

consider the ‘‘current’’ range of the 

species to be the range occupied by the 

species at the time the Service makes a 

determination under section 4 of the 

Act. The phrase ‘‘is in danger’’ in the 

definition of ‘‘endangered species’’ 

denotes a present-tense condition of 

being at risk of a current or future 

undesired event. Hence, to say a species 

‘‘is in danger’’ in an area where it no 

longer exists—i.e., in its historical range 

where it has been extirpated—is 

inconsistent with common usage. Thus, 

‘‘range’’ must mean ‘‘current range,’’ not 

‘‘historical range.’’ A corollary of this 

logic is that lost historical range cannot 

constitute a significant portion of a 

species’ range where a species is in 

danger of extinction or likely to become 

so within the foreseeable future (i.e., it 

cannot be currently in danger of 

extinction in a portion of its range 

where it is already extirpated). While 

we conclude that a species cannot be in 

danger of extinction in its lost historical 

range, taking into account the effects of 

loss of historical range on a species is 

an important component of determining 

a species’ current and future status. 

In implementing these independent 

bases for listing a species, as discussed 

above, we list any species in its entirety 

either because it is in danger of 

extinction now or likely to become so in 

the foreseeable future throughout all of 

its range or because it is in danger of 

extinction or likely to become so in the 

foreseeable future throughout a 

significant portion of its range. With 

regard to the text of the Act, we note 

that Congress placed the ‘‘all’’ language 

before the SPR phrase in the definitions 

of ‘‘endangered species’’ and 

‘‘threatened species.’’ This suggests that 

Congress intended that an analysis 

based on consideration of the entire 

range should receive primary focus. 

Thus, the first step in our assessment of 

the status of a species is to determine its 

status throughout all of its range. 

Depending on the status throughout all 

of its range, we will subsequently 

examine whether it is necessary to 

determine its status throughout a 

significant portion of its range. 

Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we 

determine whether a species is an 

endangered species or threatened 

species because of any of the following: 

(A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 

Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; (C) Disease or predation; (D) 

The inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; or (E) Other natural or 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
45790 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence. These five factors apply 

whether we are analyzing the species’ 

status throughout all of its range or 

throughout a significant portion of its 

range. 

Astragalus Desereticus––Determination 

of Status Throughout All of Its Range 

We conducted a review of the status 

of Astragalus desereticus and assessed 

the five factors to evaluate whether 

Astragalus desereticus is in danger of 

extinction, or likely to become so in the 

foreseeable future, throughout all of its 

range. We also consulted with species 

experts and land management staff with 

UDWR and UDOT who are actively 

managing for the conservation of the 

species. We carefully assessed the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding the past, present, 

and future threats to the species. We 

considered all of the stressors identified 

at the time of listing as well as newly 

identified potential stressors such as 

mineral development, transmission 

lines, and climate change. As previously 

described, the stressors considered in 

our five-factor analysis fall into one or 

more of the following categories: 

• Stressors including residential 

development, highway widening, and 

livestock grazing and trampling have 

not occurred to the extent anticipated at 

the time of listing, and existing 

information indicates that the extent of 

impact will not change in the future. 

• Stressors including highway 

maintenance, livestock grazing, 

transmission lines, and mineral 

development are adequately managed 

through the Conservation Agreement 

and measures described in the 

Biological Opinion for the TransWest 

Express Transmission Line Project, and 

existing information indicates that this 

management will not change in the 

future. 

• The species is tolerant of stressors 

including climate change, transmission 

lines, rarity, stochastic events, and 

cumulative effects, and existing 

information indicates that this tolerance 

will not change in the future. 

These conclusions are supported by 

the available information regarding 

species abundance, distribution, and 

trends and are in agreement with 

information presented in our advanced 

notice of proposed rulemaking (72 FR 

3379, January 25, 2007) and in our 5- 

year review (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 2011). Thus, after assessing the 

best available information, we conclude 

that Astragalus desereticus is not in 

danger of extinction throughout all of its 

range, nor is it likely to become so in the 

foreseeable future. 

