[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 11, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21582-21600]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-07119]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2022-0093; FF09E22000 FXES1113090FEDR 223]
RIN 1018-BG56
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removal of the
Colorado Hookless Cactus From the Federal List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; availability of draft post-delisting monitoring
plan.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
remove the Colorado hookless cactus (Sclerocactus glaucus) from the
Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants (List) due to
recovery. Recent taxonomic studies have indicated that the currently
listed entity is actually two species: Sclerocactus glaucus and
Sclerocactus dawsonii. We find that neither species should be listed as
a threatened or endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (Act). Our review of the best available scientific and
commercial data indicates that the threats to the species have been
eliminated or reduced to the point that these species no longer meet
the definition of a threatened or endangered species under the Act. We
request information and comments from the public regarding this
proposed rule and the draft post-delisting monitoring (PDM) plan for
Colorado hookless cactus (S. glaucus and S. dawsonii). If this proposal
is finalized, Colorado hookless cactus will be removed from the List
and the prohibitions and conservation measures provided by the Act,
particularly through sections 7 and 9, will no longer apply to the
species.
DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before June
12, 2023. 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 FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT by May 26, 2023.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R6-ES-2022-0093,
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click on the
Search button. On the resulting page, in the panel on the left side of
the screen, under the Document Type heading, check the Proposed Rule
box to locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking on
``Comment.''
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail to: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: FWS-R6-ES-2022-0093, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
MS: PRB/3W; 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described
above. We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see Information Requested, below, for more information).
Availability of supporting materials: This proposed rule and
supporting documents, including the species status assessment (SSA)
report and post-delisting monitoring plan, are available at https://fws.gov/species/colorado-hookless-cactus-sclerocactus-glaucus, at
https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2022-0093, and
at the Colorado Ecological Services
[[Page 21583]]
Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Creed Clayton, Acting Western Colorado
Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Colorado Ecological
Services Office, 445 West Gunnison Ave., Suite 240, Grand Junction, CO
81501; telephone 970-628-7187. Individuals in the United States who are
deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial
711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay
services. Individuals outside the United States should use the relay
services offered within their country to make international calls to
the point-of-contact in the United States.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, a species warrants
removal from the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants if it no longer meets the definition of an endangered
species (in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range) or a threatened species (likely to become an
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range). The Colorado hookless cactus is
listed as threatened, and we are proposing to remove (delist) it from
the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants because we have determined
it does not meet the Act's definition of an endangered or threatened
species. Delisting a species can be completed only by issuing a rule
through the Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking process (5 U.S.C.
551 et seq.).
What this document does. This action proposes to remove Colorado
hookless cactus from the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants
(i.e., ``delist'' the species) based on its recovery.
The basis for our action. Under the Act, we may determine that a
species is an endangered species or a threatened species based on any
of five factors: (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. The determination to delist a
species must be based on an analysis of the same factors.
Under the Act, we must review the status of all listed species at
least once every five years. We must delist a species if we determine,
on the basis of the best available scientific and commercial data, that
the species is neither a threatened species nor an endangered species.
Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.11 identify three reasons why we might
determine that a listed species is neither an endangered species nor a
threatened species: (1) The species is extinct; (2) the species has
recovered, or (3) the original data used at the time the species was
classified were in error. Here, we have determined that Colorado
hookless cactus should be proposed for delisting under the Act because,
based on an analysis of the five listing factors, it has recovered and
no longer meets the definition of an endangered or threatened species.
Information Requested
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request
comments or information from other governmental agencies, Native
American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other
interested parties concerning this proposed rule.
We particularly seek comments concerning:
(1) Reasons we should or should not delist the Colorado hookless
cactus.
(2) New information on the historical and current status, range,
distribution, and population size of the Colorado hookless cactus.
(3) New information on the known and potential threats to the
Colorado hookless cactus, including livestock use, invasive species,
oil and gas development, off-highway vehicle use, development and
maintenance of utility corridors, and climate change.
(4) New information regarding the taxonomy, life history, ecology,
and habitat use of the Colorado hookless cactus.
(5) Current or planned activities within the geographic range of
the Colorado hookless cactus that may have either a negative or
positive impact on the species.
(6) Information regarding management plans or other mechanisms that
provide protection to the Colorado hookless cactus and its habitat.
(7) The draft PDM plan and the methods and approach described.
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, do not provide substantial
information necessary to support a determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of
the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is an
endangered or a threatened species must be made solely on the basis of
the best scientific and commercial data available.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you
send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
If you submit information via https://www.regulations.gov, your
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will
be posted on the website. If your submission is made via a hardcopy
that includes personal identifying information, 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. We
will post all hardcopy submissions on https://www.regulations.gov.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov.
Because we will consider all comments and information we receive
during the comment period, our final determinations may differ from
this proposal. Based on the new information we receive (and any
comments on that new information), we may conclude that the species
should remain listed as threatened instead of being delisted, or we may
conclude that the species should be reclassified from threatened to
endangered.
Public Hearing
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for a public hearing on this
proposal, if requested. Requests must be received by the date specified
in DATES. Such requests must be sent to the address shown in FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule a public hearing on this
proposal, if requested, and announce the date, time, and place of the
hearing, as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in the
Federal Register and local newspapers at least 15 days before the
hearing. We may hold the public hearing in person or virtually via
webinar. We will announce any public hearing on our website, in
addition to the Federal Register. The use of these virtual public
[[Page 21584]]
hearings is consistent with our regulation at 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3).
Peer Review
A species status assessment (SSA) team prepared an SSA report for
the Colorado hookless cactus to inform the 2021 5-year review and
updated it in 2022. The SSA team was composed of Service biologists who
consulted with other species experts. The SSA report represents a
compilation of the best scientific and commercial data available
concerning the status of the species, including the impacts of past,
present, and future factors (both negative and beneficial) affecting
the species.
In accordance with our July 1, 1994, peer review policy (59 FR
34270; July 1, 1994) and our August 22, 2016, Director's Memo on the
Peer Review Process, we solicited independent scientific reviews of the
information contained in the Colorado hookless cactus SSA report. We
sent the SSA report to five independent and appropriate peer reviewers
and received three responses. Results of this structured peer review
process can be found at https://regulations.gov. In preparing this
proposed rule, we incorporated the results of these reviews, as
appropriate, into the final SSA report, which is the foundation for
this proposed rule.
Summary of Peer Reviewer Comments
As discussed in Peer Review above, we received comments from three
peer reviewers on the draft SSA report. We reviewed all comments we
received from the peer reviewers for substantive issues and new
information regarding the information contained in the SSA report. In
some cases, these reviewers provided additional information,
clarifications, and suggestions to improve the final SSA report. The
reviewers also provided new references or corrected existing references
we cited in our SSA report; we revised or included relevant references,
as appropriate. We summarize the additional substantive feedback we
received from peer reviewers below.
Comment 1: One reviewer commented on our range and analytical units
(AU) maps that some cactus occurrences were not included in AUs.
Our Response: The maps in the SSA do not depict each individual
plant occurrence included in the AUs; however, our AUs contain all
records of known occurrences.
Comment 2: One reviewer asked why recreational trails for mountain
bikes, hiking, camping and other recreational uses were discussed as a
stressor, but were not included in our table summarizing stressors in
the SSA.
Our Response: Recreational uses other than OHV use have the
potential to cause direct impacts to individuals; however, due to their
relatively small footprint, the BLM's ability to largely avoid Colorado
hookless cactus when designing non-motorized trail routes, and the
rarity of humans trampling cacti, we believe that these localized
impacts to individuals do not present species or AU-level effects.
Therefore, we did not further consider this stressor (i.e., non-
motorized recreation) in our analysis, so they are not discussed in
tables summarizing stressors in the SSA.
Comment 3: One reviewer shared that recent genetic research found
that a closely related species, S. parviflorus, occurs on the western
edge of S. glaucus' range and is capable of hybridizing.
Our Response: Hybridization with other Sclerocactus species in
Colorado was not found to be recent or ongoing, and thus is not a
conservation concern for S. dawsonii or S. glaucus (McGlaughlin and
Naibauer 2021, p. 22). We therefore do not include this stressor in our
analysis of species' current of future condition in the SSA.
Comment 4: One reviewer commented that pollinators were only
briefly discussed in the SSA and they requested a more in-depth
discussion on which pollinators are important for the species.
Our Response: The purpose of the SSA is to gather and compile
information on the status of these species in order to assess their
current condition and project the species' future condition. Adding a
detailed inventory of known pollinators is not necessary to assess the
current and future conditions for these species in the SSA report,
because pollinators of Sclerocactus species are adequately discussed in
other papers (see BLM 2020a, pp. 17-18, Tepedino et al. 2010, pp. 382-
383). Over 100 species have been documented visiting Sclerocactus
species (BLM 2020a, p. 17). As we summarize in the SSA, there is no
information to indicate that Colorado hookless cactus species require
specialist pollinators (Service 2022, pp. 11-12). Moreover, the
majority of pollinator species one researcher observed visiting
Sclerocactus plants are generalists themselves; these bee species visit
a wide variety of flowers and only require a general diversity and
abundance of native flowers in the environment (Tepedino et al. 2010,
pp. 382-383).
Comment 5: One reviewer stated that the patterns of genetic
diversity for each species were unclear in the SSA report. This
reviewer questioned how the AUs are genetically connected and whether
S. dawsonii exhibits genetic connectivity. Another reviewer similarly
suggested that, while genetic variability is described as being
important for the species, information about genetic variability within
the species is missing from the SSA.
Our Response: In the SSA, we discuss the relevant information on
genetic diversity of both species, summarizing more detailed
information contained in a report of recent genetic analyses (Service
2022, pp. 10, 25; McGlaughlin and Naibauer 2021, entire). These
analyses indicate that genetic diversity is low to moderate, with
limited evidence of inbreeding for both species (McGlaughlin and
Naibauer 2021, p. 22). S. glaucus demonstrates sufficient connectivity,
which results in ongoing and recent genetic exchange (McGlaughlin and
Naibauer 2021, p. 2). S. dawsonii is genetically isolated from S.
glaucus, but individuals are connected within and between the species'
AUs (McGlaughlin and Naibauer 2021, p. 22). More detail on the specific
patterns of genetic variability in both species is available in
McGlaughlin and Naibauer (2021, entire).
Comment 6: One reviewer commented that the methods from the novel
sampling-based procedure, which BLM used to derive population
estimates, were not described in detail.
Our Response: As we discuss above, the purpose of the SSA is to
gather and compile information on the status of this species in order
to assess its current condition and project the species' future
condition. Adding detailed information on the monitoring methodologies
our partners use is not necessary to assess the current and future
conditions for this species in the SSA report, because these methods
are adequately described in other resources. More details on monitoring
methods are available in Krening et al. (2021, entire), which provides
an in-depth explanation of the sampling-based monitoring procedure. We
briefly summarize the methods of the sampling-based monitoring
procedure in the SSA (Service 2022, p. 13).
Comment 7: One reviewer asked how many occurrences of each cactus
species occur on Federal lands as opposed to private lands. The
reviewer also requested clarification to the statement that occurrences
on some Federal lands ``are not likely to be disturbed or adversely
altered by land-use actions.''
Our Response: Due to the methodology that BLM uses to extrapolate
the number of occurrences
[[Page 21585]]
in a given AU based on plant density (see Krening et al. 2021, entire),
the best available science on plant occurrences does not indicate the
specific number of plants that occur on public rather than private
lands. Therefore, we could not add the breakdown of cactus occurrences
this reviewer requested to the SSA, given the lack of this specific
distribution information. However, we report in the SSA the proportion
of land area in each AU that is Federally owned and managed (Service
2022, p. 21). The majority of lands within both Colorado hookless
cactus species' ranges are Federally owned and managed and a subset of
these Federal lands have special BLM land management designations
(e.g., National Conservation Areas (NCA), Areas of Critical
Environmental Concerns (ACEC), and a wilderness area over which BLM has
authority). These areas with special land management designations help
to facilitate the maintenance and recovery of cactus occurrences given
that they are areas where Colorado hookless cactus occurrences are not
likely to be disturbed or adversely altered by land-use actions (BLM
2020a p. 26). As we explain in Table 6 of the SSA, these areas may
provide no-surface-occupancy stipulations (which prevent oil and gas
development), may prohibit the use of motorized recreational vehicles,
and may prohibit livestock grazing (Service 2022, pp. 18-21). While we
did not add more detail to the SSA to further describe these
conservation efforts in response to this comment (beyond the list of
conservation practices specific to each NCA, ACEC, or wilderness area
already provided in Table 6 of the SSA) (Service 2022, pp. 18-21), we
further clarify and describe how these areas promote conservation of
the species under Stressors and Conservation Efforts and Regulatory
Mechanisms in this proposed rule below.