Determination of Status Throughout a 

Significant Portion of Its Range 

Consistent with our interpretation 

that there are two independent bases for 

listing species as described above, after 

examining the species’ status 

throughout all of its range, we now 

examine whether it is necessary to 

determine its status throughout a 

significant portion of its range. We must 

give operational effect to both the 

‘‘throughout all’’ of its range language 

and the SPR phrase in the definitions of 

‘‘endangered species’’ and ‘‘threatened 

species.’’ The Act, however, does not 

specify the relationship between the two 

bases for listing. As discussed above, to 

give operational effect to the 

‘‘throughout all’’ language that is 

referenced first in the definition, 

consideration of the species’ status 

throughout the entire range should 

receive primary focus and we should 

undertake that analysis first. In order to 

give operational effect to the SPR 

language, the Service should undertake 

an SPR analysis if the species is neither 

in danger of extinction nor likely to 

become so in the foreseeable future 

throughout all of its range, to determine 

if the species should nonetheless be 

listed because of its status in an SPR. 

Thus, we conclude that, to give 

operational effect to both the 

‘‘throughout all’’ language and the SPR 

phrase, the Service should conduct an 

SPR analysis if (and only if) a species 

does not warrant listing according to the 

‘‘throughout all’’ language. 

Because we determined that 

Astragalus desereticus is not in danger 

of extinction or likely to become so in 

the foreseeable future throughout all of 

its range, we will consider whether 

there are any significant portions of its 

range in which the species is in danger 

of extinction or likely to become so. 

Although there are potentially many 

ways to determine whether a portion of 

a species’ range is ‘‘significant,’’ we 

conclude, as noted above, for the 

purposes of this rule, that the 

significance of the portion of the range 

should be determined based on its 

biological contribution to the 

conservation of the species. For this 

reason, we describe the threshold for 

‘‘significant’’ in terms of an increase in 

the risk of extinction for the species. We 

conclude that such a biologically based 

definition of ‘‘significant’’ best conforms 

to the purposes of the Act, is consistent 

with judicial interpretations, and best 

ensures species’ conservation. 

We evaluate biological significance 

based on the principles of conservation 

biology using the concepts of 

redundancy, resiliency, and 

representation because decreases in the 

redundancy, resiliency, and 

representation of a species lead to 

increases in the risk of extinction for the 

species. Redundancy (having multiple 

resilient populations considering 

genetic and environmental diversity) 

may be needed to provide a margin of 

safety for the species to withstand 

catastrophic events. Resiliency describes 

the characteristics of a species that 

allow it to recover from stochastic 

events or periodic disturbance. 

Representation (the range of variation 

found in a species) ensures that the 

species’ ability to adapt to changing 

environments is conserved. 

Redundancy, resiliency, and 

representation are not independent of 

each other, and some characteristics of 

a species or area may contribute to all 

three. For example, distribution across a 

wide variety of habitats is an indicator 

of representation, but it may also 

indicate a broad geographic distribution 

contributing to redundancy (decreasing 

the chance that any one event affects the 

entire species), and the likelihood that 

some habitat types are less susceptible 

to certain threats, contributing to 

resiliency (the ability of the species to 

recover from disturbance). None of these 

concepts is intended to be mutually 

exclusive, and a portion of a species’ 

range may be determined to be 

‘‘significant’’ due to its contributions 

under any one of these concepts. 

For the purposes of this rule, we 

determine if a portion’s biological 

contribution is so important that the 

portion qualifies as ‘‘significant’’ by 

asking whether, without that portion, 

the representation, redundancy, or 

resiliency of the species would be so 

impaired that the species would have an 

increased vulnerability to threats to the 

point that the overall species would be 

in danger of extinction or likely to 

become so in the foreseeable future (i.e., 

would be an ‘‘endangered species’’ or a 

‘‘threatened species’’). Conversely, we 

would not consider the portion of the 

range at issue to be ‘‘significant’’ if there 

is sufficient resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation elsewhere in the species’ 

range that the species would not be in 

danger of extinction or likely to become 

so throughout its range even if the 

population in that portion of the range 

in question became extirpated (extinct 

locally). 

We recognize that this definition of 

‘‘significant’’ establishes a threshold 

that is relatively high. Given that the 

outcome of finding a species to be in 

danger of extinction or likely to become 

so in an SPR would be to list the species 

and apply protections of the Act to all 

individuals of the species wherever 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Proposed Rules 45791 

found, it is important to use a threshold 

for ‘‘significant’’ that is robust. It would 

not be meaningful or appropriate to 

establish a very low threshold whereby 

a portion of the range can be considered 

‘‘significant’’ even if only a negligible 

increase in extinction risk would result 

from its loss. Because nearly any portion 

of a species’ range can be said to 

contribute some increment to a species’ 

viability, use of such a low threshold 

would require us to impose restrictions 

and expend conservation resources 

disproportionately to conservation 

benefit: Listing would be rangewide, 

even if only a portion of the range with 

minor conservation importance to the 

species is imperiled. On the other hand, 

it would be inappropriate to establish a 

threshold for ‘‘significant’’ that is too 

high. This would be the case if the 

standard were, for example, that a 

portion of the range can be considered 

‘‘significant’’ only if threats in that 

portion result in the entire species’ 

being currently in danger of extinction 

or likely to become so. Such a high bar 

would not give the SPR phrase 

independent meaning, as the Ninth 

Circuit held in Defenders of Wildlife v. 

Norton, 258 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2001). 

The definition of ‘‘significant’’ used in 

this rule carefully balances these 

concerns. By setting a relatively high 

threshold, we minimize the degree to 

which restrictions would be imposed or 

resources expended that do not 

contribute substantially to species 

conservation. But we have not set the 

threshold so high that the phrase 

‘‘throughout a significant portion of its 

range’’ loses independent meaning. 

Specifically, we have not set the 

threshold as high as it was under the 

interpretation presented by the Service 

in the Defenders litigation. Under that 

interpretation, the portion of the range 

would have to be so important that the 

current species level of imperilment in 

the portion results in the species 

currently being in danger of extinction 

or likely to become so throughout all of 

its range. Under the definition of 

‘‘significant’’ used in this rule, the 

portion of the range need not rise to 

such an exceptionally high level of 

biological significance. (We recognize 

that, if the species is imperiled in a 

portion that rises to that higher level of 

biological significance, then we should 

conclude that the species is in fact 

imperiled throughout all of its range, 

and that we would not need to rely on 

the SPR language for such a listing.) 

Rather, under this interpretation we ask 

whether the species would be in danger 

of extinction or likely to become so 

everywhere without that portion, i.e., if 

that portion were hypothetically 

completely extirpated. In other words, 

the portion of the range need not be so 

important that being merely in danger of 

extinction in that portion or likely to 

become so would be sufficient to cause 

the species to be in danger of extinction 

or likely to become so in the foreseeable 

future throughout all of its range. 

Instead, we evaluate whether the 

complete extirpation (in a hypothetical 

future) of the species in that portion 

would at that point cause the species 

throughout its remaining range to be in 

danger of extinction or likely to become 

so in the foreseeable future. 

We are aware that the court in Center 

for Biological Diversity v. Sally Jewel 

found that this definition of 

‘‘significant’’ does not give sufficient 

independent meaning to the SPR 

phrase. However, the court’s decision 

was based on two misunderstandings 

about the interpretation of ‘‘significant.’’ 

First, the court’s decision was based on 

its finding that, as with the 

interpretation that the court rejected in 

Defenders, the definition of significant 

does not allow for an independent basis 

for listing. However, this definition of 

significant is not the same as the 

definition applied in Defenders, which 

looked at the current status within the 

portion and asked what the effect on the 

remainder of the species was. By 

contrast, this definition of significance 

uses a hypothetical test of loss of the 

portion and asks what the effect on the 

remainder of the species would be; the 

current status of the species in that 

portion is relevant only for determining 

the listing status if the portion has been 

determined to be significant. This 

definition of ‘‘significant’’ establishes a 

lower threshold than requiring that the 

species’ current status in that portion of 

its range causes the species to be in 

danger of extinction throughout all of its 

range or likely to become so in the 

foreseeable future. 

The second misunderstanding was the 

court’s characterization of the listing 

determination for the African 

coelacanth as an indication the Services 

have had difficulty accurately applying 

this definition of ‘‘significant.’’ 

However, in that listing determination, 

the conclusion was that the species was 

not in danger of extinction throughout 

all of its range or likely to become so in 

the foreseeable future but it did warrant 

listing because of its status in a 

significant portion of its range. The only 

reason for not listing the entire species 

was that the population in that portion 

of the range met the definition of a 

distinct population segment (DPS), and 

therefore the agency listed the DPS 

instead of the entire species. The 

population in an SPR is not 

automatically a DPS so, contrary to the 

court’s reasoning the definition of 

‘‘significant’’ can be applied and result 

in listing a species that would not 

otherwise be listed. In light of these 

flaws, we are currently seeking 

reconsideration of the district court’s 

decision. 