Comment 8: One reviewer questioned why the stressors of predation,
herbicide/pesticide application, and commercial trade were excluded
from the analysis; they noted that we did not provide supporting
reasons or evidence for why these stressors do not present AU-level or
species-level effects besides ``the best professional judgement of
species experts.''
Our Response: Small mammals may predate individual plants and,
while this does present a source of mortality, we do not have any
evidence to indicate that predation is having lasting, population-level
effects for the species (Service 2022, pp. 17-18). The application of
herbicides and pesticides on Federal lands is highly regulated;
moreover, managers only apply these chemicals in targeted, isolated
areas throughout the species' ranges (BLM 2020a, p. 45). Therefore, we
did not find this stressor to present more than localized effects to
individual plants. Additionally, collection from the wild has not
occurred at the level anticipated at the time of listing; collection is
not having population- or species-level effects on either species (BLM
2020a, p. 36). Therefore, these stressors do not have species or AU-
level effects. Thus, we did not further analyze the effects of
predation, herbicide and pesticide application, or collection and
commercial trade in our SSA analyses of current and future conditions.
Comment 9: One reviewer commented that it would be useful to
understand the background data being used to model habitat condition
for these two species and what an ``AIM/LMF sample point'' is. The
reviewer also asked which factors were used to assess habitat quality.
Our Response: BLM species and habitat experts analyzed habitat
condition for the two species, and detailed their methods and source
data in Holsinger and Krening (2021, entire). They analyzed habitat
quality using BLM Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring (AIM) and
Landscape Management Framework (LMF) data. AIM and LMF sample points
are geographic locations distributed throughout the landscape to which
BLM biologists return on a regular basis to collect data on
environmental conditions and vegetation health (e.g., ground cover,
grass height, weed cover). BLM experts used data from the 134
individual AIM/LMF sample points within the AUs for this analysis of
habitat condition. Data from three separate indicators were used to
evaluate habitat quality: invasive species cover, amount of bare
ground, and native perennial cover.
Comment 10: One reviewer expressed surprise that there were no AUs
with a low habitat condition score. However, this reviewer did not
provide any information to suggest the scores should change.
Our Response: BLM experts developed a Habitat Condition Index to
evaluate habitat condition (see response to Comment 9). This index
produced a single habitat condition score from the aggregated rankings
of three biologically relevant habitat condition categories: habitat
quality, habitat size, and habitat type (Service 2022, pp. 43-44;
Holsinger and Krening 2021, entire). The result of the Habitat
Condition Index is a habitat condition score (high, moderate, or low)
for each AU (Holsinger and Krening 2021, p. 2). Detailed information on
the methods for this evaluation can be found in Holsinger and Krening
(2021, entire). According to this analysis, in each AU, both species
generally have the level of invasive species cover, bare ground, and
native perennial cover they require (the three indicators that made up
the ``habitat quality'' score). Only 4 of the 10 AUs received a low
score for any of these three categories; however, the AUs that received
a low score for these habitat quality categories were relatively large
(i.e., they received high scores for the ``habitat size'' category) and
had high probability of species' occurrence, according to the results
of a predictive model for Colorado hookless cactus (i.e., they received
high scores for the ``habitat type'' category) (Holsinger and Krening
2021, entire). These high scores for the habitat size and habitat type
categories balanced the lower scores for the habitat quality category,
resulting in no AUs with a low score for overall habitat condition.
Previous Federal Actions
The Service listed Sclerocactus glaucus as threatened on October
11, 1979 (44 FR 58868). After its 1979 listing, the species underwent a
series of taxonomic revisions. When listed, the range of Sclerocactus
glaucus was considered to include western Colorado and northeastern
Utah (Uinta Basin hookless cactus complex). A reevaluation of
morphological characteristics, phylogenetic studies, and common garden
experiments led to the determination that the Uinta Basin hookless
cactus complex was in fact three distinct species: Sclerocactus glaucus
(Colorado hookless cactus), Sclerocactus brevispinus (Pariette cactus),
and Sclerocactus wetlandicus (Uinta Basin hookless cactus) (Heil and
Porter 2004, pp. 197-207; Hochst[auml]tter 1993, pp. 82-92).
Sclerocactus glaucus was determined to be restricted to the Colorado
and Gunnison River basins in western Colorado, while Sclerocactus
brevispinus and Sclerocactus wetlandicus are limited to the Uinta Basin
in eastern Utah. In 2009, the Service published a final rule
recognizing and accepting this revised taxonomy of the three species
and determined that all three species would continue to be listed as
threatened (74 FR 47112, September 15, 2009). The Service has not
designated critical habitat for the Colorado hookless cactus
(Sclerocactus glaucus). The species also lacks a recovery plan.
On January 21, 2021, we published a notice of initiation of a 5-
year review for the Colorado hookless cactus in the
[[Page 21586]]
Federal Register and requested information that could have a bearing on
the status of Colorado hookless cactus (86 FR 2442). We completed the
5-year status review on August 10, 2021; this 5-year status review
recommended (1) acknowledging that Colorado hookless cactus, as listed,
is two taxonomically distinct entities (Sclerocactus glaucus and
Sclerocactus dawsonii) and (2) that neither S. glaucus nor S. dawsonii
meet the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species
under the Act. Therefore, the 5-year status review recommended removing
S. glaucus from the list of threatened plants; it also recommended that
S. dawsonii need not be listed as a threatened or endangered species
under the Act.
Background
A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, and ecology of the
Colorado hookless cactus (Sclerocactus glaucus and Sclerocactus
dawsonii) is presented in the SSA Report Version 1.1 (Service 2022,
entire).
As discussed above under Previous Federal Actions, Colorado
hookless cactus has undergone a series of taxonomic revisions since its
original 1979 listing. Most recently, in 2017, genetic studies
identified three distinct regional groups of Colorado hookless cactus
in Colorado: the Northern, Grand Valley, and Gunnison River groups
(Schwabe et al. 2015, p. 447; McGlaughlin and Ramp-Neale 2017, p. 5).
The most recent genetic analyses, using Random Site-Associated DNA
sequencing (RADseq), determined that the Northern group should be
recognized as a distinct species, hereinafter Sclerocactus dawsonii, or
S. dawsonii (McGlaughlin and Naibauer 2021, p. 3). The Grand Valley and
Gunnison River groups share connectivity and form a genetically
cohesive group, which represents a second distinct species, hereinafter
collectively referred to as Sclerocactus glaucus, or S. glaucus
(McGlaughlin and Naibauer 2021, p. 3). Because of the recency of this
taxonomic split, the currently listed entity is still considered to be
the Colorado hookless cactus, which encompasses both S. glaucus and S.
dawsonii; thus, both Sclerocactus glaucus and Sclerocactus dawsonii are
the subjects of our SSA report and this proposed delisting rule.
Given the recent nature of this new taxonomic information, most
literature on the species draws conclusions regarding both S. glaucus
and S. dawsonii without distinguishing between the two. Thus, when we
use the common name ``Colorado hookless cactus'' in this proposed rule,
we are referring to information or conclusions regarding both species
(S. glaucus and S. dawsonii). When we are referring to information or
analysis pertaining to one species, we will use the new scientific
names of S. glaucus or S. dawsonii.
S. glaucus and S. dawsonii are endemic cactus species found in the
Colorado and Gunnison River basins and their tributary canyons in
Garfield, Mesa, Montrose, and Delta Counties in western Colorado. The
species occur on alluvial benches and colluvial slopes from 4,500 to
7,200 feet (1,372 to 2,195 meters) in semi-arid high-elevation desert
(Holsinger 2021, pers. comm.; Service 2022, p. 9). The species display
a patchy, generalist distribution and have been found to grow primarily
in small, discrete colonies of individuals in various upland desert
habitats and communities (BLM 2020a, p. 18; Service 2022, p. 9).
For the purposes of analysis in our SSA report, we divided the
ranges of both species into analysis units (AUs). S. glaucus occurs in
eight AUs in a range that extends approximately 1,082 square miles
(mi\2\) (2,802 square kilometers (km\2\)) from the Grand Valley,
through the high desert at the foot of the Grand Mesa, and along the
alluvial terraces of the Gunnison River and the Dominguez and Escalante
Creek drainages to near Montrose. S. dawsonii occurs over an area of
approximately 195 mi\2\ (505 km\2\) in two AUs along the Colorado River
from DeBeque downstream toward the Grand Valley and along the Roan and
Plateau Creek drainages. BLM owns and manages approximately 72 percent
and 68 percent, respectively, of the land that comprises S. glaucus and
S. dawsonii AUs (Service 2022, pp. 18-21).
S. glaucus and S. dawsonii are morphologically indistinguishable
from each other and can be identified from one another only by genetic
analysis or location. They are both leafless, flowering, stem-succulent
plants with short, cylindrical bodies usually 3 to 12 centimeters (cm)
(1.2 to 4.8 inches (in)), but up to 30 cm (12 in), tall, and 4 to 9 cm
(1.6 to 3.6 in) in diameter (Service 2022, pp. 7-8). The brown coloring
of the spines on mature plants is unique to S. glaucus, S. dawsonii,
and S. parviflorus, as compared to other cactus species in the area
(Service 2022, p. 7).
Colorado hookless cactus has three life stages: seeds, seedlings,
and mature reproductive adults. Colorado hookless cactus plants are
considered hardy, long-lived perennial species (i.e., high survival
probabilities and low levels of recruitment) (BLM 2018, p. 15). Based
on high observed seedling survival, once a seedling is established,
there is a high probability of an individual persisting to reproductive
stage (BLM 2018, p. 14; Service 2022, p. 13). Pollinator-assisted
outcrossing (xenogamy) is the primary mode of genetic exchange for the
Colorado hookless cactus (Janeba 2009, p. 67; Tepedino et al. 2010, p.
382; Service 2022, p. 8). Plants usually flower in late April and early
May. Plants do not flower until they reach a diameter of more than 4 cm
(1.6 in) (BLM 2018, p. 14); plants are likely at least 4 to 6 years old
before they become reproductive and continue to flower throughout their
relatively long life (DePrenger-Levin 2021, pers. comm.; Service 2022,
p. 13). Colorado hookless cactus can live for many years, but their
exact longevity is unknown.
Regulatory and Analytical Framework
Regulatory Framework
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining
whether a species is an endangered species or a threatened species. On
July 5, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California vacated regulations that the Service (jointly with the
National Marine Fisheries Service) promulgated in 2019 modifying how
the Services add, remove, and reclassify threatened and endangered
species and the criteria for designating listed species' critical
habitat (Center for Biological Diversity v. Haaland, No. 4:19-cv-05206-
JST, Doc. 168 (CBD v. Haaland). As a result of that vacatur,
regulations that were in effect before those 2019 regulations now
govern species classification and critical habitat decisions.
Subsequently, on September 21, 2022, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit stayed the district court's July 5, 2022, order
vacating the 2019 regulations until a pending motion for
reconsideration before the district court is resolved (In re:
Cattlemen's Ass'n, No. 22-70194). The effect of the stay is that the
2019 regulations are the governing law as of September 21, 2022.
Our analysis for this proposal applied those 2019 regulations.
However, given the continued uncertainty resulting from the ongoing
litigation, we also undertook an analysis of whether this final rule
would be different if we were to apply the pre-2019 regulations. We
concluded that we would have reached the same proposal if we had
applied the pre-2019 regulations because both before and after the 2019
regulations, the standard for whether a species
[[Page 21587]]
warrants delisting has been, and will continue to be, whether the
species meets the definition of an endangered species or a threatened
species. Further, we concluded that our determination of the
foreseeable future would be the same under the 2019 regulations as
under the pre-2019 regulations. The analysis based on the pre-2019
regulations is included in the decision file for this proposal.
The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a species that is in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range, and a ``threatened species'' as a species that is likely to
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we
determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened
species because of any of the following factors:
(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.
These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative
effects or may have positive effects. The determination to delist a
species must be based on an analysis of the same five factors.