To undertake this analysis, we first 

identify any portions of the species’ 

range that warrant further consideration. 

The range of a species can theoretically 

be divided into portions in an infinite 

number of ways. To identify only those 

portions that warrant further 

consideration, we determine whether 

there is substantial information 

indicating that there are any portions of 

the species’ range: (1) That may be 

‘‘significant,’’ and (2) where the species 

may be in danger of extinction or likely 

to become so in the foreseeable future. 

We emphasize that answering these 

questions in the affirmative is not a 

determination that the species is in 

danger of extinction or likely to become 

so in the foreseeable future throughout 

a significant portion of its range—rather, 

it is a step in determining whether a 

more detailed analysis of the issue is 

required. 

In practice, one key part of identifying 

portions for further analysis may be 

whether the threats or effects of threats 

are geographically concentrated in some 

way. If a species throughout its range is 

not in danger of extinction or likely to 

become so in the foreseeable future and 

the threats to the species are essentially 

uniform throughout its range, then the 

species is not likely to be in danger of 

extinction or likely to become so in the 

foreseeable future in any portion of its 

range. Moreover, if any concentration of 

threats applies only to portions of the 

species’ range that are not ‘‘significant,’’ 

such portions will not warrant further 

consideration. 

If we identify any portions that may 

be both (1) significant and (2) where the 

species may be in danger of extinction 

or likely to become so in the foreseeable 

future, we engage in a more detailed 

analysis to determine whether these 

standards are indeed met. The 

identification of an SPR does not create 

a presumption, prejudgment, or other 

determination as to whether the species 

in that identified SPR is in danger of 

extinction or likely to become so in the 

foreseeable future. We must go through 

a separate analysis to determine 

whether the species is in danger of 

extinction or likely to become so in the 

SPR. To make that determination, we 

will use the same standards and 

methodology that we use to determine 

if a species is in danger of extinction or 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
45792 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

likely to become so in the foreseeable 

future throughout all of its range. 

Once we have identified portions of 

the species’ range for further analysis, 

depending on the biology of the species, 

its range, and the threats it faces, it 

might be more efficient for us to address 

the significance question first or the 

status question first. Thus, if we 

determine that a portion of the range is 

not ‘‘significant,’’ we do not need to 

determine whether the species is in 

danger of extinction or likely to become 

so in the foreseeable future there; if we 

determine that the species is not in 

danger of extinction or likely to become 

so in a portion of its range, we do not 

need to determine if that portion is 

‘‘significant.’’ 

Astragalus desereticus—Determination 

of Significant Portion of Its Range 

Applying the process described 

above, to identify whether any portions 

warrant further consideration, we 

determine whether there is substantial 

information indicating that (1) the 

portions may be significant and (2) the 

species may be in danger of extinction 

in those portions or likely to become so 

within the foreseeable future. To 

identify portions that may be in danger 

of extinction or likely to become so in 

the foreseeable future, we consider 

whether there is substantial information 

to indicate that any threats or effects of 

threats are geographically concentrated 

in any portion of the species’ range. If 

the threats to the species are affecting it 

uniformly throughout its range, no 

portion is likely to have a greater risk of 

extinction, and thus would not warrant 

further consideration. Moreover, if any 

concentration of threats apply only to 

portions of the range that clearly do not 

meet the biologically based definition of 

‘‘significant’’ (i.e., the loss of that 

portion clearly would not be expected to 

increase the vulnerability to extinction 

of the entire species), those portions 

will not warrant further consideration. 

We evaluated the range of Astragalus 

desereticus to determine if any area 

could be considered a significant 

portion of its range. As mentioned 

above, one way to identify portions for 

further analyses is to identify portions 

that might be of biological or 

conservation importance, such as any 

natural, biological divisions within the 

range that may, for example, provide 

population redundancy or have unique 

ecological, genetic, or other 

characteristics. Based on the small range 

of the species—approximately 345 ac 

(140 ha) in an area 2.8 mi (4.5 km) × 0.3 

mi (0.5 km)—we determined that the 

species is a single, contiguous 

population and that there are no 

separate areas of the range that are 

significantly different from others or 

that are likely to be of greater biological 

or conservation importance than any 

other areas due to natural biological 

reasons alone. Therefore, there is not 

substantial information that logical, 

biological divisions exist within the 

species’ range. 

After determining there are no natural 

biological divisions delineating separate 

portions of the Astragalus desereticus 

population, we next examined whether 

any threats are geographically 

concentrated in some way that would 

indicate the species could be in danger 

of extinction, or likely to become so, in 

that area. There is some difference in 

livestock grazing between State and 

private lands, with little or no grazing 

on the 67 percent of habitat occurring 

on State lands and occasional potential 

grazing on the remaining private lands. 

However, steep topography limits 

grazing everywhere, and there are not 

fences separating State and private 

lands (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2011, p. 17). We have reviewed other 

potential threats and conclude that none 

of them are concentrated in any portion 

of the species’ range so as to affect the 

representation, redundancy, or 

resiliency of the species. 

We did not identify any portions 

where Astragalus desereticus may be in 

danger of extinction or likely to become 

so in the foreseeable future. Therefore, 

no portions warrant further 

consideration to determine whether the 

species may be in danger of extinction 

or likely to become so in the foreseeable 

future in a significant portion of its 

range. We conclude that the species is, 

therefore, not an endangered species or 

threatened species based on its status in 

a significant portion of its range. 

Astragalus desereticus—Determination 

of Status 

We have carefully assessed the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding the past, present, 

and future threats to Astragalus 

desereticus. Because the species is not 

in danger of extinction now or in the 

foreseeable future throughout all of its 

range or any significant portion of its 

range, the species does not meet the 

definition of an endangered species or 

threatened species. 

Effects of the Rule 

This proposal, if made final, would 

revise 50 CFR 17.12(h) to remove 

Astragalus desereticus from the Federal 

List of Endangered and Threatened 

Plants. The prohibitions and 

conservation measures provided by the 

Act, particularly through sections 7 and 

9, would no longer apply to this species. 

Federal agencies would no longer be 

required to consult with the Service 

under section 7 of the Act in the event 

that activities they authorize, fund, or 

carry out may affect Astragalus 

desereticus. There is no critical habitat 

designated for this species. 

Post-Delisting Monitoring 

Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires us, 

in cooperation with the States, to 

implement a monitoring program for not 

less than 5 years for all species that have 

been delisted due to recovery. The 

purpose of this requirement is to 

develop a program that detects the 

failure of any delisted species to sustain 

itself without the protective measures 

provided by the Act. If, at any time 

during the monitoring period, data 

indicate that protective status under the 

Act should be reinstated, we can initiate 

listing procedures, including, if 

appropriate, emergency listing. 

We are proposing delisting for 

Astragalus desereticus based on new 

information we have received as well as 

recovery actions taken. Since delisting 

will be due in part to recovery, we have 

prepared a draft post-delisting 

monitoring (PDM) plan for Astragalus 

desereticus. The PDM plan was 

prepared in coordination with the Utah 

Department of Natural Resources 

(UDNR) and UDWR. Monitoring will be 

a joint effort between UDNR and the 

Service. The PDM plan discusses the 

current status of the species and 

describes the methods proposed for 

monitoring if the species is removed 

from the Federal List of Endangered and 

Threatened Plants. Monitoring will 

occur annually for at least 5 years. 

Given the uncertainty of potential 

effects from climate change-related 

drought, we have developed three 

possible scenarios for PDM as follows. 

At the end of 5 years, the species’ 

population status will be evaluated, 

with three possible outcomes: (1) If the 

population is stable or increasing with 

no new or increasing stressors, PDM 

will conclude; (2) if the population is 

decreasing, but may be correlated with 

precipitation levels and remains above 

20,000 plants on the Wildlife 

Management Area, PDM will be 

extended for an additional 3–5 years 

and then the population status will be 

reevaluated; or (3) if the population is 

decreasing without correlation to 

precipitation levels and there are fewer 

than 20,000 plants on the Wildlife 

Management Area, a formal status 

review will be initiated. The reasoning 

behind the second and third options ties 

back to our conclusion that current 

information indicates the species and 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Proposed Rules 45793 

genus are adapted to drought and are 

able to re-colonize disturbed areas. 