We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat''
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action
or condition or the action or condition itself.
However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not
necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' In determining
whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all
identified threats by considering the species' expected response and
the effects of the threats--in light of those actions and conditions
that will ameliorate the threats--on an individual, population, and
species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected effects on the
species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of the threats on
the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative effect of the
threats in light of those actions and conditions that will have
positive effects on the species--such as any existing regulatory
mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines whether
the species meets the definition of an ``endangered species'' or a
``threatened species'' only after conducting this cumulative analysis
and describing the expected effect on the species now and in the
foreseeable future.
The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which
appears in the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' Our
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for
evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis. The term
foreseeable future extends only so far into the future as we can
reasonably determine that both the future threats and the species'
responses to those threats are likely. In other words, the foreseeable
future is the period in which we can make reliable predictions.
``Reliable'' does not mean ``certain''; it means sufficient to provide
a reasonable degree of confidence in the prediction. Thus, a prediction
is reliable if it is reasonable to depend on it when making decisions.
It is not always necessary to define the foreseeable future as a
particular number of years. Analysis of the foreseeable future uses the
best scientific and commercial data available and should consider the
timeframes applicable to the relevant threats and to the species'
likely responses to those threats in view of its life-history
characteristics. Data that are typically relevant to assessing the
species' biological response include species-specific factors such as
lifespan, reproductive rates or productivity, certain behaviors, and
other demographic factors.
Analytical Framework
The SSA report documents the results of our comprehensive
biological review of the best scientific and commercial data regarding
the status of the species, including an assessment of the potential
threats to the species. The SSA report does not represent our decision
on whether the species should be proposed for delisting. However, it
does provide the scientific basis that informs our regulatory
decisions, which involve the further application of standards within
the Act and its implementing regulations and policies.
To assess Colorado hookless cactus viability, we used the three
conservation biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and
representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). Briefly,
resiliency is the ability of the species to withstand environmental and
demographic stochasticity (for example, wet or dry, warm or cold
years), redundancy is the ability of the species to withstand
catastrophic events (for example, droughts, large pollution events),
and representation is the ability of the species to adapt to both near-
term and long-term changes in its physical and biological environment
(for example, climate conditions, pathogens). In general, species
viability will increase with increases in resiliency, redundancy, and
representation (Smith et al. 2018, p. 306). Using these principles, we
identified the species' ecological requirements for survival and
reproduction at the individual, population, and species levels, and
described the beneficial and risk factors influencing the species'
viability.
The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages.
During the first stage, we evaluated individual species' life-history
needs. The next stage involved an assessment of the historical and
current condition of the species' demographics and habitat
characteristics, including an explanation of how the species arrived at
its current condition. The final stage of the SSA involved making
predictions about the species' responses to positive and negative
environmental and anthropogenic influences. Throughout all of these
stages, we used the best available information to characterize
viability as the ability of a species to sustain populations in the
wild over time. We use this information to inform our regulatory
decision.
The following is a summary of the key results and conclusions from
the SSA report; the full SSA report can be found at Docket FWS-R6-ES-
2022-0093 on https://www.regulations.gov and at https://fws.gov/species/colorado-hookless-cactus-sclerocactus-glaucus.
Summary of Biological Status and Threats
In this section, we review the biological condition of the species
and its resources, and the threats that influence the species' current
and future condition, in order to assess the species' overall viability
and the risks to that
[[Page 21588]]
viability. In addition, the SSA (Service 2022, entire) documents our
comprehensive biological status review for the species, including an
assessment of the potential threats to the species. The following is a
summary of this status review and the best available information
gathered since that time that has informed this decision.
Species Needs
Individuals of both species of Colorado hookless cactus need
certain habitat factors, including: shallow exposed sandy or shale
soils of sedimentary parent material or gravelly deposits of river
alluvium; a semi-arid, high-elevation desert climate (elevations from
1,200-2,000 meters (m) (3,937-6,561 feet (ft))) with 20-30 cm (8-12 in)
of rain per year; and a period of deep cold during winter months to
facilitate germination the following spring (Service 2022, p. 11). To
be sufficiently resilient, AUs of both species require survivorship and
recruitment at rates that are able to sustain AUs, in addition to
pollinator connectivity between individuals and clusters of plants
within the AU. Adequately resilient AUs also contain enough individuals
across each life stage (seed, seedling, and mature reproductive adult)
to bounce back after experiencing environmental stressors such as
intermediate disturbance, occasional drought, or intensive grazing.
The number of AUs across the landscape influence redundancy of
Colorado hookless cactus. More AUs across the range of each species
increase each species' ability to withstand catastrophic events.
Individuals and AUs inhabiting diverse ecological settings and
exhibiting genetic or phenological variation add to the level of
representation across the species' ranges. The greater diversity
observed in Colorado hookless cactus genetics, habitats, and
morphology, the more likely it is to be able to adapt to change over
time. Both species, thus, need (1) a sufficient number and distribution
of sufficiently resilient AUs to withstand catastrophic events
(redundancy) and (2) a range of variation that allows the species to
adapt to changing environmental conditions (representation) (Service
2022, p. 15). The SSA report provides additional detail on the species'
individual-, population-, and species-level needs (Service 2022, pp.
10-16).
Stressors
In our SSA, we evaluated stressors and other actions that can
positively or negatively affect Colorado hookless cactus at the
individual, AU, or species levels, either currently or into the future
(Service 2022, pp. 16-18). A wide variety of stressors may influence
the resiliency of Colorado hookless cactus, either by directly
affecting individuals or by reducing the quality and quantity of
habitats.
Stressors that have the potential to present AU-level effects for
both species include livestock use; invasive species; oil and gas
development; OHV recreational use; development and maintenance of
utility corridors; and the effects of global climate change (BLM 2020a,
p. 30; Service 2022, pp. 16-18). We determined that predation,
herbicide and pesticide application, or collection and commercial trade
were not threats to the species (even though they were identified as
such in the 1979 listing rule), so we do not discuss them in detail in
this rule (Service 2022, pp. 16-18).
Additionally, approximately 30 percent of the land in S. glaucus
AUs and 41 percent of the land in S. dawsonii AUs have special BLM land
management designations in the form of National Conservation Areas
(NCAs), Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs), and a
Wilderness Area. These designations limit or exclude the authorization
of certain land uses, and some designations were specifically created
for the conservation of natural resources. The protections provided by
these management designations are not contingent upon the species'
federally listed status, and these designations help to facilitate the
maintenance and recovery of cactus occurrences because they are areas
where Colorado hookless cactus is not likely to be disturbed or
adversely altered by land-use actions (BLM 2020a, p. 26). All but 4 of
11 ACECs specifically referenced the protection of Colorado hookless
cactus as a foundational goal. We discuss the specific protections each
of these areas provides, and the ways in which they reduce specific
stressors, under the relevant stressors below; we also discuss these
conservation measures further under Conservation Efforts and Regulatory
Mechanisms.
Livestock Use
BLM owns and manages approximately 72 percent and 68 percent,
respectively, of the land that comprises S. glaucus and S. dawsonii AUs
(Service 2022, pp. 18-21); nearly all habitat that occurs on BLM lands
allows for livestock use. Moderate to heavy domestic livestock grazing
has been observed to cause physical damage to Sclerocactus plants
through trampling, but we have no evidence to indicate that cattle
browse on individual Sclerocactus plants (Service 1990, p. 11). A study
on another federally listed cactus, S. wrightiae, found that cacti
density increased more rapidly in a fenced plot excluded from cattle
grazing than in an unfenced plot with a reduced cattle stocking rate
(Clark and Clark 2007, p. 21). Overgrazing (the continued heavy grazing
beyond the recovery capacity of forage plants) by domestic livestock
can have a negative impact on North American xeric ecosystems (Jones
2000, p. 158). For example, overgrazing can facilitate the
establishment of invasive species like Bromus tectorum, known as
cheatgrass (Masters and Sheley 2001, p. 503; DiTomaso et al. 2016, p.
435), which are difficult to eradicate and tend to outcompete native
vegetation, including cacti.
Currently, BLM implements 15 nondiscretionary conservation measures
to minimize or reduce the effects of grazing on the Colorado hookless
cactus, which are contained in a 2012 programmatic biological opinion
(BLM 2020a, p. 41). BLM also manages livestock activities to protect
sensitive plants in the Adobe Badlands, River Rims, and Escalante
Canyon ACECs (BLM 2017, p. 240, p. 258; BLM 2020a, p. 28; Service 2022,
pp. 19-20). In the Atwell Gulch ACEC, BLM excludes livestock grazing
entirely on 2,600 ac (1,052 ha), and in the Pyramid Rock ACEC, no
livestock grazing is allowed (BLM 2020a, p. 29; Service 2022, pp. 19-
20). BLM's management plans allow it to include stipulations in its
grazing permit renewals that require reductions in the number of
livestock and adjustments to the timing, duration, and season of
livestock use for the benefit of natural resources; such changes in
grazing permits would primarily affect future grazing intensity in the
Cactus Park (S. glaucus), Devil's Thumb (S. glaucus), Gunnison River
East (S. glaucus), Roan Creek (S. dawsonii), and Plateau Creek AUs (S.
dawsonii).
Currently, livestock use is affecting only individual plants;
however, these effects could increase in the future if no corrective
action is taken to address future problem areas. Thus, we included an
analysis in the SSA to examine species' potential response to future
changes in this stressor (Service 2022, pp. 18-21).
Invasive Species
Invasive weeds, including Bromus tectorum (cheatgrass) and
Halogeton glomeratus (halogeton), are prevalent on BLM and private
lands within the range of Colorado hookless cactus (BLM 2020a, p. 35).
Invasive weeds alter the ecological characteristics of cactus habitat,
making it less suitable for the
[[Page 21589]]
species (Service 1990, p. 11). In addition, invasive annual weeds are
often able to outcompete perennial native species for the essential
nutrient nitrogen under drought conditions (Everard et al. 2010, pp.
85, 93-94). However, despite their prevalence throughout the range of
Colorado hookless cactus species, individual plants experience extreme
detrimental effects of invasive weeds only in localized areas (Service
2022, pp. 18-21; BLM 2020a, p. 35).
Currently, invasive vegetation affects only individual Colorado
hookless cactus plants; invasive species are not causing any broad-
scale reductions in recruitment or survival in entire AUs. However, the
effects of invasive vegetation could increase in the future if
infestations expand or if treatments become less effective. Thus, we
included an analysis in the SSA to examine species' potential response
to future changes in this stressor (Service 2022, pp. 18-21).
Oil and Gas Development
Oil and gas development can also affect Colorado hookless cactus
plants and habitat. Increased surface disturbance from wells, roads,
and pipelines for oil and gas projects can fragment or destroy habitat;
disturb individuals; increase erosion, soil compaction, and
sedimentation; destroy pollinator habitat; increase airborne dust and
subsequent dust accumulation on cacti, which can increase tissue
temperature and reduce photosynthesis, thus decreasing plant growth,
vigor, and water use efficiency; indirectly increase recreational
access to habitat through increased road construction; and increase
invasive vegetation because of the associated surface disturbances
(Service 2010, pp. 6-7).
For S. glaucus, only 5 percent of the AUs (19,365 leased ac (7,837
ha) of 379,348 total ac (153,517 ha) of habitat) are within BLM lands
leased for oil and gas (BLM 2021a, unpaginated). This proportion is
higher for S. dawsonii; 58 percent of the area within AUs are leased
for oil and gas development on BLM lands (65,384 ac (26,419 ha) of
112,723 total ac (45,617 ha) of habitat) (BLM 2021a, unpaginated).
However, leased areas do not equate to areas of surface disturbance;
even if these areas are leased for oil and gas development, only small
subsets of these areas are actually being actively explored or
extracted (Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) 2022a,
unpaginated). Moreover, oil and gas development does not occur
throughout all of the species' ranges; for S. glaucus, active wells are
only in the Devil's Thumb AU (one active well site), North Fruita
Desert AU (10 active well sites), Whitewater AU (26 active well sites),
and a very small portion of the Palisade AU (one active well site)
(COGCC 2022b, unpaginated). For S. dawsonii, while oil and gas
development occurs in both AUs (Roan Creek (60 active well sites) and
Plateau Creek (51 active well sites)), 42 percent of these AUs are not
leased for oil and gas development (COGCC 2022b, unpaginated; BLM
2021a, unpaginated). Additionally, there are no new or pending permits
to drill new oil and gas wells within either species' range; however,
as we describe in more detail below, development could increase within
portions of S. dawsonii's range in the future (COGCC 2022c,
unpaginated; COGCC 2022d, unpaginated).
Additionally, BLM's resource planning documents include
conservation measures to minimize adverse impacts of natural resource
extraction to listed and sensitive species, including the Colorado
hookless cactus; this includes limiting oil and gas development within
a 200-m (656-ft) buffer around any currently occupied or historically
occupied Colorado hookless cactus habitat, when possible and with some
exceptions (BLM 2020a, p. 34; BLM 2015a, p. B-13; BLM 2015b, p. B-22;
BLM 2020b, p. B-9). These limitations and buffers apply to S. glaucus
and S. dawsonii while they are federally listed species or BLM
sensitive species; if these species are no longer Federally listed or
on BLM's sensitive species list, these buffers would no longer apply.
However, even then, as we describe above, based on our analysis of
Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) data, oil and gas
extraction is relatively limited throughout the range of both species
compared to the amount of occupied habitat (COGCC 2022a, unpaginated;
COGCC 2022b, unpaginated; COGCC 2022c, unpaginated; COGCC 2022d,
unpaginated). Moreover, due to their biology and life history
characteristics, both species are relatively resilient to nearby
disturbance (as we discuss further in our analysis of Current Condition
below).
Furthermore, approximately 30 percent of the land in S. glaucus AUs
and 41 percent of the land in S. dawsonii AUs have special BLM land
management designations in the form of NCAs, ACECs, and a Wilderness
Area, which further protect the species from the impacts of oil and gas
development (Service 2022, p. 10). The protections provided by these
management designations are not contingent upon the species' federally
listed status, and these designations help to facilitate the
maintenance and recovery of cactus occurrences because they are areas
where Colorado hookless cactus is not likely to be disturbed nor will
its habitat be adversely altered by land-use actions (BLM 2020a, p.
26). All 30 percent of the areas within S. glaucus AUs that have
special land management designations include stipulations that either
withdraw lands from oil, gas, and mineral development; implement ``no-
surface-occupancy'' stipulations; or prohibit surface disturbing
activities (Service 2022, pp. 19-22). Therefore, no new oil and gas
activity is permitted in almost 30 percent of S. glaucus's range (with
the exception of portions of the Devil's Thumb AU); these areas where
no new oil and gas activity is permitted coincide with over half (over
56 percent) of the estimated S. glaucus occurrences (Service 2022, pp.
14, 30). Similarly, all 41 percent of the areas within S. dawsonii AUs
that have special land management designations include no-surface-
occupancy stipulations that limit oil and gas development in these
portions of the species' range.
Thus, currently, oil and gas development is affecting only a small
proportion of individual Colorado hookless cactus plants, due to
limited leasing and development and BLM's protective measures; however,
the effects of oil and gas development could increase in the future.
Nevertheless, given the variable oil and gas potential of the area, and
the protections outlined above, the only AUs where oil and gas
development could plausibly increase in the future are the Roan Creek
and Plateau Creek AUs (S. dawsonii) (Service 2022, p. 30). Thus, we
included an analysis in the SSA to examine the species' potential
response to future changes in this stressor (Service 2022, pp. 18-21).
Off-Highway Vehicle Recreational Use
Off-highway vehicle (OHV) use can cause soil compaction and
erosion, which can physically damage habitat, the surrounding plant
community, and the hydrology of the area. OHVs can also carry invasive
and introduced plants to new sites and present a risk of spilled
contaminants, such as oil spills, gasoline, and grease. OHV use can
also injure or kill above-ground plants or cause direct harm to plants
through accumulation of dust. OHV use can create especially negative
impacts when users travel off designated routes (Service 2022, pp. 18-
21).
The relatively barren nature and other topographical features of
Colorado
[[Page 21590]]
hookless cactus habitat make it desirable to OHV users (BLM 2020a, p.
38). Even though OHV recreation is popular and widespread within
Colorado hookless cactus habitat, there is little evidence of direct
negative impacts to plants (Service 2010, p. 8; BLM 2020a, p. 38).
BLM's resource planning documents include conservation measures to
minimize adverse impacts of land use to listed and sensitive species,
including the Colorado hookless cactus (BLM 2015a, pp. 49, 102-105; BLM
2015b, pp. 26, 101-103, 123, 145, 147, 150; BLM 2015c, p. M-25; BLM
2020b, pp. II-87, I-4-I-10). In their Travel Management Plans for the
Grand Junction and Uncompahgre Field Offices, BLM identified multiple
routes for closure to protect sensitive areas (BLM 2015c, p. M-24; BLM
2020b, p. I-7). These two travel management plans cover the entirety of
S. glaucus's range and the majority of S. dawsonii's range. While the
resource management plan for the Colorado River Valley Field Office,
which covers the remainder of S. dawsonii's range, does not contain a
travel management plan specifically, it includes strategies for
``Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management,'' including limiting
recreational use to designated routes (BLM 2015b, pp. 102-104).
Additionally, approximately 30 percent of the land in S. glaucus AUs
and 41 percent of the land in S. dawsonii AUs have special BLM land
management designations in the form of NCAs, ACECs, and a Wilderness
Area, which further protect the species from the impacts of OHV use by
limiting routes within 200 m (656 ft) of sensitive plants or
prohibiting all motorized travel (BLM 2020a, pp. 27-29; Service 2022,
pp. 19-21). For example, when the Dominguez-Escalante NCA was created
in 2009, which covers 210,172 ac (85,053 ha) within the Dominguez-
Escalante, Gunnison River East, and Cactus Park AUs, many ``miles of
routes were closed to mechanized and motorized travel,'' which includes
the use of OHVs (BLM 2020a, p. 27).
As human populations continue to grow in the areas surrounding
Colorado hookless cactus, demand for OHV recreation is likely to
continue to increase. However, BLM would be able to add routes only in
areas outside of the aforementioned ACECs and Wilderness Area. Any
increases in designated OHV routes would occur as a result of land use
planning processes that would comply with the stipulations of the
Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 and the National
Environmental Policy Act (BLM 2020a, p. 38). Given the protections
detailed above, and the accessibility of certain areas to OHV users,
the only AUs where OHV use could plausibly increase in the future are
the North Fruita Desert, Devil's Thumb, Gunnison Gorge, and Whitewater
AUs (S. glaucus) (Service 2022, p. 30). The area represented in these
four AUs constitutes approximately half of S. glaucus' AU range, but it
is unlikely OHV use would occur across the entire area of these AUs.
Through similar processes, BLM may also choose to close areas to
recreation or access if necessary to protect sensitive resources (BLM
2020a, p. 38). It is plausible that implementation of travel management
plans could lead to route closures in S. glaucus AUs (Devil's Thumb,
Gunnison Gorge, Whitewater, Palisade, Dominguez-Escalante, North Fruita
Desert) and S. dawsonii AUs (Plateau Creek, and Roan Creek AUs).
Thus, currently, OHV use is affecting only a small proportion of
individual Colorado hookless cactus plants; however, the effects of OHV
use could increase in the future if recreational opportunities expand.
Therefore, we included an analysis in the SSA to examine species'
potential response to future changes in this stressor (Service 2022,
pp. 18-21).
Development and Maintenance of Utility Corridors
The installation and maintenance of utility corridors can result in
damage, loss, or relocation of plants; fragmentation of habitat; and
increases in invasive species (BLM 2020a, p. 34; Service 2022, p. 17).
Multiple transmission lines occur within Colorado hookless cactus
habitat and ``approximately 1,200 plants have been transplanted in
association with these projects'' (Bio-Logic 2008 as cited in BLM
2020a, p. 34). While every AU has a utility corridor within it, most
corridors intersect only a small portion of the AU. Additionally, some
of these utility lines are along already-disturbed corridors (e.g.,
major highways).
In addition to the limited scope of utility corridor development
and maintenance within Colorado hookless habitat, federally protected
areas further limit the impacts that utility corridor development can
have on the species. All but one of the seven ACECs within S. glaucus'
range and all four of the ACECs within S. dawsonii's range include
right-of-way exclusion or avoidance areas (Service 2022, pp. 19-21).
Based on practical locations for utility corridors, and on these
protections, it is only plausible that development could increase in
the energy corridor that intersects the Whitewater, Devil's Thumb, and
Cactus Park AUs and along the I-70 corridor in the Palisade AU (Service
2022, p. 30). It is also possible that developers could replace an
existing powerline with a larger structure in the Devil's Thumb and
Whitewater AUs to increase capacity, which could cause significant
ground disturbance (Service 2022, p. 30). Finally, developers could
build additional pipelines in the Roan Creek and Plateau Creek AUs
(Service 2022, p. 30).
Thus, currently, development and maintenance of utility corridors
are affecting only individual Colorado hookless cactus plants, partly
due to BLM's avoidance and mitigation measures; however, the effects of
this stressor could increase in the future if development expands.
Therefore, we included an analysis in the SSA to examine species'
potential response to future changes in this stressor.
Climate Change
Climate change may affect long-term survival of native species,
including Sclerocactus, especially if longer or more frequent droughts
occur. Within the range of Colorado hookless cactus, under lower
emission scenarios, summer maximum temperature is expected to increase
4 [deg]F (2.2 [deg]C) and under higher emission scenarios summer
maximum temperature is expected to increase 10 [deg]F (5.6 [deg]C) by
mid-century, compared to the historical average between 1971 and 2000
(North Central Climate Adaptation Science Center and CIRES 2021,
unpaginated). Extreme droughts, like those that occurred in 2002 and
2018, could also become more frequent by mid-century. Historically,
droughts of this scale did not occur within the range of the species
(North Central Climate Adaptation Science Center and CIRES 2021,
unpaginated). By mid-century, under lower emissions scenarios, these
extreme droughts could occur two to three times per decade or, under
higher emissions scenarios, eight to nine times per decade (North
Central Climate Adaptation Science Center and CIRES 2021, unpaginated).
In addition, invasive annual weeds are often able to outcompete
perennial native species for the essential nutrient nitrogen under
drought conditions (Everard et al. 2010, pp. 85, 93-94). Drought
conditions could further hinder BLM's efforts to control invasive weeds
and restore native vegetation, which is already difficult due to the
extreme environment of the Colorado and
[[Page 21591]]
Gunnison River basins (Service 1990, p. 11; BLM 2008a, p. 44).
Climate change vulnerability analyses concluded that Colorado
hookless cactus likely has low vulnerability to climate change (BLM
2020a, pp. 43-44); however, these analyses predated the taxonomic split
of Colorado hookless cactus and thus analyzed the range that contains
both S. glaucus and S. dawsonii. First, NatureServe's Climate Change
Vulnerability Index (CCVI), which evaluates species' vulnerability to
climate change based on multiple factors, indicated that Colorado
hookless cactus was ``not vulnerable'' or ``presumed stable''
rangewide, meaning the number of plants or range extent is not likely
to increase or decrease considerably by mid-century (Treher et al.
2012, pp. 52, 8). Second, a combination of CCVI and species
distribution modeling (SDM) methods in indicated that Colorado hookless
cactus ``will not be vulnerable to climate change'' within the next 30
years (Still et al. 2015, p. 116). This analysis predicted that the
species' range could shift or increase under projected changes in
climate given the species has no dispersal constraints and vast areas
of suitable habitat beyond known occurrences (Still et al. 2015, p.
116). Finally, an additional SDM effort, which aimed to predict changes
to the species' range under five different future climate scenarios,
concluded that climate change does not present a threat, because all
but one model indicate that either no range contraction will occur or
that range extent will expand by midcentury (Price 2018, appendix 3 of
BLM 2020a, p. 60).
Although multiple different models predict the Colorado hookless
cactus has low vulnerability to climate change, CNHP's CCVI suggested
that Colorado hookless cactus is extremely vulnerable to climate change
given ``(1) natural and anthropogenic barriers to movement; (2)
likelihood of short seed dispersal distances; (3) lack of variation in
annual precipitation in occupied habitat over last 50 years; (4)
potential increase in climate influenced disturbances within its
habitat, (5) potential for wind and solar energy development within its
range, and (6) pollinator specificity'' (CNHP 2015, p. 533). Although
the weight of research indicates both species likely have low
vulnerability to climate change, given the uncertainty this CNHP study
introduced, we included an analysis in the SSA to examine species'
potential response to future changes in this stressor.
Cumulative Effects
We note that, by using the SSA framework to guide our analysis of
the scientific information documented in the SSA report, we have
analyzed not only the individual effects various stressors could have
on the species but also their potential cumulative effects. We
incorporate the cumulative effects into our SSA analysis when we
characterize the current and future condition of the species. To assess
the current and future condition of the species, we undertake an
iterative analysis that encompasses and incorporates the threats
individually and then accumulates and evaluates the effects of all the
factors that may be influencing the species, including threats and
conservation efforts. Because the SSA framework considers not just the
presence of the factors, but to what degree they collectively influence
risk to the entire species, our assessment integrates the cumulative
effects of the factors and replaces a standalone cumulative effects
analysis. For example, to assess current resiliency, we used a
condition category table (see Current Condition below) to analyze how
livestock use, invasive species, oil and gas development, OHV
recreational use, development and maintenance of utility corridors, and
the effects of global climate change, taken together, may influence
habitat condition, survivorship, population size, and water
availability. Similarly, we analyzed how changes in these stressors,
when considered together, may influence habitat condition,
survivorship, population size, and water availability in the future. We
also considered how these same stressors may affect species' current
and future redundancy and representation.
Current Condition
In our SSA report, we evaluate current condition by examining
current levels of resiliency in the eight S. glaucus AUs and two S.
dawsonii AUs, and implications for redundancy and representation. Here,
we summarize our evaluation of current condition for resiliency,
redundancy, and representation. Additional detail regarding our
analysis is provided in the SSA report (Service 2022, pp. 22-28).
Resiliency
We describe the resiliency for each of the 10 AUs in terms of the
habitat and demographic factors needed by the Colorado hookless cactus
(Service 2022, pp. 10-16, 22-28). We developed a categorical model to
calibrate resiliency based on the range of habitat and demographic
conditions in each AU. In a categorical model, we first identify
resource or demographic factors that contribute to the species'
resiliency; typically, these factors align with the individual resource
needs and population-level needs we identified in the SSA analysis. We
then define threshold values for each identified resource or
demographic factor that represent high, moderate, or low levels of that
factor. Finally, we evaluate whether the current levels of each
resource or demographic factor in an AU fall within the predetermined
thresholds for a high, moderate, or low score for the category; we then
average these scores for each category to develop an overall current
resiliency score for each AU.
For Colorado hookless cactus, our categorical model assessed the
resiliency of each AU by evaluating (1) the condition of habitat in
each AU based on an index that evaluates a number of habitat factors
including invasive species cover, bare ground, native perennial cover,
the relative size of the AU, and the probability of occurrence based on
a BLM habitat suitability model (Holsinger and Krening 2021, p. 5); (2)
the summer water deficit, a proxy for drought and soil moisture that
approximates the availability of water; (3) survival rates for each
species, calculated from long-term monitoring data; and (4) a minimum
population size estimate for each AU (Service 2022, pp. 22-24). We
selected these habitat and demographic factors based on their
importance to the species' resiliency and because we could evaluate
them relatively consistently across all 10 AUs. We then used this
categorical model as a key to evaluate resiliency for each AU by
systematically evaluating the current condition of each habitat and
demographic factor. The AUs with higher overall resiliency are at less
risk from potential stochastic events, such as climatic variation, than
AUs with lower overall resiliency. Our SSA report provides additional
detail regarding the methodology we used to evaluate resiliency for
each of the 10 AUs (Service 2022, pp. 22-28).
When measured against the metrics outlined in our categorical model
(Service 2022, pp. 22-24), all but one of the S. glaucus AUs have high
resiliency. This finding is due to the large estimated number of
individuals in each AU, high levels of survivorship, adequate habitat
resources, and a current summer water deficit (averaged over the past
decade) that is similar to the historical average. The only AU that
does not have high resiliency is the
[[Page 21592]]
Palisade AU, which has moderate resiliency overall due to its extremely
small population size and moderate score for the habitat condition
index. This AU is considerably smaller in area than the other AUs. A
major highway (U.S. Interstate 70) and the Colorado River also cut
through this AU, fragmenting the habitat. Additionally, a high
proportion of this AU is private and State land, which contain existing
forms of development (e.g., truck stop, shooting range, power plant)
that present additional stressors to the species and its habitat
(Lincoln 2021, pers. comm.).
Both S. dawsonii AUs have high resiliency (see Table below). This
score is due to the high estimated number of individuals in each AU,
high levels of survivorship, high and moderate availability of habitat
features that support the cactus, and a current summer water deficit
that is similar to the historical average. The stressors operating in
the Plateau Creek AU and the Roan Creek AU are comparable, but the
Plateau Creek AU is geographically smaller, which partly influences its
lower rating for the population size category (Lincoln 2021, pers.
comm.).
Rangewide monitoring efforts have demonstrated a stable trend over
recent years and have also provided a detailed understanding of
demographic features and population dynamics. Across their limited
ranges, both species of Colorado hookless cactus are relatively
abundant, which contributes to the high levels of resiliency in all but
one AU. At the time of listing in 1979, and prior to the taxonomic
splits between the two Utah Sclerocactus species and Colorado's S.
glaucus and S. dawsonii, it was thought that the combined total for the
now four species consisted of approximately 15,000 individual plants in
both Colorado and Utah (44 FR 58868, October 11, 1979). After the
taxonomic split in 2009, estimates from CNHP suggested there were
approximately between 19,000 and 22,000 plants for the total rangewide
number of individuals in both species (S. glaucus and S. dawsonii),
based on observations within element occurrence records, which do not
necessarily represent a total count of plants for the entire range of
the species (Service 2022, p. 13). However, as we discuss below, we now
know that there are many more plants than previously reported.
In a recent paper from BLM, a novel sampling-based procedure was
used to estimate the minimum population size of S. glaucus. They
estimated the minimum population size for the entire area of occupation
of the taxon by using plant density estimates derived from sampled
macroplots and extrapolating them to known habitat areas. This method
produced population size estimates for the species that are much higher
than previous estimates (Krening et al. 2021, entire). Using this
sampling-based procedure to determine the minimum number of plants in
each AU, S. glaucus has at least 68,120 plants (90 percent lower
confidence level estimate) and a minimum population estimate of 103,086
plants; S. dawsonii has at least 21,058 plants and a minimum population
estimate of 31,867 (Service 2022, p. 14; Holsinger and Krening 2021, p.
10). Based on the 2021 BLM monitoring report for the species, which we
received after completion of the SSA report, population sizes have not
changed considerably relative to the 2020 estimates evaluated in the
SSA (BLM 2021b, p. 7). Over the entire period of BLM monitoring, the
species still demonstrates an increasing trend (BLM 2021b, p. 7).
Table--Measure of Current Resiliency of S. glaucus and S. dawsonii Based on Current Demographic, Distribution, and Habitat Conditions in the Species'
AUs
[Service 2022, pp. 26-27]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Habitat condition Minimum population Summer water Overall AU
Species Analysis unit index Survivorship size deficit resiliency score
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S. glaucus...................... Whitewater........ High.............. High.............. High.............. High.............. High.
Palisade.......... Moderate.......... Low............... High.............. Moderate.
Dominguez- High.............. High.............. High.............. High.
Escalante.
North Fruita Moderate.......... Moderate.......... High.............. High.
Desert.
Devil's Thumb..... High.............. Moderate.......... High.............. High.
Cactus Park....... High.............. High.............. High.............. High.
Gunnison Gorge.... Moderate.......... Moderate.......... High.............. High.
Gunnison River High.............. High.............. High.............. High.
East.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S. dawsonii..................... Plateau Creek..... Moderate.......... High.............. Moderate.......... High.............. High
Roan Creek........ High.............. High.............. High.............. High.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Redundancy
Redundancy describes the number and distribution of AUs, such that
the greater the number and the wider the distribution of the AUs, the
better the Colorado hookless cactus can withstand catastrophic events.
The plausibility of catastrophic events also influences species'
redundancy; if catastrophic events are unlikely within the range of the
species, catastrophic risk is inherently lower. We are unaware of any
plausible activity or naturally occurring event that would constitute a
catastrophic event for this species. For example, fire is not a common
occurrence in S. glaucus or S. dawsonii habitat as this habitat lacks
the fuels to sustain a burn, though increased invasive species presence
could elevate this risk (Service 2022, p. 28). Additionally, the range
of both species contain natural and humanmade barriers (i.e., rivers,
canyons, highways) that would prevent the spread of any catastrophic
fire throughout the entire range of the species. Redundancy for narrow
endemic species is intrinsically limited; however, S. glaucus plants
are distributed broadly across the range of the species in eight AUs,
providing redundancy throughout its relatively small geographic range.
With only two AUs, redundancy of S. dawsonii is limited; however, as a
narrowly endemic plant, it has likely always had a small range and
limited redundancy, and there has not been a known decrease in
redundancy compared with its historical range. Additionally, given the
lack of plausible catastrophic events across the range of both species,
even the narrow range of S. dawsonii does not introduce appreciable
catastrophic risk.
[[Page 21593]]
Representation
Both species exhibit some ecological and morphological variability,
coupled with low to moderate genetic diversity among AUs (McGlaughlin
and Naibauer 2021, p. 22). Inbreeding is not an immediate concern for
either species (McGlaughlin and Naibauer 2021, p. 22). Additionally, S.
glaucus demonstrates sufficient connectivity, which results in ongoing
and recent genetic exchange (McGlaughlin and Naibauer 2021, p. 2). S.
dawsonii is genetically isolated and diverged from S. glaucus; all
genetic analyses support that S. dawsonii is a distinct entity
(McGlaughlin and Naibauer 2021, p. 2). Recent population bottlenecks do
not appear to be a concern, based on the relative consistency of levels
of genetic diversity found in recent studies (McGlaughlin and Naibauer
2021, p. 22).
Future Scenarios and Future Condition
In our SSA report, we forecasted the resiliency of S. glaucus and
S. dawsonii AUs and the redundancy and representation of each species
to mid-century (the mean of projections for 2040 to 2069) using a range
of plausible future scenarios. After mid-century, the changes in
climate conditions that different climate models and emissions
scenarios project begin to diverge widely (Rangwala et al. 2021, p. 4);
in other words, the spread of potential projected temperature increases
broadens substantially after mid-century. Therefore, we focused our
analysis of future condition on mid-century to avoid the large
uncertainty in climate change at the end of the twenty-first century
(Rangwala et al. 2021, p. 4). We also selected this timeframe because
we can make reliable predictions regarding changes in other stressors
to the species, such as land management (i.e., this timeframe
encompasses at least one revision to BLM resource management plans),
and is biologically meaningful to the species to begin to understand
the response of ecosystems to those changes.
We used future climate models downscaled to the ranges of the
species, in combination with forecasted changes in the location and
intensity of stressors, to develop three future scenarios and evaluate
the condition of the species under each of those scenarios. By
capturing a range of plausible future scenarios, we can assume that
actual future conditions will likely fall somewhere between these
projected scenarios. Detailed descriptions of each scenario are
available in the SSA report (Service 2022, pp. 29-36).
As many of the stressors that affect S. glaucus and S. dawsonii
occur on BLM lands, future scenarios were developed with input from BLM
about plausible changes in the location and intensity of stressors on
BLM land. Given some level of uncertainty about the conditions that
will occur by mid-century, these scenarios represent optimistic,
continuation, and pessimistic future conditions to capture the
plausible range of future conditions the species may experience.
Therefore, our evaluation of future conditions presents a plausible
range of expected species responses. While the metrics used to assess
the current resiliency of S. glaucus and S. dawsonii AUs are
quantitative, we do not have a reliable way to quantitatively forecast
these metrics into the future. Instead, future conditions are expressed
qualitatively, using the results of our current condition analysis as
the baseline. Species experts used professional judgement to predict
how the species and their habitats would respond to each future
scenario (Krening 2021, pers. comm.).
In the Optimistic scenario, the overall resiliency of each AU for
both species remains the same as current condition. Although the
overall resiliency of each AU does not change, the resiliency of the
Plateau Creek (S. dawsonii) and Devil's Thumb (S. glaucus) AUs increase
slightly due to higher ratings for habitat conditions and population
size, respectively. Under this scenario, decreases in activities such
as grazing and OHV use (consistent with current stipulations in BLM
grazing permits and travel management plans) that degrade S. glaucus
and S. dawsonii habitat allow for passive restoration, which leads to
improved habitat conditions in the Plateau Creek AU and an increase in
population size in the Devil's Thumb AU. Summer water deficit is
expected to slightly decrease, meaning more water is available for
germination, growth, and reproduction. Redundancy and representation
for S. dawsonii increase under this scenario, as compared to current
condition, due to an increase in resiliency in the Plateau Creek AU.
Redundancy and representation of S. glaucus also increase slightly
under this scenario due to an increase in resiliency in the Devil's
Thumb AU.
In the Continuation scenario, we expect resiliency, redundancy, and
representation to remain relatively unchanged from the current
condition. Resiliency of the Palisade AU (S. dawsonii) is moderate;
resiliency of all other AUs is high. Despite the increase in water
deficit as compared to historical conditions under this scenario
(meaning that less water would be available to the plants), this slight
decrease in water availability would have minimal impact, because it is
well within the range of variability that the species have historically
experienced.
In the Pessimistic scenario, hot and dry conditions may negatively
affect survivorship and recruitment of the species. Water deficit is
more than one standard deviation higher than the historical mean,
meaning that on average, less water is available to support
germination, growth, and reproduction. Under the Pessimistic scenario,
although BLM land management direction and special land management
designations do not change, continued ground disturbance and habitat
degradation caused by grazing, increasing OHV use (due to increased
demand from population growth), increasing demand for oil and gas
development and utility corridor development, and an increase in
invasive plant species negatively affect the amount and quality of
habitat available and reduce survival rates and overall population
sizes, leading to a decrease in resiliency in the Whitewater, Palisade,
North Fruita Desert, Devil's Thumb, Cactus Park, Gunnison Gorge, and
Gunnison River East AUs (S. glaucus) and in the Plateau Creek AU (S.
dawsonii). Overall, one S. glaucus AU is in high condition, six S.
glaucus AUs are in moderate condition, and one is in low condition. S.
dawsonii has one AU in high condition and one AU in moderate condition.
Redundancy and representation of S. glaucus decreases slightly in
this scenario due to the decrease in resiliency in all but one AU;
although no AUs are expected to be extirpated, each AU contains
multiple clusters of plants, and some diversity within AUs could be
lost. However, even in the most pessimistic plausible scenario, all but
one of the eight AUs are expected to have at least 500 to 10,000
plants, thereby preserving much of the species' redundancy and
representation. Despite high and moderate resiliency of the two S.
dawsonii AUs, representation and redundancy are lower than under the
Optimistic and Continuation scenarios and under current condition due
to the Plateau Creek AU's moderate resiliency; this AU had high
resiliency under all other scenarios. With only two known S. dawsonii
AUs, the loss of one of these AUs due to catastrophic, natural, or
human-caused events would cause a severe loss of redundancy and
representation of the species; however, loss of either AU is not
expected, even under the Pessimistic scenario. As with S. glaucus, some
variation within AUs
[[Page 21594]]
could be reduced under this scenario; however, ecological,
morphological, and genetic variation will continue to be represented by
the multiple AUs across S. dawsonii's range.
Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms
Positive actions, in the form of conservation efforts such as land
protections and regulations, have reduced sources of habitat
degradation, and multiple agencies, volunteers, and community members
are committed to the conservation and preservation of Colorado hookless
cactus. BLM owns and manages approximately 72 percent and 68 percent,
respectively, of the land that comprises S. glaucus and S. dawsonii AUs
(Service 2022, pp. 18-21). The majority of the remaining habitat is
privately owned; less than 1 percent is owned by State or local
governments (Service 2022, p. 18).
Within the range of the Colorado hookless cactus, the BLM has
included conservation measures in its resource planning documents to
minimize adverse impacts of land use to listed and sensitive species,
including the Colorado hookless cactus (BLM 2020a, p. 26). For example,
BLM resource management plans (RMPs) for the Colorado River Valley,
Grand Junction, and Uncompahgre field offices (the three BLM field
offices within the range of the species) include motorized recreation
restrictions, energy development restrictions, and grazing management;
provisions for research to aid in better understanding the effects of
stressors on the species and guide conservation efforts; and provisions
for habitat improvements and vegetation management (e.g., reducing
encroachment of woody species, fuels management, closing of livestock
allotments, or maintaining rangeland health standards) (Service 2022,
pp. 18-21, 28-36; BLM 2015a, pp. 41, 68; BLM 2020b, p. II-24).
The current condition of the species provides insight into the
effectiveness of these measures and management; all but one of the S.
glaucus AUs and both S. dawsonii AUs have high resiliency, including
moderate to high habitat condition (Service 2022, pp. 26-27). This
conclusion demonstrates that, both due to the species' natural
hardiness and to these conservation efforts and other land protections,
the stressors are not currently meaningfully reducing the species'
survival and growth.
Even without the protections of the Act, both species would remain
BLM sensitive species for at least 5 years (BLM 2008b, pp. 3, 36). If
these species are no longer on the Federal List of Endangered and
Threatened Plants or BLM's sensitive species list, the measures
specific to listed and sensitive species in these RMPs would no longer
apply (e.g., buffers around oil and gas development). However, the
majority of measures in these RMPs are not unique to Colorado hookless
cactus, but rather provide general guidance for effective land
management and rangeland health. Continued responsible management of
the landscapes in which the Colorado hookless cactus occurs, even if
not directed specifically towards the species, will still provide
benefit.
Further, approximately 30 percent of the land in S. glaucus AUs and
41 percent of the land in S. dawsonii AUs have special BLM land
management designations in the form of NCAs, ACECs, and a Wilderness
Area (Service 2022, pp. 18-21). These designations limit or exclude the
authorization of certain land uses, and some designations were
specifically created for the conservation of natural resources; all but
3 of 11 ACECs specifically referenced the protection of Colorado
hookless cactus as a foundational goal. The protections provided by
these management designations are not contingent upon the species'
federally listed status, and these designations help to facilitate the
maintenance and recovery of cactus occurrences, because they are areas
where Colorado hookless cactus is not likely to be disturbed or
adversely altered by land-use actions (BLM 2020a, p. 26). We discuss
the specific protections each of these areas provides under the
relevant stressors above.
BLM's ACECs do not have an expiration date, and removing an ACEC
designation is not simple. A withdrawal of an ACEC can be made only by
the Office of the Secretary (43 U.S.C. 1714); additionally, the ACECs
that include S. glaucus and S. dawsonii habitat were designated to
protect multiple species and resources in addition to the Colorado
hookless cactus (Service 2022, table 6, pp. 19-21). Likewise, NCAs and
Wilderness Areas are designated by Congress and are designed to protect
multiple resources, not only the Colorado hookless cactus. Therefore,
it is unlikely these special management designations will change in the
coming decades, even if the Colorado hookless cactus species are
delisted.
We describe each of these BLM areas with special management
designations, and the specific protections they provide, in table 6 of
the SSA (Service 2022, pp. 19-21) and in table 2 of the 5-year status
review (Service 2021, pp. 10-11). The current condition of the species
provides insight into the effectiveness of these protected areas; all
but one of the S. glaucus AUs and both S. dawsonii AUs have high
resiliency, including moderate to high habitat condition (Service 2022,
pp. 26-27). This conclusion demonstrates that, both due to the species'
natural hardiness and to these land protections and other conservation
efforts, the stressors are not currently meaningfully affecting the
species' survival and growth.
A recovery plan for Colorado hookless cactus has not been
developed; therefore, there are no specific delisting criteria for the
species. We developed a recovery outline for Colorado hookless cactus
in 2010 (Service 2010, entire). Additionally, we reviewed the status of
the species in the 2008 and 2021 5-year status reviews (Service 2008,
entire; Service 2021, entire). In the 2008 review, we identified
remaining threats to the species and actions that could be taken to
make progress in addressing those threats and ensuring long-term
management. One such recommendation was to conduct rangewide
inventories and improve population monitoring (Service 2008, p. 4).
Denver Botanic Gardens and BLM have closely monitored the species at
multiple sites throughout the range of both Colorado hookless cactus
species since 2007 (DePrenger-Levin and Hufft 2021, entire; BLM 2021b,
entire). Based on over a decade of this rich monitoring data, BLM
developed a method of estimating population size and trends in 2021
(Krening et al. 2021, entire).
The 2010 recovery outline also included an initial action plan for
the species' recovery that included actions such as (1) expanding
comprehensive surveying to improve our understanding of trends; (2)
establishing formal land management designations to provide for long-
term protection of important populations and habitat; (3) directing
development projects to avoid cactus occurrences and incorporate
standard conservation measures; (4) encouraging investigations into
Sclerocactus species' vulnerability to climate change; and (5)
resolving open taxonomic questions for the species. The Service and its
partners have since accomplished all five of these actions.
Since 2010, BLM and the Denver Botanic Gardens have expanded their
annual monitoring program to improve estimation of the species
population sizes; these estimates indicate there are substantially more
plants on the landscape than were known at the time of listing, and
have changed our understanding of the degree to which the species is
resilient to the purported threats at the time of listing. BLM has also
established multiple ACECs and an
[[Page 21595]]
NCA that provide long-term protection to sensitive plants and habitats.
In the past 11 years, multiple assessments of the species'
vulnerability to climate change have concluded that Colorado hookless
cactus has low vulnerability to future climatic changes (Price 2018,
appendix 3 of BLM 2020a, p. 60; Still et al. 2015, p. 116; Treher et al
2012, pp. 52, 8). Finally, recent research determined that Colorado
hookless cactus is in fact two separate species: S. glaucus and S.
dawsonii.
As a result, the Service recommended that threats to the species
had been sufficiently ameliorated such that listing was no longer
warranted in our 2021 5-year status review.
Determination of Colorado Hookless Cactus (S. glaucus and S. dawsonii)
Status
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining
whether a species meets the definition of an endangered species or a
threatened species. The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a
species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range, and a ``threatened species'' as a species that is
likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires
that we determine whether a species meets the definition of an
endangered species or a threatened species because of any of the
following factors: (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.
When we listed the Colorado hookless cactus as threatened on
October 11, 1979, we identified the potential development of oil shale
deposits and gold mining (Factor A), off-road vehicle use (Factor A),
collecting pressure (Factor B), livestock grazing (Factor C), and an
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) as threats to
the existence of the species (44 FR 58868, October 11, 1979). In our
SSA, we evaluated these stressors and additional stressors that were
identified after the time of listing. Much more is presently known
about the species' stressors than at the time of listing.
Several of the stressors identified in the original listing
decision are no longer relevant. Given the taxonomic changes, and thus
range extent changes, that the species has undergone in the past 40
years, oil shale and tar sands development and hybridization are no
longer relevant stressors (Service 2022, p. 18; Service 2021, pp. 19-
20). Additionally, collection from the wild has not occurred at the
level anticipated at the time of listing; collection is not having
population- or species-level effects on either species (BLM 2020a, p.
36). Thus, stressors that could influence both species of the Colorado
hookless cactus at the AU- or species-scale include livestock use
(Factor A), invasive species (Factor A), oil and gas development
(Factor A), OHV recreational use (Factor A), development and
maintenance of utility corridors (Factor A), and the effects of global
climate change (Factor A). Although livestock grazing was categorized
as a stressor under Factor C at the time of listing, we believe that
the effects of livestock grazing are better characterized by Factor A.
The spines on cactus plants generally make them undesirable to
livestock; however, livestock can degrade habitat conditions by
trailing through and trampling habitat. Only on rare occasions do
cattle directly trample or dislodge cactus plants.
We also evaluated a variety of conservation efforts and mechanisms
across the 10 AUs of both species that either reduce or ameliorate
stressors, or improve the condition of habitats or demographics. These
conservation efforts and mechanisms include: three BLM RMPs that taken
together, cover the range of the species, which include motorized
recreation restrictions, energy development restrictions, and grazing
management; research to aid in better understanding the effects of
stressors on the species and guide conservation efforts; and habitat
improvements and vegetation management (Service 2022, pp. 18-21, 28-
36). With 72 percent of S. glaucus and 68 percent of S. dawsonii AU
acres occurring on BLM land, BLM's implementation of the regulatory
mechanisms in their resource planning documents on all of their lands
within the range of the species (Factor D) has helped to address the
stressors we identified under Factors A and B. While we cannot
attribute the currently high resiliency of both species to one specific
conservation measure, this high resiliency demonstrates the
amelioration of relevant stressors and the adequacy of the existing
regulatory mechanisms, both due to the combination of conservation
measures in place and the hardiness of the plant (which has shown an
ability to tolerate nearby disturbance).
In addition to the implementation of measures that minimize impacts
to the Colorado hookless cactus on all BLM lands, approximately 30
percent of the land in S. glaucus AUs and 41 percent of the land in S.
dawsonii AUs have special BLM land management designations (Factor D),
which further limit or exclude the authorization of certain land uses
and further help to facilitate the maintenance and recovery of cactus
occurrences, because they are areas where Colorado hookless cactus
occurrences are not likely to be disturbed or adversely altered by
land-use actions (BLM 2020a, p. 26). The protections provided by these
management designations are not contingent upon the species' federally
listed status.
Status Throughout All of Its Range: Sclerocactus glaucus
Currently, seven of the eight S. glaucus AUs have high resiliency,
and one AU has moderate resiliency (Service 2022, pp. 26-27). The
highly resilient AUs have high estimated numbers of individuals, high
levels of survivorship, adequate habitat resources, and a current water
deficit that is similar to the historical average. One AU has moderate
resiliency due to its extremely small population size and moderate
score for the habitat index; this AU covers a considerably smaller area
than other AUs. Rangewide monitoring has shown a stable trend for
Colorado hookless cactus, with no indication of widespread decline.
This monitoring has also informed our understanding that S. glaucus is
currently much more abundant than originally estimated at the time of
listing in 1979. At the time of listing, and prior to the taxonomic
splits between the two Utah Sclerocactus species and Colorado's S.
glaucus and S. dawsonii, it was thought that the combined total for the
now four species consisted of approximately 15,000 individual plants in
both Colorado and Utah; now, the minimum population estimate for S.
glaucus is 103,086 plants.
We are unaware of any plausible activity or naturally occurring
event that would constitute a catastrophic event for this species.
Thus, while the species is a narrow endemic with a small range compared
to wide-ranging species, S. glaucus's relatively large range for a
narrow endemic, with eight AUs, and the lack of plausible catastrophic
events reduce catastrophic risk for this species, thereby enhancing
redundancy. The individuals within and among the AUs also exhibit
genetic, ecological, and
[[Page 21596]]
morphological diversity, contributing to the species' representation.
Moreover, our understanding of the species' stressors has changed
since the time the species was listed. Multiple identified stressors
are no longer relevant to the species, given past taxonomic changes and
subsequent changes in the geographic range of the species (i.e., oil
shale and tar sands development) or because they are not occurring at a
scale anticipated at the time of listing (i.e., collection). We also
have found that, while OHV use and invasive species had the potential
to detrimentally impact the species, they have caused only minor,
localized impacts (BLM 2020a, pp. 35, 38). Oil and gas development
occurs in only a small portion of three of the eight S. glaucus AUs.
Since the species was listed, BLM also designated NCAs, ACECs, and
a Wilderness Area (Service 2022, pp. 19-21). These designations limit
or exclude the authorization of certain land uses, and most of these
designations specifically referenced the protection of Colorado
hookless cactus as a foundational goal. The protections provided by
these management designations are not contingent upon the species'
federally listed status, and these designations have helped to
facilitate the maintenance and recovery of cactus occurrences, because
they are areas where Colorado hookless cactus is not likely to be
disturbed or its habitat adversely altered by land-use actions (BLM
2020a, p. 26). While we cannot attribute the currently high resiliency
of all but one AU to one specific conservation measure, this high
resiliency demonstrates the amelioration of relevant stressors, both
due to the combination of conservation measures in place and the
hardiness of the plant (which has shown an ability to tolerate nearby
disturbance).
Given the currently high level of resiliency in seven of the eight
S. glaucus AUs and moderate resiliency of one AU, the additional plants
we now know to occur throughout the species' range, the lack of
significant imminent stressors, and the low likelihood of catastrophic
events, we find that S. glaucus currently has sufficient ability to
withstand stochastic and catastrophic events, and to adapt to
environmental changes. After evaluating threats to the species and
assessing the cumulative effect of the threats under the section
4(a)(1) factors, we conclude that the current risk of extinction is
low, such that S. glaucus is not currently in danger of extinction
throughout all of its range.
Under the Act, a threatened species is any species that 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(20)). The foreseeable future extends only so far into the future
as the Service can reasonably determine that both the future threats
and the species' responses to those threats are likely (50 CFR
424.11(d)). The Service describes the foreseeable future on a case-by-
case basis, using the best available data and taking into account
considerations such as the species' life history characteristics,
threat-projection timeframes, and environmental variability (50 CFR
424.11(d)). The key statutory difference between a threatened species
and an endangered species is the timing of when a species may be in
danger of extinction, either now (endangered species) or in the
foreseeable future (threatened species).
For the purposes of our analysis, we defined the foreseeable future
for both species (S. glaucus and S. dawsonii) to mid-century (the mean
of 2040 to 2069). After mid-century, the changes in climate conditions
that different climate models and emissions scenarios project begin to
diverge widely (Rangwala et al. 2021, p. 4); in other words, the spread
of potential projected temperature increases broadens substantially
after mid-century. Therefore, we focused our analysis of future
condition on mid-century to avoid the large degree of uncertainty in
how climate change is projected to manifest at the end of the twenty-
first century (Rangwala et al. 2021, p. 4). We also selected this
timeframe because it allows us to reliably predict changes in other
species' stressors and land management, and is biologically meaningful
to the species to begin to understand the response of ecosystems to
those changes.
By mid-century, we anticipate a range of plausible future
conditions for S. glaucus. Under the Optimistic scenario, the condition
of the species is likely to improve over the current condition, with
resiliency projected to increase slightly in one S. glaucus AU. BLM's
closure of certain OHV routes and effective implementation of changes
in grazing permit stipulations leads to decreased grazing and OHV
pressures, causing improved habitat conditions and an increase in the
number of individuals in the AU (Service 2022, p. 30). In the
Continuation scenario, we expect resiliency, redundancy, and
representation to remain relatively unchanged from the current
condition, because stressors and conservation efforts remain very
similar to what the species is currently experiencing. In the
Pessimistic scenario, although BLM management planning documents and
special land management designations do not change, continued ground
disturbance and habitat degradation from grazing, an increase in OHV
use, increased demand for utility corridor development, an increase in
invasive plant species, and a considerable decrease in water
availability due to climate change negatively affect the amount and
quality of habitat available, and reduce survival rates and overall
population sizes. This is the only scenario in which the condition of
the species is projected to decline for S. glaucus; one AU's resiliency
remains high, six AUs decrease from high to moderate resiliency, and
one AU decreases to low resiliency. Even under this pessimistic
scenario, the species maintains moderate levels of survival and high or
moderate habitat condition in the majority of AUs, despite increasing
stressors. In all three scenarios, all eight AUs will remain extant,
thereby continuing to contribute to the redundancy and representation
of the species.
Given these future projections of resiliency, redundancy, and
representation to mid-century, S. glaucus could experience a slight
decrease in viability under one of the three future scenarios (the
pessimistic scenario); however, even in this most pessimistic scenario,
all AUs will remain extant and seven of the eight AUs will have
moderate to high resiliency.
Two factors support this consistently moderate to high future
resiliency: BLM conservation actions and the species' biological
characteristics. First, the high to moderate resiliency of S. glaucus
AUs is, in part, due to land protections and regulations implemented by
BLM (Factor D) that will continue to be implemented into the future,
even in the absence of protections afforded by the Act, as described
under Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms above. These
protections will continue to limit the potential effects of stressors
on S. glaucus in the future.
Second, independent of future BLM management, the species'
biological characteristics moderate its response to increasing
stressors. S. glaucus is a habitat generalist, which means the species
is not constrained to a specific habitat niche; the species' flexible
resource requirements increase its resiliency to potential future
increases in stressors and its ability to adapt to future change
(representation). This determination is evidenced by the species' past
ability to maintain high survivorship and resiliency, even in the face
of ongoing stressors that the Service
[[Page 21597]]
originally determined could lead to decline (e.g., OHV use, invasive
species). Additionally, multiple modeling efforts have concluded that
Colorado hookless cactus likely has low vulnerability to climate
change, given its dispersal capabilities and opportunities for
expansion into vast areas of suitable habitat (BLM 2020a, pp. 43-44).
Although conditions could become considerably drier under the
Pessimistic climate scenario, S. glaucus is hardy and already adapted
to arid environments. Individuals of this species live many decades and
have maintained healthy recruitment and survival, even through droughts
and other climatic variation in the past (BLM 2018, pp. 14-15;
Hegewisch and Abatzoglou 2020, entire). These characteristics allow the
species to maintain moderate survivorship and resiliency, even under
the Pessimistic scenario.
Considering the levels of resiliency, redundancy, and
representation predicted under each of the future scenarios described
in the SSA, S. glaucus will be able to withstand stochastic events,
catastrophic events, and environmental change into the foreseeable
future. Therefore, after assessing the best available information, we
conclude that S. glaucus is not likely to become in danger of
extinction within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range.
Status Throughout All of Its Range: Sclerocactus Dawsonii
Currently, both S. dawsonii AUs have high resiliency (Service 2022,
pp. 25-26). The highly resilient AUs have moderate to high estimated
numbers of individuals (i.e., a minimum population estimate of 31,867
plants total), high levels of survivorship, high and moderate condition
of habitat features, and a current water deficit that is similar to the
historical average. These high current levels of resiliency reduce the
current extinction risk for S. dawsonii because they lower the risk to
the species from stochastic variation. Rangewide monitoring has shown a
stable trend for Colorado hookless cactus, with no indication of
widespread decline. This monitoring has also informed our understanding
that S. dawsonii is currently much more abundant than originally
estimated at the time of listing in 1979. At the time of listing, and
prior to the taxonomic splits between the two Utah Sclerocactus species
and Colorado's S. glaucus and S. dawsonii, it was thought that the
combined total for the now four species consisted of approximately
15,000 individual plants in both Colorado and Utah; now, the minimum
population estimate for S. dawsonii plants is 31,867 plants.
Additionally, the two AUs and the individuals within the AUs
exhibit ecological and morphological diversity, contributing to the
representation of the species. In terms of redundancy, we are unaware
of any plausible activity or naturally occurring event that would
constitute a catastrophic event for this species. Given the lack of
plausible catastrophic events across the range of S. dawsonii, even its
narrow range (two AUs) does not introduce appreciable catastrophic
risk.
Moreover, our understanding of species' stressors has changed since
the time the species was listed. Multiple identified stressors are no
longer relevant to the species, given past taxonomic changes and
subsequent changes in the geographic range of the species (e.g., oil
shale and tar sands development) or because they are not occurring at a
scale anticipated at the time of listing (i.e., collection). We also
have found that, while OHV use and invasive species had the potential
to detrimentally impact the species, they have only caused minor,
localized impacts (BLM 2020a, pp. 35, 38).
Since the species was listed, BLM also designated NCAs, ACECs, and
a Wilderness Area (Service 2022, pp. 19-21). These designations limit
or exclude the authorization of certain land uses, and most of these
designations specifically referenced the protection of Colorado
hookless cactus as a foundational goal. The protections provided by
these management designations are not contingent upon the species'
federally listed status, and these designations have helped to
facilitate the maintenance and recovery of cactus occurrences, because
they are areas where Colorado hookless cactus is not likely to be
disturbed or adversely altered by land-use actions (BLM 2020a, p. 26).
While we cannot attribute the currently high resiliency of both AUs to
one specific conservation measure, this high resiliency demonstrates
the amelioration of relevant stressors, both due to the combination of
conservation measures in place and the hardiness of the plant (which
has shown an ability to tolerate nearby disturbance).
Given the currently high level of resiliency in both of the S.
dawsonii AUs, the additional plants we now know to occur throughout the
species' range, the lack of significant imminent stressors, and the low
likelihood of imminent catastrophic events, we find that S. dawsonii
currently has sufficient ability to withstand stochastic and
catastrophic events and to adapt to environmental changes. Therefore,
we conclude that the current risk of extinction is low, such that S.
dawsonii is not currently in danger of extinction throughout all of its
range.
By mid-century (the foreseeable future), we anticipate a range of
plausible future conditions for S. dawsonii. Under the Optimistic
scenario, the condition of the species improves, with resiliency
expected to increase slightly in one S. dawsonii AU due to decreased
grazing and OHV pressures, causing improved habitat conditions. In the
Continuation scenario, we expect resiliency, redundancy, and
representation to remain relatively unchanged from the current
condition, as stressors and conservation efforts remain very similar to
what the species is currently experiencing. In the Pessimistic
scenario, although BLM management planning documents and special land
management designations do not change, continued ground disturbance and
habitat degradation from grazing, increasing demand for oil and gas
development and utility corridor development, and an increase in
invasive plant species negatively affect the species, which causes a
decrease in resiliency in one of the two S. dawsonii AUs. Additionally,
only under this Pessimistic scenario does water availability drop
considerably below the historical average (i.e., more than one standard
deviation). This is the only scenario in which we foresee resiliency
decreasing for either of the species' two AUs; one AU's resiliency
remains high, and one AU decreases to moderate resiliency. Even in the
Pessimistic scenario, survivorship in both AUs remains high. In all
three scenarios, both AUs will remain extant, thereby continuing to
contribute to the redundancy and representation of the species.
Given these future projections of resiliency, redundancy, and
representation to mid-century, S. dawsonii could experience a slight
increase in extinction risk under one of the three future scenarios
(the pessimistic scenario); however, even in this most pessimistic
scenario, both AUs will remain extant with moderate to high resiliency.
Two factors support this moderate to high future resiliency: BLM
conservation actions and the species' biological characteristics.
First, this high to moderate resiliency of S. dawsonii AUs is, in part,
due to land protections and regulations implemented by BLM (Factor D)
that will continue to be implemented into the future even in the
absence of protections afforded by the
[[Page 21598]]
Act, as described under Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms
above. These protections will continue to limit the potential effects
of stressors on S. dawsonii in the future.
Second, independent of future BLM management, the species'
biological characteristics moderate its response to increasing
stressors. Like S. glaucus, S. dawsonii is a habitat generalist, which
means the species is not constrained to a specific habitat niche; the
species' flexible resource requirements increase its resiliency to
potential future increases in stressors and its ability to adapt to
future change (representation). This finding is evidenced by the
species' past ability to maintain high survivorship and resiliency,
even in the face of ongoing stressors that the Service originally
determined could lead to decline (e.g., OHV use, invasive species).
Additionally, multiple modeling efforts have indicated that Colorado
hookless cactus likely has low vulnerability to climate change, given
its dispersal capabilities and opportunities for expansion into vast
areas of suitable habitat (BLM 2020a, pp. 43-44). Although conditions
could become considerably drier under the Pessimistic climate scenario,
the S. dawsonii is hardy and already adapted to arid environments.
Individuals of this species live many decades and have maintained
healthy recruitment and survival, even through droughts and other
climatic variation in the past (BLM 2018, pp. 14-15; Hegewisch and
Abatzoglou 2020, entire). These characteristics allow the species to
maintain high survivorship and moderate to high resiliency, even under
the Pessimistic scenario.
Considering the levels of resiliency, redundancy, and
representation in each of the future scenarios described in the SSA,
under each plausible future scenario, S. dawsonii will be able to
withstand stochastic events, catastrophic events, and environmental
change. Therefore, after assessing the best available information, we
conclude that S. dawsonii is not likely to become in danger of
extinction within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range.
Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Their Range
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so
in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of
its range. Having determined that S. glaucus and S. dawsonii are not in
danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future
throughout all of their range, we now consider whether either may be in
danger of extinction (i.e., endangered) or likely to become so in the
foreseeable future (i.e., threatened) in a significant portion of its
range--that is, whether there is any portion of the species' range for
which both (1) the portion is significant; and, (2) the species is in
danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future
in that portion. Depending on the case, it might be more efficient for
us to address the ``significance'' question or the ``status'' question
first. We can choose to address either question first. Regardless of
which question we address first, if we reach a negative answer with
respect to the first question that we address, we do not need to
evaluate the other question for that portion of the species' range.
In undertaking this analysis for S. glaucus and S. dawsonii, we
choose to address the status question first. We began by identifying
portions of the range where the biological status of the species may be
different from their biological status elsewhere in their range. For
this purpose, we considered information pertaining to the geographic
distribution of (a) individuals of the species, (b) the threats that
the species face, and (c) the resiliency condition of populations.
For S. glaucus, we evaluated the range of the species to determine
if the species is in danger of extinction now or likely to become so in
the foreseeable future in any portion of its range. The range of a
species can theoretically be divided into portions in an infinite
number of ways. We focused our analysis on portions of the species'
range that may meet the definition of an endangered species or a
threatened species. For S. glaucus, we considered whether the threats
or their effects on the species are greater in any biologically
meaningful portion of the species' range than in other portions such
that the species is in danger of extinction now or likely to become so
in the foreseeable future in that portion. We examined the following
threats: livestock use, invasive species, oil and gas development, OHV
use, development and maintenance of utility corridors, and climate
change, including cumulative effects.
Livestock use, invasive species, OHV use, development and
maintenance of utility corridors, and climate change occur uniformly
across the species' range; there are no portions of the species' range
where these stressors occur more intensely. Oil and gas development is
occurring in only three AUs (North Fruita Desert, Whitewater, and
Palisade AUs), so this threat may be elevated in this area. However,
despite this development activity, the North Fruita Desert and
Whitewater AUs currently have high resiliency and are expected to
maintain this high resiliency under two of three future scenarios.
Under the Pessimistic scenario, North Fruita Desert and Whitewater AUs
have moderate resiliency. Oil and gas development is occurring in only
a small portion of the Palisade AU (there is only one active well site
across more than 9,269 ac (3,751 ha)) and, while this AU has moderate
resiliency currently and could drop to low resiliency under the
Pessimistic scenario, this is due to the AU's small size and thus
inherently low number of plants, not due to oil and gas development.
Thus, even though oil and gas development may be concentrated in these
AUs, it is not producing a species' response that would indicate the
plants therein are in danger of extinction now or in the foreseeable
future.
Moreover, although the Palisade AU has a low population size and is
the only AU to rank low in resiliency in any future scenario, the AU
occupies the smallest area of any S. glaucus AU and contributes the
least to the species' redundancy and representation. Therefore, this AU
is not considered to be a biologically meaningful portion of the
species' range where threats are impacting individuals differently from
how they are affecting the species elsewhere in its range such that the
status of the species in that portion differs from its status in any
other portion of the species range.
Overall, we found no biologically meaningful portions of the
species' range where threats are impacting individuals differently from
how they are affecting the species elsewhere in its range such that the
status of the species in that portion differs from its status in any
other portion of the species' range. Therefore, we find that the
species is not in danger of extinction now or likely to become so in
the foreseeable future in any significant portion of its range. This
does not conflict with the courts' holdings in Desert Survivors v.
Department of the Interior, 336 F. Supp. 3d 1131 (N.D. Cal. 2018), and
Center for Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d. 946, 959
(D. Ariz. 2017) because, in reaching this conclusion, we did not apply
the aspects of the Final Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase
``Significant Portion of Its Range'' in the Endangered Species Act's
Definitions of ``Endangered Species'' and ``Threatened Species'' (79 FR
37578; July 1, 2014), including the definition of ``significant'' that
those court decisions held to be invalid.
[[Page 21599]]
For S. dawsonii, we evaluated the range of the species to determine
if the species is in danger of extinction now or likely to become so in
the foreseeable future in any portion of its range. The range of a
species can theoretically be divided into portions in an infinite
number of ways. We focused our analysis on portions of the species'
range that may meet the definition of an endangered species or a
threatened species. For S. dawsonii, we considered whether the threats
or their effects on the species are greater in any biologically
meaningful portion of the species' range than in other portions such
that the species is in danger of extinction now or likely to become so
in the foreseeable future in that portion. We examined the following
threats: livestock use, invasive species, oil and gas development, OHV
use, development and maintenance of utility corridors, and climate
change, including cumulative effects.
Overall, the threats to this species are uniformly distributed
throughout its range and we did not identify a significant
concentration of threats that would increase extinction risk in any
portion. Oil and gas development occurs in both AUs, as does livestock
use, OHV use, invasive species infestation, and development and
maintenance of utility corridors. The small range of the species will
not experience substantially different temperature or precipitation
changes as a result of climate change.
We found no biologically meaningful portions of the species' range
where threats are impacting individuals differently from how they are
affecting the species elsewhere in its range such that the status of
the species in that portion differs from its status in any other
portion of the species' range. Therefore, we find that the species is
not in danger of extinction now or likely to become so in the
foreseeable future in any significant portion of its range. This does
not conflict with the courts' holdings in Desert Survivors v.
Department of the Interior, 336 F. Supp. 3d 1131 (N.D. Cal. 2018), and
Center for Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d. 946, 959
(D. Ariz. 2017) because, in reaching this conclusion, we did not apply
the aspects of the Final Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase
``Significant Portion of Its Range'' in the Endangered Species Act's
Definitions of ``Endangered Species'' and ``Threatened Species'' (79 FR
37578; July 1, 2014), including the definition of ``significant'' that
those court decisions held to be invalid.
Determination of Status
Our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information indicates that S. glaucus and S. dawsonii do not meet the
definition of endangered species or threatened species in accordance
with section 3(6) and 3(20) of the Act. In accordance with our
regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d)(2) currently in effect, S. glaucus and
S. dawsonii have recovered and no longer warrant listing. Therefore, we
propose to remove Colorado hookless cactus (S. glaucus and S. dawonii)
from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants.
Effects of This Rule
This proposed rule, if made final, would revise 50 CFR 17.12(h) by
removing Colorado hookless cactus 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 Colorado hookless cactus.
There is no critical habitat designated for this species, so there
would be no affect to 50 CFR 17.96.
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. Post-delisting
monitoring (PDM) refers to activities undertaken to verify that a
species delisted due to recovery remains secure from the risk of
extinction after the protections of the Act no longer apply. The
primary goal of PDM is to monitor the species to ensure that its status
does not deteriorate, and if a decline is detected, to take measures to
halt the decline so that proposing it as endangered or threatened is
not again needed.
We are proposing to delist Colorado hookless cactus based on new
information we have received as well as conservation actions taken.
Given that delisting would be, in part, due to conservation taken by
land managers and other stakeholders, we have prepared a draft PDM plan
for Colorado hookless cactus. The draft PDM plan discusses the current
status of the taxon and describes the methods proposed for monitoring
if we delist the taxon. The draft PDM plan: (1) Summarizes the status
of Colorado hookless cactus at the time of proposed delisting; (2)
describes frequency and duration of monitoring; (3) discusses
monitoring methods and potential sampling regimes; (4) defines what
potential triggers will be evaluated to address the need for additional
monitoring; (5) outlines reporting requirements and procedures; (6)
proposes a schedule for implementing the PDM plan; and (7) defines
responsibilities. The Service prepared this draft PDM plan in
coordination with BLM and the Denver Botanic Gardens. The Service
designed the PDM plan to detect substantial declines in Colorado
hookless cactus occurrences and any changes in stressors with
reasonable certainty and precision. It meets the requirement set forth
by the Act because it monitors the status of Colorado hookless cactus
using a structured sampling regime over a 10-year period. It is our
intent to work with our partners toward maintaining the recovered
status of both Colorado hookless cactus species.
We seek public comments on the draft PDM plan, including its
objectives and procedures (see Information Requested, above), with the
publication of this proposed rule.
Required Determinations
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us
revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For
example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs
that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long,
the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.
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
[[Page 21600]]
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), 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. While we notified the Ute Mountain,
Jicarilla Apache Nation, Southern Ute, Ute Mountain Ute, and Navajo
Nation Tribes of our recommendation to delist the Colorado hookless
cactus in our 5-year status review in 2021, we are not aware of any
Tribal interests or concerns associated with this proposed rule. We
will reach out to affected Tribes upon publication of this proposed
rule and invite them to comment on the proposed rule and/or initiate
government-to-government consultation.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available
on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov and upon request from
the Colorado Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of
the Fish and Wildlife Service's Species Assessment Team and the
Colorado Ecological Services Field Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Plants,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we 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
0
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.
Sec. 17.12 [Amended]
0
2. Amend Sec. 17.12 in paragraph (h) in the List of Endangered and
Threatened Plants by removing the entry under Flowering Plants for
``Sclerocactus glaucus (Colorado hookless cactus)''.
Martha Williams,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-07119 Filed 4-10-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P