Therefore, if the population numbers are 

decreasing but may be fluctuating due to 

decreased rainfall or drought, additional 

monitoring may show that the 

population bounces back during the 

extended monitoring period allowed for 

in scenario two. However, if the 

population is decreasing beyond what 

might occur as a result of drought, a 

formal status review would be 

immediately initiated as described in 

scenario three. 

It is our intent to work with our 

partners towards maintaining the 

recovered status of Astragalus 

desereticus. We seek public and peer 

review comments on the draft PDM 

plan, including its objectives and 

procedures (see Public Comments, 

above), with the publication of this 

proposed rule. 

Required Determinations 

Clarity of the Rule 

Executive Order 12866 requires 

agencies to write regulations that are 

easy to understand. We invite your 

comments on how to make this proposal 

easier to understand including answers 

to questions such as the following: (1) 

Is the discussion in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of the preamble 

helpful to your understanding of the 

proposal? (2) Does the proposal contain 

technical language or jargon that 

interferes with its clarity? (3) Does the 

format of the proposal (groupings and 

order of sections, use of headings, 

paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its 

clarity? What else could we do to make 

the proposal easier to understand? Send 

a copy of any comments on how we 

could make this rule easier to 

understand to: Office of Regulatory 

Affairs, Department of the Interior, 

Room 7229, 1849 C Street NW., 

Washington, DC 20240. You may also 

email the comments to this address: 

Exsec@ios.doi.gov. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

We have determined that 

environmental assessments and 

environmental impact statements, as 

defined under the authority of the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not 

be prepared in connection with 

regulations pursuant to section 4(a) of 

the Act. We published a notice outlining 

our reasons for this determination in the 

Federal Register on October 25, 1983 

(48 FR 49244). 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994, 

Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments (59 FR 22951), E.O. 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 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. 

We have determined that no Tribes will 

be affected by this rule because there are 

no tribal lands within or adjacent to 

Astragalus desereticus habitat. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

in this proposed rule is available at 

http://www.regulations.gov at Docket 

No. FWS–R6–ES–2016–0013, or upon 

request from the Utah Ecological 

Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this proposed 

rule are staff members of the Service’s 

Mountain Prairie Region and the Utah 

Ecological Services Field Office (see 

ADDRESSES and FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Proposed Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we hereby propose to 

amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter 

I, title 50 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, as set forth below: 

PART 17—ENDANGERED AND 

THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– 

1544; and 4201–4245; unless otherwise 

noted. 

§ 17.12 [Amended] 

■ 2. Section 17.12(h) is amended by 

removing the entry for ‘‘Astragalus 

desereticus’’ under ‘‘FLOWERING 

PLANTS’’ from the List of Endangered 

and Threatened Plants. 

Dated: September 7, 2017. 

James W. Kurth, 

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2017–21073 Filed 9–29–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 36 

[Docket No. FWS–R7–NWRS–2017–0058; 

FF07R00000 178 FXRS12610700000] 

Refuge-Specific Regulation; Public 

Use; Kenai National Wildlife Refuge 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Regulatory review. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (FWS) intends to initiate a 

rulemaking process that will consider 

changes to public use regulations that 

are applicable to Kenai National 

Wildlife Refuge and that were 

promulgated on May 5, 2016. 

DATES: October 2, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: The final rule that is the 

subject of this document may be found 

at www.regulations.gov in Docket No. 

FWS–R7–NWRS–2017–0058. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ryan Mollnow, Division of Natural 

Resources Chief, National Wildlife 

Refuge System—Alaska, 1011 E. Tudor 

Road, Anchorage, AK 99503; telephone: 

(907) 786–3326; facsimile: (907) 786– 

3901; email: ryan_mollnow@fws.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 5, 

2016, the FWS published a final rule to 

amend its regulations in title 50 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) in 

part 36 regarding public use of Kenai 

National Wildlife Refuge (81 FR 27030). 

The final rule became effective on June 

6, 2016. The provisions of the final rule: 

(1) amended regulations regarding use 

of aircraft, motorboats, motorized 

vehicles, and snowmobiles; 

(2) codified historic restrictions on 

hunting and trapping within the Skilak 

Wildlife Recreation Area (WRA) 

consistent with the 2007 Skilak WRA 

final revised management plan; 

(3) expanded a prohibition on the 

discharge of firearms to include areas of 

intensive public use along the Russian 

and Kenai Rivers; 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS